Best products from r/Conservative

Hey alex, your earlier post got deleted so I'll respond to you here.

>First of all, it's you guys that are obsessed with sex. "We" just view at as a normal part of life and a natural part of being a human.

Huh? Devout Christians are typically not the type of people who sleep around left and right. We have strong urges too but our faith moves us to strive for self-mastery and live chastely. Sure, we may fall down every now and then because we are human but we cannot, in good conscience, live a lifestyle of casual sex. If we fall, we pick ourselves up and continue to strive for the Christian ideal.

>You believe in a fairytale

What fairy tale? Our faith is seriously grounded in history. Jesus was an actual person who lived some 2,000 years ago. He claimed to be God, performed miracles (agreed upon by virtually all scholars) and rose from the dead (as testified by His first followers including Paul, an enemy of the early Christian Church who converted).

Even after Christ, miracles have been present throughout Christian history. When you look at the world's religions actually, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage when it comes to miracles (and really, it isn't close at all). Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and miraculous healings. Countless Christian saints have also had religious experiences and were blessed with mystical gifts (e.g. stigmata, healing, visions, soul reading, knowing future events, etc). Examples of these saints include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi and Padre Pio. The above individuals are also men and women of great virtue, and their solid moral character add to their credibility. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. There is also the reality of Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today. In the end, our religion is seriously littered with the miraculous, from our founder, to the period immediately after his supposed death (the resurrection), and to the rest of history that follows (33 AD to current day). In comparison to our faith, what can other religions muster?

>you obsessesly try to control our lives and views to shape your happiness.

Alex, you are free to do as you please. We will just continue to stand up for and propagate the gospel. You have free will and you are free, no one is forcing you to do anything.

>Secondly, your fucking generalizing sexual stereotypes

Huh? How so?

>If you're so concerned about STD's then wear a condom and do tests beforehand, there's preventative measures these days.

Condoms are not foolproof.

You can get STDs through kissing and skin to skin contact

Sex is so pleasurable it is not uncommon for people to forgo contraception even if they have it.

Condoms, as preventive measures, also encourage people to engage in more sexual activity. See risk compensation.

...and it is because I am concerned about STDs that I fight aganist the ideals of the sexual revolution.

>It's 2019 and science has prevailed, thanks to progressives and we no longer live in a dark age.

I love science as much as the next guy but what do you mean "science has prevailed"?

As for your mention of the dark ages, you should seriously re-educate yourself when it comes to history. Without Christianity, we would literally still be in the Dark Ages (it was the Catholic Church that lifted us out of the dark ages!). Our monks and scholars preserved classical learning by translating and copying ancient manuscripts. Our monastic and cathedral schools educated Europe, and the latter would develop into the first universities (yes, the Catholic Church invented the university system). We are responsible for the second medical revolution -- the introduction of hospitals for the general public, the proliferation and universality of such hospitals and the establishment of medicine in universities. Our monastic communities also gave life to Europe for several centuries. They were strong sources of agricultural activity, and to a lesser extent, industrial activity (in such activities they were also serious pioneers and innovators, and they often shared their knowledge with local communities). They also provided food and shelter to travellers and the poor. They functioned as hospitals, and as mentioned earlier, they were also centers of education, learning and scholarship. Christian charity and ethics also literally transformed the world. Today, the Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of education, healthcare and charity -- as it has been historically. The world owes so much to Christianity. Without it, the world would be a very different place and for the worse.

...

It's very rare that I get stupefied like this. Seriously, upvote for your density. You knocked me for not picking up your sarcasm before, but you totally miss not only my own sarcasm but the fact that what I stated is not a conservative argument but the epitome of a liberal argument?

Before I get into the rest of my argument, let me remind you of something. Sure, the top 20% may own 85% but in 2008 the top 25% paid 86% of the taxes. The bottom 75% paid only 14%, the bottom 50% only paid 2.7%. Is that not fair enough? Apparently not.

Back to what stupefied me, you asked (formatted to get to the point of the question):
> Whatever amount the haves have at the moment are we anywhere near taxing them at the amount that we should be to have a fair and equitable society?

