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

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
You are saying we should purchase contraceptives for women so they can have sex.

Why cant they either?

1.) Practice abstinence.
2.) Buy their own birth control
3.) Make their boy-friend/husband buy it for them.
With the exception of the gay community, women having access to contraceptives would be in the interests of both men & women.

If there were such a thing as birth control for men beyond condoms & vasectomies, I'd support that being provided to low income men, as well.

Your most recent cotributions make no more sense than supplying prostitutes to men & gigolos for women.

The truth is that there's no reason to allow children to go hungry & homeless in this country, the wealthiest nation in the world, and that won't be allowed to happen for a variety of reasons. So we need to find constructive alternatives if we want to keep costs down, and you offer nothing but judgmental bluster to accomplish it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
The truth is that there's no reason to allow children to go hungry & homeless in this country, the wealthiest nation in the world, and that won't be allowed to happen for a variety of reasons. So we need to find constructive alternatives if we want to keep costs down, and you offer nothing but judgmental bluster to accomplish it.
Abortions are ~$500. Seems pretty cheap.

Women who get a "free" abortion can pay a $500 income tax similar to those who refuse to purchase health insurance under the mandate.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
Warning to liberals. The Republican brain defect is like the La Brea tar pits. If you wander in you will become mired in the tar. The only reason to talk to a brain dead conservative is to tell him he can't partake in a reasoned discussion. You never want to waste your time showing him that his reasoning is wrong. You have to aim to demonstrate to him and others that he can never see he is totally inability to argue rationally.

If you try to play on his field he will beat you to death with his incapacity to see. He can't see and that is the only point you should try to make.

He sees only the truth of his bigotry which is truth because he sees it. He cannot escape this loop and maintain his ego arrogant dignity. You want to show you what an ass he is and he's not going to let you.

So what is the need to show an ass that he is an ass. You know he has a disease. He has been made to feel an ass already and his ego is there so it never happens again.

You are doing battle against a person who is deeply troubled and lost and deserves nothing but sympathy. There is only love and if you do not feel it for him you too have the conservative brain disease.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Warning to liberals. The Republican brain defect is like the La Brea tar pits. If you wander in you will become mired in the tar. The only reason to talk to a brain dead conservative is to tell him he can't partake in a reasoned discussion. You never want to waste your time showing him that his reasoning is wrong. You have to aim to demonstrate to him and others that he can never see he is totally inability to argue rationally.

If you try to play on his field he will beat you to death with his incapacity to see. He can't see and that is the only point you should try to make.

He sees only the truth of his bigotry which is truth because he sees it. He cannot escape this loop and maintain his ego arrogant dignity. You want to show you what an ass he is and he's not going to let you.

So what is the need to show an ass that he is an ass. You know he has a disease. He has been made to feel an ass already and his ego is there so it never happens again.

You are doing battle against a person who is deeply troubled and lost and deserves nothing but sympathy. There is only love and if you do not feel it for him you too have the conservative brain disease.
It simple engineering. When solving issues you want to find the root cause of an issue. The root cause of child poverty is women having children they cannot afford.

Is it any wonder liberals fail so badly at social engineering when they are ignorant of basic engineering principles?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
Abortions are ~$500. Seems pretty cheap.

Women who get a "free" abortion can pay a $500 income tax similar to those who refuse to purchase health insurance under the mandate.
They're a terrific deal for the taxpayers, no doubt, as compared to welfare payments in support of unwanted children.

Asking many poor women to come up with $500 cash is like asking them to come up with $50K- both are beyond their means.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
They're a terrific deal for the taxpayers, no doubt, as compared to welfare payments in support of unwanted children.

Asking many poor women to come up with $500 cash is like asking them to come up with $50K- both are beyond their means.
Hence the loans. Problem solved. If you cant come up with $500 you should not be having children.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
Hence the loans. Problem solved. If you cant come up with $500 you should not be having children.
Loans they can't repay, rendering your point yet another absurdity.

So they'll have the baby, accept welfare, work from there.

Unless, of course, you're offering that we should allow children to go hungry & homeless in this land of plenty?

Your argument is based pretty much on the idea that sluts should necessarily suffer children, and that their children should also suffer as well, because, well, because their mothers are sluts by your judgment. Your stereotypes are horribly malformed caricatures of real life.

