- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MTG trending with her #NationalDivorce tweet
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:25 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:25 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Why do you want to pretend like your link simply deals with white Christians?
It's this sort of dissembling sensationalization that's getting us further and further into trouble.
Because he wants to feel victimized. Victimization culture is really big now.
1
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So you want one-party rule.
Let me guess, you also consider yourself a Nationalist, right?
I consider myself someone who does not think one mans labors should be taken and given to someone who does nothing. That is what I meant by abolishing welfare. People remaining in the new country would have to get a job, starve, or get shot trying to steal something.
No free loaders. If that results in one-party rule fine. We can still select people to hold office from that party as long as their positions line up with the majority of voters.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:27 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
or the ones that are here go to private schools that don't seem to have the gender issues public schools do.
You just confirmed one of the biggest current concerns of non democrat parents.
Indoctrination of our children in public schools, driven by the radical left that has infiltrated public schools with the support of the federal department of education.
It only gets worse from here, unless the non radical left starts to push back also.
The push back from the right gets stonewalled. Then the right gets labelled as "radicals".
I believe promoting gender fluidity and sex changes over "feelings" is radicalization.
But who am I to speak out on the subject, I just pay taxes.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
(no message)
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I mean, it's no more absurd than the split into 2 countries discussion 
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:42 pm to tigerfan 64
quote:
You just confirmed one of the biggest current concerns of non democrat parents.
...and a lot of Democratic parents.
quote:
Indoctrination of our children in public schools, driven by the radical left that has infiltrated public schools with the support of the federal department of education.
Indoctrination of our children has long been a goal of our public school system. Conservatives were fine with it when the indoctrination was along the lines they agreed with: Mindless patriotism, segregation, etc... Now that our children are being indoctrinated to things conservatives disagree with, they want to bring down the whole system.
Personally, I'm against all of that indoctrination. frick tranny bathrooms, AND the Pledge of Allegiance. I live in a state where a large portion of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. And everyone knows liberals can't do math. Perhaps we can drop the indoctrinating at least until kids are graduating able to read, write and do the maths.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:43 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Why do you want to pretend like your link simply deals with white Christians?
Or could it be because I was responding to a post specifically about how Christian traditional lifestyles were being demonized by the left and provided a word for word link to a press release from the national Democratic Party in which they did just that?
Valiant attempt at a deflection but I’d much rather discuss how we are supposed to find compromise when a party that holds much of the power in the US views Americans with traditional views as incompatible with their vision of democracy.
This post was edited on 2/21/23 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:55 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
But no one is going to take people who want to abolish the family itself seriously.
You're well acquainted with academia, and this is a stock position in every social science department in America. Come on.
I think it's completely reasonable to say we're a long way off from institutions expressing these "diminish the nuclear family" views from having a causal connection with said diminishment, but it's not merely a Twitter-world discussion.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 1:57 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
No free loaders.
333,000,000 people, and you want there to be no free loaders?
I'm sorry to tell you that that's simply an unrealistic expectation. If you could quantify 'ability to function in society' and assume a normal distribution across a population of 333 million, there would be 7 million people past the 2nd std. dev. to the left indicating inability to function.
In a country this large, we're just going to have to allow for more variability than you seem prepared to accept.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:01 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
There's no such thing as the American traditional nuclear family. The "nuclear family" was an economic construct of the 50s that lasted about 20 years. As long as Republicans insist on pursuing unachievable ideals (Mayberry, nuclear families), their message won't get far.
Feel free to modify to include extended families. Expand this to a debate about M-F-Children with extended families living under the roof or in close proximity and nothing changes. That's not the objection to the concept. The objection is the idea of M-F-Children as a healthy platform for raising productive adults and as the foundational unit of the culture.
And what's more, it's the building block that raised almost everyone on this website OR was the building block for most of their communities. It's not a far fetched pollyanna concept, and the insinuation that it is is probably yet another sign of our divergence.