And I answered:

> But to placate you a moment, in order to tax the haves enough to have any shot at a 'fair and equitable' society, the tax rate would have to be 100% of everyone earning even a cent, followed by a gracious rebate from the government so that everyone receives the same amount of money. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, right? Show me a large society where Karl Marx's ideals have taken good hold without requiring genocide and the stomping out of man's God given rights.

That answer is not my position on what would help this country. It is not a conservative opinion or argument. If you want to force a truly equitable society, that's the option you're looking for. Not me, I personally despise that option, because it forces everyone at zero. That's what you're really looking for, in case you don't realize it, to try and force a fair and equitable society. The problem is that no society will ever truly be completely fair and equitable. I just gave you Karl Marx's idea of a fair and equitable society, which is what many liberals and the left lean towards without even knowing it.


Now, allow me to state my opinion as a Conservative clearly since you obviously mistook what I was saying before. It may be complicated but I'll break it down for you so you can follow. Pay attention, you might learn something or even see something that you like.

• In any society you will have the haves and the have nots. Not everyone will become a have no matter what sort of bonus or help you give them. Anyone can become a have not if they don't give a damn. You have to realize this.
  
  
• In any society you will have people who game the system, for good or for ill depending on how you look at it. Human beings will look for any chance to get ahead in any way that they can, in ways both legal and illegal. Once you get these two top points, you'll understand that no matter what you do in trying to make society fair and equal, it will in part fail because some people will not look to be just a fair and equal part of society. They may remain in their status quo position or try and get more than they presently have. It is a fact of life.
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for anything that gets unnecessary government regulation out of your house, business, and life. A government that can tell you what lightbulb and what toilet you must use is a powerful government indeed. You get rid of the excess and largesse of the government and keep it limited (a basic tenet of Conservative thought) and keep what is necessary and what it does well. That includes basic things that include but are not limited to a military, infrastructure, international relations, domestic policy, and protecting its citizens. It does not include building bridges to nowhere, nor putting a boot on the neck of industries that are the victim of the day, industries that would hire hundreds and thousands of workers and put an economy to work if not for the fact that the government has made them the "bad guy" because executives might make some money in the process of hiring those employees.
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for government to stop messing around unnecessarily with the financial sector insofar as it has told banks that they HAVE to lend money or be called racist. You can see the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975. The problem is in part that banks were told to lend to persons who had no business owning a home, but because the lies, damn lies and statistics showed they were "really" (note: this is sarcasm) not lending to them because of their race, and forced banks to make bad loans. They then decided to pad their earnings any way they could, see securities and derivatives.
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for a firm enforcement of the Constitution and our Constitutional laws. The Constitution is the basic contract the government has with the states and its citizens. If that contract is not enforced in its totality, what good is it? If one part of it is considered old, outdated and ignored, then any part of it can be considered old, outdated and ignored. At this point your rights are no longer God given and respected by your government but can be given and taken away by your government at their pleasure. Also the laws of the land must be universal, everyone must be equal under the laws. This means your average citizen and your biggest corporations must comply with the laws of the land, and if they break said laws they get punished. This also means that if there isn't a law, not just that there is a law and you're not enforcing it but that there actually is no law regarding a subject, you learn from it and you push to make a law.
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for bad businesses failing. If you ran your business like crap, if you caused a financial meltdown by making bad bets, if you ran a failing model and couldn't keep your labor costs within your company's means, you have no business being IN business. Boiled down, NO BAILOUTS. Doesn't matter whether you're a financial institution, a government sponsored enterprise, or an automotive corporation. I'm sure most people would get this, but you always have some snarky fool calling Conservatives inhuman monsters with no compassion for the people who would be unemployed by letting these businesses fail. You let one business fail, another will rise up in its stead.
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for a complete dismantling of the IRS and ALL the taxes presently collected in the US (including but not limited to personal income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, social security and medicare taxes, death tax, payroll tax, workman's comp tax, et al.) and the setting up for a flat 20% consumption tax on all new goods and services sold at the consumer level within the United States, coupled with a monthly "pre-bate," or rebate at the beginning of the month, for what a poverty level family would spend in taxes for that month. This way, the poorest don't even pay for the basic bare necessities of what they need, and anything a person spends in excess of that 20% becomes taxed regardless of where they stand on their income. The tax is levied on all new goods and services, regardless of who buys it (citizen or non-citizen) and how they buy it (cash or credit). This means that even a drug dealer who doesn't declare any of his income will pay taxes on the bling bling brand new Benz he buys in cash, and the tourist from Kazakhstan who bought a Statue of Liberty souvenir is actually contributing to your Social Security. It also means that since all the levels of production aren't taxed on their materials, the cost of products would drop. The added bonus of this is essentially a clear cut pool of funds for the government and who takes what. Even better, as you see how much money government takes, and where you can trim the fat of the government, you can more easily adjust the tax rate to save everyone some of their hard earned money. Not just tax cuts for the rich, but tax cuts for everyone. That's a fair and equitable proposition. Now, of course it's not a perfect system because you can live on second hand goods off of eBay for the rest of your life, but as I said before, there's always SOMEONE who will game the system. You find the game, you adjust it and close it, and you go from there. If you would like to learn more about this, you can read The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS by Neil Boortz.
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for a reform of Social Security such that the people who have lived their lives and planned for Social Security will be guaranteed to have it, and offer alternatives for retirement planning . Personally, I'd say any citizen over the age of 40 or 45 should be guaranteed their Social Security benefits. All funds for Social
  