The root cause of poverty isn't as you suggest, at all, but rather our willingness to allow the ultra wealthy to take a greater & greater share of national income in an ongoing fashion. It's an issue of distribution, not of scarcity in the slightest.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Loans they can't repay, rendering your point yet another absurdity.

So they'll have the baby, accept welfare, work from there.

Unless, of course, you're offering that we should allow children to go hungry & homeless in this land of plenty?

Your argument is based pretty much on the idea that sluts should necessarily suffer children, and that their children should also suffer as well, because, well, because their mothers are sluts by your judgment. Your stereotypes are horribly malformed caricatures of real life.
No, I said sluts shouldnt have kids.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
No, I said sluts shouldnt have kids.
But you deny them the means to avoid doing so, and essentially label any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy as a slut.

At least you're giving us some insight wrt your attitude about women in general, and it ain't pretty.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
But you deny them the means to avoid doing so, and essentially label any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy as a slut.

At least you're giving us some insight wrt your attitude about women in general, and it ain't pretty.
I am not denying them the means. Stuff costs money.

And my attitude has nothing to do with women. I have problems with anyone who extorts money from me to bailout their poor life choices

See for example the 2nd post in this thread

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2242017
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
I am not denying them the means. Stuff costs money.

And my attitude has nothing to do with women. I have problems with anyone who extorts money from me to bailout their poor life choices
And you have no compunctions about having their children suffer, either, just so you can stand on your principles of selfishness & greed as if you somehow occupy the moral high ground. You don't.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
And you have no compunctions about having their children suffer, either, just so you can stand on your principles of selfishness & greed as if you somehow occupy the moral high ground. You don't.
Using children to extort money to support women's reproductive choices certainly does not give you the moral high ground.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
Using children to extort money to support women's reproductive choices certainly does not give you the moral high ground.
The term you're looking for is compassion, and the frame of reference reality, both of which are apparently beyond your ken.

You frame your arguments, such as they are, in terms of what you think the world "should" be, rather than the way it is. In doing so, you obviously gain a certain high-horse moral satisfaction of the worst sort, and obtaining such is apparently your prime concern, regardless of real world consequences for the people you look down upon and this country as well.

This country would be a sad and brutish place if came to be the way you apparently want it to be.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,698
138
106
What a sad day it is when expecting people to be responsible for their actions is considered "trolling".
No, the fact that you knew I was talking about you and that your "arguments" are so far gone from reality show you are trolling.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
It simple engineering. When solving issues you want to find the root cause of an issue. The root cause of child poverty is women having children they cannot afford.

Is it any wonder liberals fail so badly at social engineering when they are ignorant of basic engineering principles?

You have a brain disease that make it impossible for you to reason but you have that fantasy. You are a bigot and it is your bigotry that solves your issues and determine root causes, all of which are defective and invisible as such to you. Any 7 year old would be able to tell you that every cause has itself a cause so women having children they cannot afford has a cause so it can't be the root of anything. Liberals are ignorant of the basic principles of engineering because the so called basic principles that you believe in are the product of a brain defect. You haven't the faintest idea about anything but you like to fancy everything up with words like basic engineering because it flatters your self conceit. You were perverted as a child and you don't want to know it. That is quite natural and something you had to do to survive. Your only option is to stop making it obvious as often as you can that your brain doesn't work properly, and have some sympathy for yourself. Try to accept that you DO have a disease. Stop believing in anything you think. You're fucked otherwise or as you would say, self condemned.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
No, the fact that you knew I was talking about you and that your "arguments" are so far gone from reality show you are trolling.
If women want the freedom to make choices about their body they should be held accountable for those choices.

Her body, her choice, HER RESPONSIBILITY.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
If women want the freedom to make choices about their body they should be held accountable for those choices.

Her body, her choice, HER RESPONSIBILITY.
Hmmm...

Should we ever consider that the taxpayer might be paying for the child(ren)?

Should we abolish abortion and strengthen laws to better force 'dead beat dads' to be responsible for their issue?

Should mothers stay home and provide a nurturing home rather than work and place the child(ren) in day care or home alone?

