• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

5 Ways to Turn a Liberal Into a Conservative (At Least Until the Hangover Sets In)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
He clearly stated that condemning people is wrong and a sign of conservative mental illness.

Therefore we can conclude that unless he is accusing himself of mental illness that he think condemning people for rape and murder is wrong.

If he does not condemn them then he accepts them.
You're lying again, attacking a straw man argument since you are apparently incapable of addressing his actual points. If you are so unable to support your beliefs, why do you continue to push them? Most people would be embarrassed at such weaknesses and would avoid public shame by keeping them to themselves. You, on the other hand, flaunt your weakness for all to see. Very strange.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You're lying again, attacking a straw man argument since you are apparently incapable of addressing his actual points. If you are so unable to support your beliefs, why do you continue to push them? Most people would be embarrassed at such weaknesses and would avoid public shame by keeping them to themselves. You, on the other hand, flaunt your weakness for all to see. Very strange.
This is what he said verbatim.

6. So your answer to problems is condemnation. And that is a known mental defect among conservatives.
What would you say is his opinion of condemnation?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Is it any surprise that believing we should let people do whatever they want and then bailing them out for making bad choices requires substantially more cognitive energy and attention?
Sounds like what your side first initiated TARP to bailout their Wall Street sugar Daddy's.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You're lying again, attacking a straw man argument since you are apparently incapable of addressing his actual points. If you are so unable to support your beliefs, why do you continue to push them? Most people would be embarrassed at such weaknesses and would avoid public shame by keeping them to themselves. You, on the other hand, flaunt your weakness for all to see. Very strange.
Sounds like what your side first initiated TARP to bailout their Wall Street sugar Daddy's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#Legislative_history

You mean the bailout supported by a majority of democrats and opposed by a majority of Republicans?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
This is what he said verbatim.



What would you say is his opinion of condemnation?
I didn't answer you before because I already did but warned you that because you have a brain defect you wouldn't see. There is really no point in explaining anything to you that you do not already believe. In 7 to 13 I gave you the facts as I see them on condemnation and what it means.

6. So your answer to problems is condemnation. And that is a known mental defect among conservatives.

7. Years ago women were condemned for this. I think they were given scarlet letters or something and shunned, another sick conservative anti Christian trait like what is done with lepers.

8. Liberals find threating people like this unjust. They don't like women who have children humiliated and treated like outcasts, especially they don't like what this does to their children. They also find it unjust that women should be forced to endure terrible marriages to animal men because being stigmatized for divorce is even worse.

9. So we see, if we can see, that you are really the very monster you see liberals being.

10. Liberals do not encourage these things, they want to prevent the damage that is done when fools try to discourage them with condemnation.

11. Condemnation is what creates conservative punitive thinking, thinking like the devil thinks, wanting folk to take a little walk in fire.

12. You do not fight evil with more evil.

13 There is only love.
-------------------

You are trapped in a world of limited understanding with the result that you can only think in limited ways. You have one tool in your box, condemnation, and without that tool you are lost. So you cling to it like a man hanging on to the ledge of a cliff hysterically claiming that without condemnation rape and murder are OK.

Yours is the world of ego, of personal responsibility and choice, of punishment and reward for good and evil. But you have no idea at all what the good is. The good and evil that you believe in do not exist. You can prove what the good is to no one. It's a bigotry that is rooted in your feelings. You cannot see this truth because you have no need. You already believe you know everything when in fact you know nothing at all just like me.

So let us look a little deeper at condemnation and why, as Bowfinger suggested, you have no shame.

You were raised by people just like you who believe in the curative powers of condemnation, and you were condemned and made to feel shame. And as a child you had no defenses at all. Without the support of your parents you would have dies. This is very important to remember, because it is the key to why you are not to blame for your condition. You are as you are because it's the only way you could have survived. And the fact that you had no defenses means that when you were condemned you were condemned, felt shame and rejection and worthlessness to the maximum degree that a human being is able to feel those feelings.