Moreover, you keep circling back to this Republican evangelism concept. Which strikes at the very center of what I'm talking about when I throw my hands up and go "FFS to what end?" Mulling over the vast universe of ideas to decide which ones to stick under a "Republican" banner that can best gain followers and thus power is the exact thing I'm objecting to.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:01 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Conservatives were fine with it when the indoctrination was along the lines they agreed with: Mindless patriotism,
quote:
Perhaps we can drop the indoctrinating at least until kids are graduating able to read, write and do the maths.
Well, the indoctrination of the past (that conservatives agreed with) produced sharp graduates the were ahead of most of the developed world.
We also know how, when and why the decline occured.
The current public educational system is failing the students, failing the families and failing the nation. But we can tell the kids it's ok and normal to be something they truly can never be, the opposite sex.
Maybe Phizer, Moderna, the CDC and Fauci can get MRNA vaccines to reverse the XX Xy chromosomes to make the sex changes more realistic.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:06 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
333,000,000 people, and you want there to be no free loaders?
quote:
In a country this large, we're just going to have to allow for more variability than you seem prepared to accept.
dude
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:16 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
dude
I'm serious. There's a major intelligence bias on the board. I would say that >95% of the posters here have above average intelligence. When we look around at the people we surround ourselves with, we see intelligent people. 165 million Americans have a below average intelligence. We can't assume the people with whom we have regular interactions are representative of the population at large.
They got a LOT of stupid people out there, who are Americans, and whom we can't simply dismiss. "No freeloaders" is a fantasy.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:18 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I can't tell if you're kidding. All of that is true, but the entire premise of this movement is that the size and polarization of the US renders it unwieldy and ineffective.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:30 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
the entire premise of this movement is that the size and polarization of the US renders it unwieldy and ineffective.
That is certainly not clear. It seems to me that the whole premise is to simply be with like-minded folks.
This post was edited on 2/21/23 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:34 pm to BigMob
quote:
The reality of the situation is there’s no viable solution that doesn’t involve bloodshed. We can beat around the bush all we’d like; they’re not giving up red states, freely.
How are we going to do this and fight a proxy war with Russia at the same time? And while were at it, how are we going to deal with the Chinese and their complaint population? It looks grim. And the populace we are going to draw on via an eventual draft is a little fat and soft with their minds on so many crazy things.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm serious. There's a major intelligence bias on the board. I would say that >95% of the posters here have above average intelligence. When we look around at the people we surround ourselves with, we see intelligent people. 165 million Americans have a below average intelligence. We can't assume the people with whom we have regular interactions are representative of the population at large.
If forced back into the workforce, regardless of intelligence level they could be working jobs in restaurants, filling out construction crews and paying taxes rather than being encouraged through government subsidies to stay home where they are more likely to become involved with crime, etc.
For the truly unintelligent they could be paid to work crews cleaning up litter near highways, fixing up section8 areas in the inner cities, helping the elderly, etc.
Anything other than being encouraged to embrace generational dependence on federal handouts and the culture that accompanies it.
Our current labor participation rate is 62%, imagine what we could do from an output standpoint if we got that number back to the upper 80's as far as reducing crime and lowering entitlement spending?
This post was edited on 2/21/23 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 2/21/23 at 2:59 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Proving my point
Posted on 2/21/23 at 3:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
That is certainly not clear. It seems to me that the whole premise is to simply be with like-minded folks.
They go hand in hand. It's certainly a big part of the dialogue from the places where this stuff is getting mainstreamed (NatCon, etc.). We're fighting these culture wars across thousands of miles and hundreds of millions of people - a recipe for alienation, absence of accountability, ineffective policy and the loss of any meaningful identity.
While I think it's natural to divide the US (or realign authority in the existing US) along boundaries where the government can more easily reflect an identifiable culture of the population, I'm certainly not opposed to non Christians being protected and living amicably in a Christian-dominated state, for example. So ideological purity isn't really my chief goal.
I also think it theoretically increases the likelihood of conservative areas gravitating toward non-conservative things like entitlements or pro-family policy. Removing the disconnect between government, business and individuals is key to both sharing the burden of those in need and in imposing accountability on those using the safety nets.
My exasperation has always been that we have highly differing factions holding expensive popularity contests to see which one gets to dominate the other for a set period of time. It's also become an administrative impossibility to do things reasonably and responsibly on this scale and with these levels of division.
Page 16 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News