  
• As a Conservative, I support and would push for massive immigration reform. I am totally for anyone who wants to come to this country and become part of the civil society being welcomed with open arms, given a road to become a resident alien or full fledged citizen, and entering the melting pot of American Society. However, if you decide that you're above the system and you should be able to wander in at your leisure undocumented and unnoticed over open borders, I fully support you getting kicked the hell out of my country. Come here to help and be part of the civil society or stay out. Because of this, I fully support a nice big wall across the Mexican border because it is unsustainably porous.
  
  
  Maybe you'll still think that conservative ideals are idiotic, and you're more than welcome to have your opinion. This is as clear cut as I can make my positions as a Conservative. What's your beef with them?
  
  edit: Unless you're just going to say "TL:DR, you're still a conservative asshole."

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal action organization (the one who is working with the ministers in Houston) has a lot of information on this topic. They are sponsors of the Pulpit Freedom Sunday movement that encourages religious leaders to endorse candidates in their sermons, record the sermon and mail them to the IRS as a means to dare the IRS to enforce the Johnson Amendment and strip the churches of their tax exempt status. The idea is that if the IRS takes action this will give churches standing to challenge what is likely an unconstitutional restriction on ministers free speech rights.

Recently a group of atheist sued the IRS for not enforcing the Johnson Amendment and the IRS agreed to settle the case by working to investigate churches. IRS to Atheists: Okay, We'll Investigate Pulpit Freedom Sunday Pastors
This is likely going to help bring the issue to a head.


This Weekend, Pastors Will Dare the IRS to Revoke Their Churches’ Tax-Exemptions by Talking Politics from the Pulpit


Over 1,800 Pastors Take Part in Pulpit Freedom Sunday


***

You might also enjoy Politics, Taxes, and the Pulpit: Provocative First Amendment Conflicts Hardcover – November 3, 2010

>In Politics, Taxes, and the Pulpit, Nina J. Crimm and Laurence H. Winer examine the provocative mix of religion, politics, and taxes involved in the controversy over houses of worship engaging in electoral political speech. The authors analyze the dilemmas associated with federal tax subsidies benefiting nonprofit houses of worship conditioned on their refraining from political campaign speech. The Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision invalidating federal campaign finance restrictions on corporations' political campaign speech makes the remaining, analogous restrictive tax laws constraining many nonprofit entities all the more singular and problematic, particularly for houses of worship. Crimm and Winer explore the multifaceted constitutional tensions arising from this legal structure and implicating all fundamental values embodied in the First Amendment: free speech and free press, the free exercise of religion, and the avoidance of government establishment of religion. They also examine the history and economics of taxation of houses of worship. The authors conclude that there exists no means of fully resolving the irreconcilable clashes in a constitutionally permissible and politically and socially palatable manner. Nonetheless, Crimm and Winer offer several feasible legislative proposals for reforming tax provisions that likely will generate considerable debate. If Congress adopts the proposed reforms, however, the revised system should substantially ameliorate the disquieting constitutional tensions induced by the current tax laws and curb the growing emotionally charged atmosphere about the role of religion in the public sphere.