You would have died if you remained in that state and been subjected to greater and greater torture had you not converted from being who you really are to a model child, full of buried pain resentment and hate, just waiting to release all those terrifying emotions as an adult on the first offender you find.

Thus is was that you were created by condemnation and became a champion of that cause, as an adult applying your mental illness to any and all who deviate, and deviate from what you're never really sure.

And none of this can you ever know because the pain that you felt killed your soul and you are terrified it will happen all over again if you remember, which of course, it will if you were to really relive it. But you can only die once psychically. The second death is the phoenix that rises from the ash.

So when you really understand the disease that you have you are stripped of your condemnation, but also your guilt and your feeling of sinfulness. So there in your joy and rebirth in light you will find you hands empty of tools and your heart full of love and gratitude. And then instead of the condemnation of souls you will seek their salvation as you yourself have been saved.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You are trapped in a world of limited understanding with the result that you can only think in limited ways. You have one tool in your box, condemnation, and without that tool you are lost. So you cling to it like a man hanging on to the ledge of a cliff hysterically claiming that without condemnation rape and murder are OK.

Yours is the world of ego, of personal responsibility and choice, of punishment and reward for good and evil. But you have no idea at all what the good is. The good and evil that you believe in do not exist. You can prove what the good is to no one.
So if there is no good or evil (or right and wrong), then rape and murder would not be wrong.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
So if there is no good or evil (or right and wrong), then rape and murder would not be wrong.
You use words as if you know what they mean. Please prove to me that such a thing as the 'good' exists and then we can talk. We wouldn't want to condemn somebody bases on personal opinion, would you?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You use words as if you know what they mean. Please prove to me that such a thing as the 'good' exists and then we can talk. We wouldn't want to condemn somebody bases on personal opinion, would you?
So you are agreeing that you dont condemn condemn people who rape and murder then.

I am condemning people on the basis that what they are doing is contrary to the well-being of society and its other members. In order for society to exists there must be rules.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
So you are agreeing that you dont condemn condemn people who rape and murder then.

I am condemning people on the basis that what they are doing is contrary to the well-being of society and its other members. In order for society to exists there must be rules.
Oh good, now we are getting somewhere. Rules..........rules are the good.

So a society makes a rule that Jews should be exterminated for the well being of the greater number of those less financially talented, and that would be what is good. But there's just one problem with this that I see. You don't have to condemn them for being Jews. You just have to put them in the ovens and turn on the gas, right?

And after all, the only reason they have all the money is because they were legally bared from other professions. Banking is only for the dirty, you know. They charge interest and that's a sin.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Drunk people have a self-inflated ego, with little care for self-analyzing thus they become reactionary. Anyone who works around drunks picks up the conservative mindset in its true brain muddled glory of fail "common sense" logic of the brain pickled. Homeless people also tend to be very reactionary/conservative. Conservatism attracts schizophrenics with its all-encompassing conspiracy theories like flies to shit also.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Oh good, now we are getting somewhere. Rules..........rules are the good.

So a society makes a rule that Jews should be exterminated for the well being of the greater number of those less financially talented, and that would be what is good. But there's just one problem with this that I see. You don't have to condemn them for being Jews. You just have to put them in the ovens and turn on the gas, right?

And after all, the only reason they have all the money is because they were legally bared from other professions. Banking is only for the dirty, you know. They charge interest and that's a sin.
And if liberals did this they would then complain that they had no Jews to loan them money.

