YOU NOR ANYBODY FUCKING ELSE gets to dictate what people do to their own fucking body.
Why America 1st is not being a “conservative”
- Thread starter America 1st
- Start date
BigBucnNole
Elite
You also don't tell an employer how he or she wants to run their business. What's so fucking hard about that Karen?
BigBucnNole
Elite
Real talk @t_money86, contrary to yore handle, do you have a hard time finding employment?
Not telling them how to run their business. Them dictating medical care on their employees has zero to do with their business. Adolf.
Last edited:
No. Worked for 8 years with one employer, then enlisted in the Navy for 4 years and been with my current employer the past 6 years.
BigBucnNole
Elite
Employees aren’t slaves. They can leave. What’s hard about trying to understand that?
That’s exactly it.
Reaganism is dying for a reason. People recognize paved the way for the globalist corporations that abuse citizens and corrupt government all while embracing impractical ideological restraints.
Edit to add: Ideological inconsistency is another major downfall of Reaganism.
One can’t proclaim to want to limit government then want a robust branch of the government like the military.
Another big hole is Reaganism is essentially embracing Laissez-Faire capitalism while proclaiming to embrace individual liberties.
Last edited:
I don’t want to butt in to yalls docking session, but wanted to see if yall would go
in on the idea of freedom of a business to coerce an individual to do something on the basis of employment versus the individuals right to “privacy” and in this case medical privacy.
does the right of an individual’s privacy not supersede the right of a corporation who is applying coercion in an unbalanced or inconsistent way? Meaning, they are choosing a specific disease and a treatment as a condition of employment. What’s to stop them from saying if you have Aids, we don’t want you? Or diabetes? Or whatever?
in on the idea of freedom of a business to coerce an individual to do something on the basis of employment versus the individuals right to “privacy” and in this case medical privacy.
does the right of an individual’s privacy not supersede the right of a corporation who is applying coercion in an unbalanced or inconsistent way? Meaning, they are choosing a specific disease and a treatment as a condition of employment. What’s to stop them from saying if you have Aids, we don’t want you? Or diabetes? Or whatever?
It’s pretty clear all of this should be illegal and against workers rights (regardless of privacy rights).
It’s another example of why “limited” government is just a convenient catch phrase. We all would want led and oversight to make sure businesses weren’t doing this sorta predatory shit.
Government needs to be the size that allows it to protect its citizens adequately.
Sure one can. That's a silly statement.
The primary role of government should be Defense(military), Infrastructure and to settle disputes(courts).
The rest of "government" should be limited as fuck.
Have you heard of Unions, or shareholders?
Yore allowed to feel that way just as long as we are both on the same page that yore arbitrarily picking and that it’s often times at odds with the best interest of individual citizens.
What's hard about understanding you nor any other employer and the government don't get to tell people how to choose their medical care?
Just so long as we both agree you started a thread assigning a position to Noem that Is not supported by anything in her Tweet.
BigBucnNole
Elite
I don't have to listen to a Union. I have to listen to a shareholder because they, in that case, would be my employer.
BigBucnNole
Elite
Employers get to tell their employees what to do and not do all the time... Again, nobody wants a Karen like yoreself involved in a private issue.
They sure do...just not for medical care.
I guess we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree.
Economic activity isn’t a private issue.
Anything involved in the economy is a part of national security and therefore public interest.
BigBucnNole
Elite
Thanks Comrade.
“Big government” conservatism has long been associated with the Bush, McCain, Romney, Ryan etc.(RINO) political class.
Nothing to do with the size of military.
That’s what Noem was taking a stand against in her statement.
“…conservatives we are called to limit the power & size of government. Govt mandates of any kind are not a tool that any America First Conservative would or should consider. We should not be in the business of forcing behavior of any kind on to the people.”
The power of government is in part determined by its military strength and size.
Furthermore governor agencies like CPB, ICE, The Bureau of Consumer Protection, the SEC, the Federal Trade Commission, the FBI (and plenty others) all fall outside the realm of military “defense”, “infrastructure”, or “courts”. Should we eliminate those agencies to “limit the fuck” outta government?
She also clearly states government shouldn’t be of any kind when we know the government should be mandating plenty of things.
Here are a few examples:
1- Vaccine passports are illegal
2- Vaccine requirements are illegal
3- CRI can’t be taught in public schools
4- abortion regulations
5- stay in Mexico policy
6- buy American
I get that you don’t want wasteful government spending or intrusions into yore personal life so just say that. You don’t gotta take a radical indefensible position like “being called” to “limit” government to support the above.
Last edited:
It doesn’t make someone a communist to plainly state what is already a widely held belief, and the law, in The United States.
The government can regulate private businesses (or business / economic activity of any sort).
BigBucnNole
Elite
Widely held belief by communists and socialists, sure.
BigBucnNole
Elite
I do when I spend $3500 per employee per month for their health insurance.
Cool. What's that got to do with forcing a vaccine on someone?
BigBucnNole
Elite
BigBucnNole
Elite
Where is it confusing? You work for me, you accept a pay check, you accept benefits, there are certain requirements that come along with that. Don't like it, don't work for me.
You mean Laissez-Faire capitalism and communism?
BigBucnNole
Elite
No, I mean both extremes are ultimately two sides of the same authoritarian coin. You just have different marketing material. Both are a problem and go against everything this country was founded on.
Capitalism, free market, individualism. Don't like it, go to Canada. Or Mexico. This place isn't your cup of tea.
Nah. You dont get to decide people's health decisions. Fuck you. You aren't God.
BigBucnNole
Elite
I'm not deciding anything for you personally. I'm not a Karen. I'm telling you conditions, You can accept or reject, I don't give a shit.
Which is telling people what they have to do medically, which you cannot do.
BigBucnNole
Elite
I'm not forcing the shot on you. It's a free country, work for someone else.
America has always been a mixed economy.
Sounds like yore the one with an issue regarding this country’s founding.
And yes Laissez-faire capitalism and communism are both typically the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes.
So if a woman gets pregnant, and you demand she get an abortion, you think you should be allowed to fire her for insubordination?
BigBucnNole
Elite
America has always been one of the most capitalist economies on the planet.
I don't work for you. But you don't get to discriminate against anyone on basis of health. Sorry.
I’m proud of you for admitting that I’m right (again).
America has never been a purely capitalist country.