Google Books preview

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a main premise of the movie that it is OK to judge someone's character based on the people in their lives and where they have drawn inspiration from at one point or another?

If you were to accept all of these judgments of Obama based on his relationship with the memory of his father, and the people that he has known throughout his life, wouldn't you also need to accept that Paul Ryan is a wealth-worshipping atheist who believes that selfishness is a virtue and that working towards one's own self-interest is the highest work one can do, as Ayn Rand espoused? He has certainly talked extensively in the past about how much of an influence she had on him.

IIRC, Ryan has since claimed that he has changed his views, and has moved away from the ideas of Ayn Rand, since they do not align with his Catholic values. To believe this, you must accept that people change.

This movie is based all around a book that Obama wrote 17 years ago. Sure, D'Souza uses Obama's own words to build his case, but doesn't it seem odd that he would completely leave out Obama's more recent book, The Audacity of Hope, written in 2006? Isn't it possible that this new book might shed some light on how the man's feelings and views have evolved over those 11 years?

I have known some bad people in my life. Does that make me a bad person? My brother, when going through adolescense, got mixed up with skinheads and neo-Nazis; yet, he is one of the most caring and tolerant people I know. That was simply a phase. People change.

It does not seem very fair to cherry-pick a man's past to build a narrative about him. Why not just ask the man himself? Or explore answers to these questions by discussing his more recent book. The tagline for the movie is "Love him or hate him, you don't know him", but it does not really seem like D'Souza has tried very hard to get to know him.

I do not personally know the President. But I also do not think that it is fair to judge someone entirely on who they have known throughout their life. Confucius suggested that we ought to only hang out with our betters, so that we can become better ourselves. I would suggest that it can be just as beneficial to spend time with people who are not our betters, since we can learn lessons from them as well, even if only in the form of negative examples.

Whatever Obama's father was like or who he has known in his life, I think the most important judgements of him should come from judging his actions, the policies he has tried to put in place, the things he has said most recently, as they reflect, either directly or indirectly through subtext, his current thoughts and ideals. I have not seen him enact or attempt to enact anything that is as radical and extreme as some make him out to be.

Judge the man on what he does, not on who he has known, that's all I'm suggesting.

Also, I wonder if more or less people would see this movie if it shared the title of the book that it was based on, "The Roots of Obama's Rage", with the awesome evil red Obama head on the cover, haha.

http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596986255

i'll begin by saying: you shouldn't be thinking about this in terms of how it affects you personally because there's 300+ million other people you may be fucking over by having such a myopic view of this issue.

next, i want to state clearly that conservatives are not united on the question of borders. there are some people who call themselves conservative who are for open borders, while others want varying levels of border enforcement.

conflicting with american values: replacing our culture with their shitty culture

we should think about the effects of LEGAL immigration on the country. why should we even care about the border at all? if you're someone who cares about american culture, and believes that some cultures are superior to others, then border enforcement is but one aspect of the immigration process that you care about.

to me, our culture IS superior to many of the others around the world. i want immigrants who want to be AMERICANS to come here. i don't want hondurans who want to simply be hondurans in america coming here. i believe in what e. d. hirsch calls the american religion, as enshrined in our declaration of independence and our constitution.

the effects of not assimilating immigrants are being seen in europe at the moment. i don't want that here. but will that affect you directly? maybe not for a long time.

a drain on public services

another nice aspect of maintaining a border and actually having a say in who comes in is that you can determine whether the people coming in can actually make a contribution to the nation's economy or will become a net drag on our economy. consider what illegals cost the US.

look at that caravan. those people are likely unskilled laborers. once here, they will likely either bring their families in or send money home. their kids will go to public schools, for free. they will receive medical care, for free (hospitals in the US cannot decline treatment, whether the person can pay).

these are nice things, don't get me wrong, but they come at a cost. if we just let everyone in, we can't sustain our welfare state. the result is the same number of people working to pay for a growing number of lower class aliens.

how does this affect you? i don't know. given that CA is a sanctuary state, and given that newsome wants to give free health care to illegals, i imagine your taxes will go up, the economy will slow down, more illegals will come, and citizens who need services will find themselves competing with illegals.

more murders

immigrants, as a group, commit crimes less frequently than native born people. however, when you disaggregate immigrants into legal and illegal, illegal immigrants commit murder at a much higher rate than US citizens.

i hope this one never affects you. but CA is a sanctuary state, unfortunately.

the resurgence of third-world diseases in the first-world

finally, there are public health issues to consider. the people in the caravan are poor. they come from third-world countries with third-world medical care. they bring diseases with them that we haven't seen in our country for a long time.

conclusion

these are some of the ways that illegal immigration specifically can affect you.

there's no need to demonize the people coming up through mexico or make up talking points. there's enough evidence to show that unregulated border crossing is an issue we as americans should be concerned about.

knowing who is coming into the country and what they are bringing with them -- their resources, their skills, their desire to become truly american, their families, their health status, their intentions -- makes sense for the health of the nation as a whole.

(edited for paragraph breaks and headings.)

Fantastic article, worth reading.

I'm a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's small e-book Cant We All Disagree More Constructively. It hints at solutions to our current breakdown of productive politics.

Lot of great insights in the article on the methods, principles, and perils of civil discourse:

> You have an obligation to speak the truth even when the truth hurts. Harming your opponent, however, isn’t your goal. You’re seeking to persuade, yet you know the very act of attempting to persuade can also enrage. Yes, you should love your enemies, but you also have to understand they’re still your enemies.

> It’s imperative to read the best expression of the opposing side’s point of view. Reading only the worst (as entertaining as that can be) is inherently deceptive. It can wrongly confirm your own self-righteousness and wrongly demonize your opponent. Read the best, and you’ll not only learn, you’ll also find that your fellow citizens often share many of your core values and seek the public good with equal (or often superior) diligence.

> But humility shouldn’t be paralyzing. A person should still advocate for his or her ideas with conviction. Individual liberty and the sanctity of life, for example, are ideas worth fighting for. We can agree and acknowledge that an opponent might be brilliant and well-meaning (sometimes they’re neither, obviously), but they are still wrong. They still must be opposed.

> it’s vital to maintain a sense of proportion. Not everything is an emergency. Not everything is infuriating.

A lot more great stuff in the article.

Both sides engage in recreational outrage (it sells ads!), and constantly paint a caricature of their opponent. Not all conservatives are racists (almost none are). Hell, being against affirmative action doesn't necessarily mean someone is racist, or even a conservative. And so on.

Likewise, not every liberal is a communist (almost none are). Hell, being in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy doesn't necessarily mean someone is a socialist, or even a liberal. And so on.

I appreciate the effort that has gone into this post. It's always good to have accurate facts, and it's good to see the exaggerations of the Left about CEO pay debunked.

There's a book, recently published, that argues that inequality of income/wealth/opportunity as such is not a problem. It's called Equal is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality. The whole train of thinking that says economic inequality is bad and equates it with poverty, injustice and economic problems is wrongheaded.

I'm currently reading it, and I highly recommend it. It is a devastating case against the whole way of thinking promulgated by the Left. Many on the right have accepted--to some degree--the basic premise that economic inequality (or inequality of opportunity) is bad and that we should care about minimizing it. Equal is Unfair argues powerfully that we shouldn't care about such inequality at all. What we should care about is freedom and justice. The only type of equality that is compatible with freedom and justice is equality of the protection of rights--that is, equality before the law.

Because people start in unequal circumstances, make unequal choices, and exert unequal amounts of effort, economic inequality (and inequality of opportunity) are inevitable results of freedom. This is reality, and it should be serenely accepted. Those who do well under laissez-faire capitalism, (or in today's society, where cronyism isn't involved) should be celebrated. Life under capitalism is not a zero-sum game, where one person's opportunities and successes come at another's expense. Wealth is not a fixed "pie" to be divided up by "society." Individuals earn wealth by creating wealth and thus improving the lives (and opportunities) of any others who exert any effort to produce wealth, (or produce other values, like the care and raising of children in families.)

Don't worry about the size of economic inequality, or push equality of opportunity as a goal. That's what the Left wants you to do. Read Equal is Unfair.

Read these two books:

Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present.

&

Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide.

As a non Christian (born Protestant but I don't practice), the religious connection between Israel & Christians here in the West doesn't have as much impact on me, but every freedom loving person should understand why supporting Israel is the moral & ethical thing to do. These books will help not only Americans but other Westerners understand why that support for Israel is so important.

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07TZSPGCQ?sa-no-redirect=1&customId=B07537HQXD&th=1

​

Make sure you use the smile link and set your donation to an organization that shares your values!

Thanks for the book suggestions! (If you use the formatting help button (to the right of the "save" button) you can add hyperlinks to your titles. In your case: Boys Adrift and Girls On The Edge.) Cheers!

Its Marxist origins and fundamental aims are the same.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009W47UO4/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i3

"the friendship of an alliance without institution among those who ... continue to be inspired by at least one of the spirits of Marx or of Marxism. It is a call for them to ally themselves, in a new, concrete and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a party or a workers’ international, in the critique of the state of international law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order to renew this critique, and especially to radicalise it."

great idea.

I recommend any book by Thomas Sowell.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Housing-Boom-Bust-Revised/dp/0465019862

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031436/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

But we need time to order the books.

Pretty good book for thoroughly debunking Muhammed and the Quran:

https://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Doom-Islams-Terrorist-Muhammads/dp/0971448124/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=prophet+of+doom&qid=1566567600&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Pssshh. 12 reasons in a short article? There's a whole book with reasons to vote Democrat linked below. It's a great read and has a 5 star rating on Amazon!

https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Vote-Democrats-Comprehensive-Guide/dp/1501180126/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=reasons+to+vote+democrat&qid=1562554428&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Debate-Edmund-Burke-Thomas/dp/0465062989/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541906992&sr=8-1&keywords=the+great+debate+yuval+levin

​

This is a fantastic exploration of liberalism and conservatism (which are compared from a Burkean conservative perspective). Though it is basically about political thought, it is quite accessible. This would make the fellow see that conservatism, and liberalism too for that matter, is much more than a set of campaign talking points. The two philosophies are based off of fundamental differences in how you view human nature, the purpose of politics, and the possibilities of the law.

Thomas Sowell, Vision of the Anointed. Imo the best place to start with Sowell, continue on to his more recent books afterwards.

Thank you.

I would suggest one book that you might find interesting. Actually gets into the programs and highlights Asia, where there are now 160 million or so missing females.

https://www.amazon.com/Unnatural-Selection-Choosing-Girls-Consequences/dp/1610391519

Do you have a link to the Agenda 21 info?

Believe it or not, The Fair Tax book is actually an interesting read. The amount of money spent dealing with taxation and the amount of money not collected because of our current tax (due to things like the black market) is absolutely staggering.

Read Boys Adrift by Dr. Leonard Sax. It's an amazing book on the subject. He has one called Girls on the Edge that I just started and it's killing my heart.

https://www.socialismgame.com/

I think this might be a similar game. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places but cant find hasbro’s version.

Edit: Hasbro Monopoly Socialism Board Game Parody Adult Party Game https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VPRNZJB/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_wSiyDbQEWC8Z9

Just tell them to go read https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031436 to show them that way of talking came from northern England hillbillies. (Along with most of the "black culture" that seems cherished today.)

Because Shapiro spends months/years writing books. Knowles wrote a best seller that had no words in it

link

From the same company that also made a jab at Socialism in another version lol https://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-Monopoly-Socialism-Board-Parody/dp/B07VPRNZJB/

I see she has been studying Democrat policy

The long awaited sequel to Reasons to Vote for Democrats?