IF we abhor abortion should we taxpayers consider shouldering the expense of raising kids the mother has when she can't or should we make having kids with out the ability to support them a crime and take the kids and put them up for adoption?

As an aside, I proffer the following: Parents are usually of two sexes, male and female. Each is uniquely designed for certain tasks as it relates to creating a 'family'. The woman manufactures the child and the man provides the financial support... Generally Speaking, of course...

What you think?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Hmmm...

Should we ever consider that the taxpayer might be paying for the child(ren)?

Should we abolish abortion and strengthen laws to better force 'dead beat dads' to be responsible for their issue?

Should mothers stay home and provide a nurturing home rather than work and place the child(ren) in day care or home alone?

IF we abhor abortion should we taxpayers consider shouldering the expense of raising kids the mother has when she can't or should we make having kids with out the ability to support them a crime and take the kids and put them up for adoption?

As an aside, I proffer the following: Parents are usually of two sexes, male and female. Each is uniquely designed for certain tasks as it relates to creating a 'family'. The woman manufactures the child and the man provides the financial support... Generally Speaking, of course...

What you think?
Ideally I support the traditional gender roles you propose. For that to be a workable plan, however, requires an institution that links a man and woman together. We might call this institution marriage. Seems like for this to work you would have to eliminate no-fault divorce and discourage having bastard children exactly like I have been saying.

If we abolished abortion then it would make sense to strengthen dead beat dad laws. Good luck getting liberals to go along with that. You cannot demand that women have 100% reproductive choice and then start pointing the finger at men once it is time to take responsibility.

Ironically liberals are relying on Republican abhorrence of abortion to push their agenda. If you get over this abhorrence there is absolutely zero reason for the taxpayer to support poor people having children.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
Ironically liberals are relying on Republican abhorrence of abortion to push their agenda. If you get over this abhorrence there is absolutely zero reason for the taxpayer to support poor people having children.
Other than the welfare of the children, who are American citizens unable to fend for themselves.

We already grant enormous advantages to the children of wealthy parents- what you offer is to disadvantage poor children further, to deny them food, shelter, and basic medical care. You deny the concept that we are a nation, a people who take care of our own in favor of the notion that we're just an agglomeration of people seeking our own ends in an entirely selfish manner.

Men, btw, understand the possibilities inherent in sex every bit as well as women, making your argument in that regard entirely specious & sexist as well.

Not to mention that elimination of no fault divorce merely makes the parties subject to slander to break that union, regardless of the real reasons. It also calls for even more taxpayer expense in refereeing extended court battles whose outcomes are inevitable in the first place.

Which figures, given that Righties spare no expense in assigning blame, particularly when it comes to blaming women.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Other than the welfare of the children, who are American citizens unable to fend for themselves.

We already grant enormous advantages to the children of wealthy parents- what you offer is to disadvantage poor children further, to deny them food, shelter, and basic medical care. You deny the concept that we are a nation, a people who take care of our own in favor of the notion that we're just an agglomeration of people seeking our own ends in an entirely selfish manner.
I am saying that obligations extend both ways. People have a responsibility to live their live in a way that does not purposefully impose burdens on others. Women who get pregnant and and cannot care for the child should get an abortion.

Men, btw, understand the possibilities inherent in sex every bit as well as women, making your argument in that regard entirely specious & sexist as well.
So you are arguing consent to sex is consent to parenthood. Congrats on destroying the entire pro-choice argument. By your logic women already made their choice when they consented to having sex.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
I am saying that obligations extend both ways. People have a responsibility to live their live in a way that does not purposefully impose burdens on others. Women who get pregnant and and cannot care for the child should get an abortion.
Well well, this is starting to make sense to me. I propose we put a bounty on poor children and post notices at the NRA.

Now we have to work out a cut off date, when a poor person shifts over from being a poor child to a poor adult because we will have to pay the bounty twice if we happen to bag a pregnant child mother so I'm thinking maybe 21.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Well well, this is starting to make sense to me. I propose we put a bounty on poor children and post notices at the NRA.

Now we have to work out a cut off date, when a poor person shifts over from being a poor child to a poor adult because we will have to pay the bounty twice if we happen to bag a pregnant child mother so I'm thinking maybe 21.
Except, as Liberals love to point out, a fetus is not a child. So no person dies during an abortion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS