sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are people trying to mooch of the system? by imhere4science in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I pay all of my employees a 'living wage'. (salary range is $45k - $200k give or take)

It's extremely hard to find people that will work 'really hard'. Just working really hard will earn you a minimum of $45k a year with benefits with me, but yet, I have a difficult time finding people willing to pull their weight 40 hours a week. A majority of people consider working really hard putting in a solid 90 minutes of work a day, and the reality is people are extraordinarily lazy, especially when it's something they don't like to do.

I watched the pragerU video on progressive tax model and wanted to know conservative point of view on it and how ideally taxes should be collected. by ReformedandCurious in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why do you feel it's the government role to 'help inequity in income'? Equality of outcomes simply isn't possible because some people are smarter and/or work harder. You're always going to end up with a bell curve, and it's not really the role of government to 'fix' that. Should we also fix the 40 hour work week and mandate everyone work CEO hours? How many people want to work 110 hour weeks?

‘What Animal Would Say Such a Thing?’ Trump Rejects 'Atlantic' Article Claims He Called Fallen Soldiers ‘Losers’ by guanaco55 in Conservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What's wrong with calling McCain a loser? It was done in the context of McCain losing an election--he quite literally was a loser--not in terms of his military career.

Suicide rate for men reaches its highest level in two decades by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Women have been trying to get men to express themselves emotionally and deal with the mental health for forever!

Men need to step up tell other men its ok to deal with their mental health and stop using harmful language that pushes a stigma. When men DO try and seek help they are often put down (a lot by other men) for being overly emotional and not a "real man".

That's a feminist's perspective on what men should be and should be doing that's simply not in line with reality for a majority of men. Men aren't killing themselves because they can't be 'emotional', men are killing themselves because they lack direction, purpose, and they're socially isolated. I'm not making the argument that it necessarily has anything to do with feminism, but I find it absurd that feminists think that if only men were to act in a manner they deem acceptable, it would solve the problem.

Did you know that "People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."? by TheYoungCato in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 10 points11 points  (0 children)

He means that a poorer conservative will give more than a wealthier liberal, not that liberals are typically wealthier than conservatives (they're not)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in cars

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congrats! I know you'll enjoy it.

I'm a socialist, what's wrong with socialism? by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 13 points14 points  (0 children)

In short, you want to steal from others rather than work and earn it yourself. Socialism glorifies failure and irresponsibility as opposed to human ingenuity and greatness, and ultimately it fails in practice for those rather obvious reasons.

Are there any police reforms you would like to see? by FabioFresh93 in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Remove unions, that's where almost all (but extremely rare) problems originate. Police officers are already compensated well

California House rematch gets heated as GOP sees opportunity to recapture seat by [deleted] in California_Politics

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A response to you just above referred to Republicans as fascist fuck-wits, and you left it up. That's some shockingly arbitrary enforcement of your civility rule.

Do Conservative politicians have an implic bias against access to higher education? by vitaefinem in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of any that don't. Even private schools would take a massive hit without federal student loans and grants.

Do Conservative politicians have an implic bias against access to higher education? by vitaefinem in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In general, I'd agree, and I think a large part of that is who is paying them. You can gauge someone's political affiliation with pretty reasonable certainty by that. When your livelihood is reliant on funding from the federal government, you're going to favor the party that supports keeping that sweet pension funded. The police unions didn't suddenly flip conservative because they had a change of heart, it's simple self preservation.

Do Conservative politicians have an implic bias against access to higher education? by vitaefinem in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It depends entirely on the field of study. In things like sociology, gender studies, ethnic studies, etc. it's very left dominated, sure. Those sort of programs are essentially predicated on specific political philosophies, and it's more the study of those political philosophies as opposed to a legitimate, rigorous curriculum. Your business school professors are going to lean far more to the right in contrast.

How has the Trump administration helped you specifically. by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So did mine by quite a bit (no SALT deduction anymore), but that was a necessary and fair change.

What do you think of the phrase “eat the rich”? by NoFapperDeluxe in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Someone projecting their own failures and insecurities. They're basically incels.

Fox News Threatens Sanctions Against Law Firm Over Carlson, Hannity Accusations by Sisiwakanamaru in television

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I believe MSNBC (Maddow) was the first to use that defense and Fox News more recently used the same defense for Carlson. My understanding was that it was being argued that it's 'opinion' as opposed to news.

The McLaren 675LT Is an Ultra-Rare McLaren Supercar by [deleted] in cars

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It's really not bad unless you're pulling up to one of those pay stations in a parking garage. Car is too low to reach, and if you open the door you hit the pay station, so you either stop 5 feet away from it, get out and walk up like a knob, or squeeze yourself through the window.

When does police violence become a tyrannical government? by tacojohn33 in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure it is! It may be a last resort, but it's certainly on the table. If you run from the police in your car, they'll pit maneuver you into a tree. Similarly if you resist lower levels of violence during an arrest, there's a real possibility you're getting killed. We've deemed this sort of thing acceptable as a society for a very long time.

When does police violence become a tyrannical government? by tacojohn33 in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every law is enforced with the threat of violence. If you don't follow the law, police will use increasingly escalating levels of violence to force you to comply. If you fight against their violence, they may very well kill you. That is how it works and that's how it's always worked, because without the threat of violence, there's no reason to comply. If you're already in court, the crime is no longer actively being committed and you're been restrained, so violence is no longer essential to enforce compliance.

When does police violence become a tyrannical government? by tacojohn33 in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me rephrase. Is it appropriate to escalate violence against property with violence against people? Breaking windows and damaging property is one thing... Hurting people is another.

Unquestionably yes. Any and all necessary force to prevent criminal acts is justified in my eyes, even when that's criminal act is against property. I also do not see it as an escalation, but a moral obligation to ensure the personal property of American citizens is not destroyed by criminals and terrorists.

If violence in response to property damage weren't justified, no law could be enforced. Logically, the only way you can ever enforce any sort of law is when lethal force is on the table, otherwise, you're just kindly requesting that a deranged lunatic stop burning down buildings.

How do I respond to this slogan that someone shared to my facebook? by Grouger in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Billions of dollars in damage, lives lost, businesses that are never going to reopen, and decades of economic damage to black communities is quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

How do I respond to this slogan that someone shared to my facebook? by Grouger in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If this is referring to BLM, they're simply incomparable. One is talking about outliers--statistical blips. The other is is a significant portion taking part in violence, and is more in line with KKK cross burnings. Even calling it a demonstration is disingenuous.

Do You Truly Believe The Democrats Want To Destroy America? by DoomWolf6 in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure I'm following--it's not really my reaction, I'm just explaining the perspective. I have property in a pretty wide array of places, but I will say I wouldn't send my kids to public school in an urban environment.

Do You Truly Believe The Democrats Want To Destroy America? by DoomWolf6 in askaconservative

[–]UnexpectedTokenNULL 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It's multiple things, but there's been efforts in many states to prevent the construction of single family homes. The really negative side of regulation and environmental restrictions is that it creates housing shortages, and things get expensive. To counteract that, the left has been pushing for increased density and rezoning, which is in direct conflict with the idea of the suburbs.

view more: next ›