"I went to the bank and no one was there. Who will pay for all our bailouts for single mothers now?", lamented the liberal forgetting the roast jew he had enjoyed the night before.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Drunk people have a self-inflated ego, with little care for self-analyzing thus they become reactionary. Anyone who works around drunks picks up the conservative mindset in its true brain muddled glory of fail "common sense" logic of the brain pickled. Homeless people also tend to be very reactionary/conservative. Conservatism attracts schizophrenics with its all-encompassing conspiracy theories like flies to shit also.
Interesting analogy... :)
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
WTF does that have to do with what I posted? I am talking about the initial TARP bailout.
That is the legislative history of the vote on TARP. Clearly showing it being supported by Democrats not republicans. What is so hard to understand about it?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Timeline of changes to the initial program

On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions to the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants from the nine largest American banks. The shares would qualify as Tier 1 capital and were non-voting shares. To qualify for this program, the Treasury required participating institutions to meet certain criteria, including: "(1) ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution; (2) required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; (3) prohibition on the financial institution from making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive based on the Internal Revenue Code provision; and (4) agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive."[10] The Treasury also bought preferred stock and warrants from hundreds of smaller banks, using the first $250 billion allotted to the program.[11]
The first allocation of the TARP money was primarily used to buy preferred stock, which is similar to debt in that it gets paid before common equity shareholders. This has led some economists to argue that the plan may be ineffective in inducing banks to lend efficiently.[12][13]
In the original plan presented by Secretary Paulson, the government would buy troubled (toxic) assets in insolvent banks and then sell them at auction to private investor and/or companies. This plan was scratched when Paulson met with United Kingdom's Prime Minister Gordon Brown who came to the White House for an international summit on the global credit crisis.[citation needed] George Soros claims he had language inserted into the bill at the last minute which permitted this, then once the bill was passed and signed, lobbied for the changes that occurred.[14][15] Prime Minister Brown, in an attempt to mitigate the credit squeeze in England, merely infused capital into banks via preferred stock in order to clean up their balance sheets and, in some economists' view, effectively nationalizing many banks. This plan seemed attractive to Secretary Paulson in that it was relatively easier and seemingly boosted lending more quickly. The first half of the asset purchases may not be effective in getting banks to lend again because they were reluctant to risk lending as before with low lending standards. To make matters worse, overnight lending to other banks came to a relative halt because banks did not trust each other to be prudent with their money.[citation needed]
On November 12, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson indicated that reviving the securitization market for consumer credit would be a new priority in the second allotment.[16][17]
On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson,[18] deemed necessary to alleviate the financial crisis.
On December 31, 2008, the Treasury issued a report reviewing Section 102, the Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund, also known as the "Asset Guarantee Program." The report indicated that the program would likely not be made "widely available."[19]
On January 15, 2009, the Treasury issued interim final rules for reporting and record keeping requirements under the executive compensation standards of the Capital Purchase Program (CPP).[20]
On January 21, 2009, the Treasury announced new regulations regarding disclosure and mitigation of conflicts of interest in its TARP contracting.[21]
On February 5, 2009, the Senate approved changes to the TARP that prohibited firms receiving TARP funds from paying bonuses to their 25 highest-paid employees. The measure was proposed by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut as an amendment to the $900 billion economic stimulus act then waiting to be passed.[22]
On February 10, 2009, the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner outlined his plan to use the remaining $300 billion or so in TARP funds. He intended to direct $50 billion towards foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks. Nevertheless, this highly anticipated speech coincided with a nearly 5 percent drop in the S&P 500 and was criticized for lacking details.[23]
On March 23, 2009, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. The major stock market indexes in the United States rallied on the day of the announcement rising by over six percent with the shares of bank stocks leading the way.[24] P-PIP has two primary programs. The Legacy Loans Program will attempt to buy residential loans from bank's balance sheets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will provide non-recourse loan guarantees for up to 85 percent of the purchase price of legacy loans. Private sector asset managers and the U.S. Treasury will provide the remaining assets. The second program is called the legacy securities program, which will buy residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) that were originally rated AAA and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) which are rated AAA. The funds will come in many instances in equal parts from the U.S. Treasury's TARP monies, private investors, and from loans from the Federal Reserve's Term Asset Lending Facility (TALF). The initial size of the Public Private Investment Partnership is projected to be $500 billion.[25] Economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has been very critical of this program arguing the non-recourse loans lead to a hidden subsidy that will be split by asset managers, banks' shareholders and creditors.[26] Banking analyst Meredith Whitney argues that banks will not sell bad assets at fair market values because they are reluctant to take asset write downs.[27] Economist Linus Wilson, a frequent commenter on TARP related issues, also points to excessive misinformation and erroneous analysis surrounding the U.S. toxic asset auction plan.[28] Removing toxic assets would also reduce the volatility of banks' stock prices. This lost volatility will hurt the stock price of distressed banks. Therefore, such banks will only sell toxic assets at above market prices.[29]
On April 19, 2009, the Obama administration outlined the conversion of Banks Bailouts to Equity Share.[30]



