Conservatism is an early sign of senility.

True, conservatism as associated with a sooner onset of senility, because people tend to move toward conservatism with age, as opposed to the reverse.  But association is not the same thing as causation.  It is also true that wisdom is associated with older age, and therefore you could say greater wisdom is an early sign of senility. Again, association, not causation. The hidden third factor is simple age.

I don't think we should discriminate based solely on religion as that would go against one of the founding principles of this country. However, Islamic extremism is real and it's not like we have a bunch of Christians running around blowing themselves up in the name of God. It's a fine balance and a slippery slope if you start discriminating based on religion. Trump's original travel ban, despite media reports, wasn't a "Muslim ban" considering many Muslim countries weren't on the list.

Not the main religion, I agree. But we already discriminate against sects within the major religions, such as the FLDS. (Laws against polygamy discriminate against that sect.)  So if we already discriminate against certain Christian sects (specifically fundamentalist) I see no reason not to discriminate against fundamentalist Muslims.

Do you think if two black women had gone to England and learned how to make scones and clotted cream, then came back and started a business selling it, that social media would have destroyed them for "appropriating" British culture?  There's never been anything wrong with learning a culture's dishes, then going elsewhere to cook and sell them.  This is a problem of social media being used by people with an agenda (chip on their shoulder) to arbitrarily victimize targets.  Mob mentality in cyberspace because white people are hated.

The supposed argument is that if you don't "force" people to save for old age by mandating a "retirement" account like Social Security, then they won't do it, and you'll end up with a bunch of penniless old people with nobody taking care of them. I think that is true for some, but not all, and in a healthy economy, not even most.

I think there is a certain population who will never save for the future. They live hand to mouth from cradle to grave and in the past got by the best they could off of relatives, charities, or just plain living in bad conditions.

But I think there is another segment of the population who would save better for old age if they knew for a fact nothing would be there to salvage them. But because we have all kinds of entitlements (Medicare, Welfare, Social Security) people mistakenly believe "somebody" will take care of it, and so neglect to plan to support their own old age. This is the population who would save better if we abolished social programs.

Then there is the fact that we are all living longer but living sicker when old.  It was not such a burden when you had a family of six children to care for the one elder. Now you have zero to two kids per couple and a much higher chance of both living a lot longer, and needing specialized care to boot.  In fact it's gotten so bad I think some people don't plan for it because it's too daunting.  If you get to middle age and have no more than $200,000 saved up, and you realize that you'll need $1,000,000 if you live to age 90 just to keep you at a very modest standard of living, and not even counting nursing home or assisted living costs, you might just throw up your hands and not even try.

The pressure to have government take care of all these old folks will only grow, while the demographics are getting worse and worse (fewer working youth to support more old people).  It's unsustainable.

The solution, first of all, is to have a very strong economy.  A healthy economy with prosperous individuals means happier families and more intact families which can better support their aging parents, and a surplus of cash means everyone can save better for their own old age. Yes some will splurge and never save, but if there were no "safety nets" PLUS a strong and healthy economy, most will solve the problem without the need for government.

The problem is, as long as the economy is weak, the need will only get worse, and it is very hard to withdraw a social program once in place. Might be impossible.  So the incentive to save for yourself will remain lower as long as we have SS around.  No matter what we do with SS, we MUST get the economy thriving again.

There is truth in that certainly, though I actually haven't disparaged him for his skin color, but what he did to it.  The former is indefensible, the latter somewhat ribald.

I'm lost, what are you talking about?  Trump did something to make his skin more orange?

Well I myself am guilty of hit and run posts and of vanishing completely. I've left the AOPA board several times, and my presence on the PoA board is spotty and inconsistent.  But the reason I do it is not like what you say about liberals, because I lose an argument because it's based on emotion, not fact.  When I vanish in the middle of a debate, it is because I spend a whole lot of time on a board, and any debate I get involved in, I can waste hours and hours, days even, and not get anything done in real life.  So when topics get hot and I post some big rant, often I vanish because I have already wasted a whole work day making that big post and I don't want to waste the NEXT day or the one after that, sitting here on the internet neglecting my real life.

But it does seem like some liberals left because Trump won and/or they can't logically win against the conservatives/libertarians here.  I myself wish they'd come back because I don't want the place to be just a big circle jerk agreeing with ourselves.

I hear you about the voting hypocrisy. One of my brothers is the exact example you cite. He's into firearms and keeps them to defend his family, but votes completely Democrat all the time.  He isn't stupid, he knows Democrats are for gun control.  I think it's not so much hypocrisy as prioritizing values.  The Democrats stand for something that is more important to him than gun rights, and so it outweighs them in his mind.  I do the same thing myself in reverse. I vote conservative but on some issues I side with the liberals.  If you're a Libertarian, most of the time you have to be this way when the third party isn't a realistic option.

Another part of it is my brother gets all his information from mainstream media. When they (liberals) do not open their minds to other sources, and they live in a culture of liberalism with their friends and coworkers (and in my brother's case, his socialist wife), you get brainwashed.  For example, I would think a lot of people if they listened to Sean Hannity for three hours every weekday for a month or two, would seriously begin to question their liberalism. But they absolutely will not consider it. So they get NO exposure to conservative ideas, whereas if you are a conservative, you cannot help but be exposed to liberal ideas all around you. Yes there is such a thing as rigid conservatives that shut themselves off from viewpoints other than their own. Maybe fundamentalist cults living in the wilderness.  But in general, conservatives are far more widely exposed to multiple viewpoints than liberals.

I like Hannity more than Beck, although he certainly isn't my favorite.  Beck is a LOON.

Hannity is amazing.  I haven't had that much of a chance to listen to Beck but in the past have been very impressed with some of his stuff, he is brilliant, but also have heard him say things that made me go, what???  Can't agree with him all the time and when I don't it's major, where I usually find myself enthusiastically agreeing with Hannity.