GWB signed it into law and that means no Republicants were on board???

What's so hard to understand about that?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Sounds like what your side first initiated TARP to bailout their Wall Street sugar Daddy's.
First House vote:
"Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it"

Second House vote:
"Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it"

But, hey lets blame the Republicans. The Democrats clearly had nothing to do with passing tarp o_O
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
I just can't for the life of me figure out why people call liberals elitist.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
I just can't for the life of me figure out why people call liberals elitist.
It's obvious. You have elitist envy. That's why you tack on to your opinions the notion that they are official. It's you who is the wannabe elitist and can't figure out why you're not. Being elite means you don't even notice or care. It's that total indifference to the whole notion that makes you elite. When egotists run into somebody modest, say LunarRay, they can't even believe it.

Sorry LR but you said something nice about me and I had to get even.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,154
620
126
The article was crafty in putting the cart before the horse, 100% the author is left leaning. You'd have to presuppose the liberal mentality is the correct one for those tests to be at all amusing. So needless to say, i'm sure this one is a big hit with liberals.

Lets argue about the questions that this author asked the candidates and figure out which policy or response is most reasonable based on superior results and not rhetoric. Then we can consider the benefits of those who don't waver in their viewpoints under varying conditions (conservatives in this particular trial) vs those whom did.

You liberals have to realize that conservatives wouldn't mind one bit living under liberal policies if those liberals policies resulted in a better country. To conservatives dissent from their viewpoint is largely discussed and valued, to liberals dissent is dismissed attacked and belittled.

Conservatives understand the liberal mindset to a greater degree than liberals understand conservatives. The acceptance of the goodwill of an opponents argument is paramount in most conservative discussions, because the opposing viewpoint is valuable. I can't say the same for how liberals treat their opposition, which is ironic given the mirage of tolerance they claim as home base.
Bullshit. Pure, 100%, Grade-A bullshit.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,154
620
126
None of these studies had anything to do with baseline political stance.

It's entirely possible to be an intelligent, deep-thinking conservative. However, Conservative value include non-interference, and retributive (eye-for-an-eye) justice, which are the 'easy' answer to most questions (regardless of whether they are 'correct').

It makes sense that a distracted person will give the obvious answer more often than when not distracted, especially if they would normally prefer to 'think' before answering.

For example, my default policy is non-interference, but in many, many situations, the details cause me to support 'interference'. I would classify myself as a Liberal, but one who considers each and every issue.

Give me six beers and start asking me policy questions, and I'll definitely sound like a Conservative.
That would certainly explain a great number of comments from conservative pundits in the last 20 years.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
And if liberals did this they would then complain that they had no Jews to loan them money.

"I went to the bank and no one was there. Who will pay for all our bailouts for single mothers now?", lamented the liberal forgetting the roast jew he had enjoyed the night before.
Where's my proof that good exists or are you ready to admit that everything you believe is a myth?
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,379
0
76
The easiest way to turn a liberal into a conservative is to tell them there's no such thing as free <insert liberal talking point>
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Where's my proof that good exists or are you ready to admit that everything you believe is a myth?
I am perfectly happy with your admission that you believe BBQing jews is not wrong, but condemning women for having children they cannot afford is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY