• 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 7 - 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
Then there shouldn't be a cut off date and we should just have a bounty on poor people of any age?
Absolutely! Poor people are worthless. They have no right to exist in America. If you don't have at least a two-car garage you just don't matter.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
N... 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.

LR... So... You feel that a contract of marriage needs to exist for the boy/girl roll in parenting and supporting ($) to be viable...
Why can't we simply have a law that provides for the boy to provide the $ and the girl to care for the child. That way anyone who has a child - not sure how to deal with petri dish babies or other than the usual way kids are produced - knows the consequence (your word) of their action, however, given that abortion is anathema to some shouldn't those 'some' see to it that all children are given all they need in order to grow and become the leaders and citizens of tomorrow... An investment in sound societal values?

N... 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.

LR... Do you not believe that Liberals also created law to enforce the notion that responsibility for a child first rests with the parents... the boy first? And, do you confuse the rights of the woman to control her body and life with the financial aspect of that decision and shouldn't, the Right seek to fund more abortion clinics or is both the rights of the woman and the rights of the child, unborn or not, not equal and if so who has the higher right? And if the right does exist should we not mind funding to that higher right to the extent it is needed?

N... 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.

LR... Are not the folks on the Right the ones filled with Christian Values for the most part? IF this is true then why wouldn't the folks on the Right not want to apply those values to the poor and hungry regardless of how they got that way... and wouldn't you expect to see funding to correct what the poor endure given the Christian values and all that? Funding for education and job placement and even child care for 'single' mothers... Most anything that seeks to help the poor is certainly Christian, No?

Would you call anything espoused by the Right to be also founded in the Christian ethic? As the Right at times opines... The left is filled with Heathens... but, yet it is these heathens who seek to feed the poor and clothe the naked... amazing work of the devil... I guess.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
LR... So... You feel that a contract of marriage needs to exist for the boy/girl roll in parenting and supporting ($) to be viable...
Why can't we simply have a law that provides for the boy to provide the $ and the girl to care for the child. That way anyone who has a child - not sure how to deal with petri dish babies or other than the usual way kids are produced - knows the consequence (your word) of their action, however, given that abortion is anathema to some shouldn't those 'some' see to it that all children are given all they need in order to grow and become the leaders and citizens of tomorrow... An investment in sound societal values?
Marriage is a contract that puts obligations on both men and women for the betterment of children. Women are assured having a man provide for them and her children, and a man is assured access to children that are biologically his. It seems like you want to codify into law only the man's obligations. And you seem to be implying that the only reason children benefit from having a father is the $$$. Marriage insures that a man will be motivated to provide for his children, because he will have regular contact with them.

If you have an institution that has worked for centuries, why try to recreate it?

And people who oppose abortion also oppose pre-marital sex. As long as they live by their own values there is not problem.

LR... Do you not believe that Liberals also created law to enforce the notion that responsibility for a child first rests with the parents... the boy first? And, do you confuse the rights of the woman to control her body and life with the financial aspect of that decision and shouldn't, the Right seek to fund more abortion clinics or is both the rights of the woman and the rights of the child, unborn or not, not equal and if so who has the higher right? And if the right does exist should we not mind funding to that higher right to the extent it is needed?
A right is not something that has to be funded. It is something you inherently have. Liberals seem to believe that the right to abortion is THE paramount right. The thing is I dont see much difference between a man's financial considerations and a woman making a choice to carry a fetus, because unless you are Mitt Romney, you earn your money by working with your body.

LR... Are not the folks on the Right the ones filled with Christian Values for the most part? IF this is true then why wouldn't the folks on the Right not want to apply those values to the poor and hungry regardless of how they got that way... and wouldn't you expect to see funding to correct what the poor endure given the Christian values and all that? Funding for education and job placement and even child care for 'single' mothers... Most anything that seeks to help the poor is certainly Christian, No?

Would you call anything espoused by the Right to be also founded in the Christian ethic? As the Right at times opines... The left is filled with Heathens... but, yet it is these heathens who seek to feed the poor and clothe the naked... amazing work of the devil... I guess.
You cannot have a society in which people are allowed to do whatever they want and then get bailed out.

You cannot rip apart rules societal morals and then complain that doing so results in negative consequences. At least not unless you want to concede that liberal values are an abject failure and we need temporary bailouts to cover us until we can revert to traditional morality.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,674
13,754
136
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.
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.

As I've offered, and you've chosen to ignore, childhood lasts a long time, and what seemed like a reasonable thing to do in 2005, having a child, didn't really turn out that way because of the near collapse of the economy & extended unemployment for all too many Americans. It also needs to be understood that many women are emotionally incapable of having an abortion

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.
Another strawman, not surprising, really. Fertile people who engage in sex acknowledge that the possibility of pregnancy exists, regardless of the precautions taken. That's if they have even a few grey cells to rub together. No form of birth control is 100%, other than complete abstinence, and human beings aren't made that way.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
As I've offered, and you've chosen to ignore, childhood lasts a long time, and what seemed like a reasonable thing to do in 2005, having a child, didn't really turn out that way because of the near collapse of the economy & extended unemployment for all too many Americans. It also needs to be understood that many women are emotionally incapable of having an abortion



Another strawman, not surprising, really. Fertile people who engage in sex acknowledge that the possibility of pregnancy exists, regardless of the precautions taken. That's if they have even a few grey cells to rub together. No form of birth control is 100%, other than complete abstinence, and human beings aren't made that way.
I dont have a problem extending aid to people who are impacted by changing circumstances, but when 53% of infants are fed by the federal government you argument fails.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/wicataglance.htm

So, a woman shouldnt have sex unless she is prepared to raise a child without government aid, or is willing to get an abortion.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,674
13,754
136
I dont have a problem extending aid to people who are impacted by changing circumstances, but when 53% of infants are fed by the federal government you argument fails.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/wicataglance.htm

So, a woman shouldnt have sex unless she is prepared to raise a child without government aid, or is willing to get an abortion.
It doesn't say that- it says that the govt supplements nutrition for infants, not that they're fed entirely on govt largesse. New mothers & infants also receive health screenings & nutritional counseling.

I think the Fail is on you, and has been for the entire thread.

If what you offer is true for women, then the same expectations need to be placed on men, other than the obvious part about abortion.

Instead of just raving on about your sense of faux moral outrage, maybe you should write your congress people, propose some kind of finacial litmus test for pregnancy. Women could be forced to have abortions, like in China, if only for different reasons.

Otherwise, you're just playing the usual sexist blame game.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
It doesn't say that- it says that the govt supplements nutrition for infants, not that they're fed entirely on govt largesse. New mothers & infants also receive health screenings & nutritional counseling.

I think the Fail is on you, and has been for the entire thread.

If what you offer is true for women, then the same expectations need to be placed on men, other than the obvious part about abortion.

Instead of just raving on about your sense of faux moral outrage, maybe you should write your congress people, propose some kind of finacial litmus test for pregnancy. Women could be forced to have abortions, like in China, if only for different reasons.

Otherwise, you're just playing the usual sexist blame game.
So 53% of infants are receiving food from the federal government. FACT.

Liberals have been saying for 4 decades that having a child is entirely a woman's choice. How long did you think it would take for people to hold them fully responsible for that choice?

Funny seeing a liberal complaining about the policies of a communist country.

And, yes if a man has a problem with his child being aborted, he probably shouldnt be having sex. But that is already the case, since a woman can abort his child without his consent.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Marriage is a contract that puts obligations on both men and women for the betterment of children. Women are assured having a man provide for them and her children, and a man is assured access to children that are biologically his. It seems like you want to codify into law only the man's obligations. And you seem to be implying that the only reason children benefit from having a father is the $$$. Marriage insures that a man will be motivated to provide for his children, because he will have regular contact with them.




If you have an institution that has worked for centuries, why try to recreate it?

And people who oppose abortion also oppose pre-marital sex. As long as they live by their own values there is not problem.


A right is not something that has to be funded. It is something you inherently have. Liberals seem to believe that the right to abortion is THE paramount right. The thing is I dont see much difference between a man's financial considerations and a woman making a choice to carry a fetus, because unless you are Mitt Romney, you earn your money by working with your body.



You cannot have a society in which people are allowed to do whatever they want and then get bailed out.

You cannot rip apart rules societal morals and then complain that doing so results in negative consequences. At least not unless you want to concede that liberal values are an abject failure and we need temporary bailouts to cover us until we can revert to traditional morality.
Well... You have a missing bit in your hula hoop... You must have in law what you want in reality.

It is legal to have sex.... even by Gay folks under Lawrence v Texas... In order to enforce your position you'd need to make the sex act illegal so that you can provide consequences for the child creation especially if there is as part of that hoop bit that says 'no abortion under any condition'. So to get pregnant and have a child is the consequence of having sex the woman provides the evidence of the crime but the child is not the criminal... only the result of a criminal act... :D So you can elect to jail the mother and care for the child as a society but you can't toss out the baby with the Cream of Farina. You might even find it is cheaper to let the mother wear a home arrest thingi and care for the kid herself... Maybe you might even find that for the mother to have the child and care for the child creates a condition where she is limited to the extent she is to live her life differently than she had planned. Of course, this is only an issue if the boy don't or won't or can't live up to his part of the bargin... And how can he beings he committed a crime so off to the forced labor camp for him... the criminal who not only helped create a kid but probably conspired with the girl to do it.:cool:

End of the day.... The Christian Right is obliged to care for the poor cuz Jesus said...
You can't both love and condemn your neighbor... least ways not according to Jesus... the guy the Christian Right holds to be God himself. So the more poor we have the more opportunity the Christian Right has to follow the teachings they hold to be a higher law... It was the Lefty who rid the pledge of the, '... under God ...'
On the sacred floor of the House and even the floor of the evil Senate the Christian Right denounced the removal.... So but for the SCOTUS we'd still have God in charge and the poor would be fed just like he wants... Dam SCOTUS...
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,674
13,754
136
So 53% of infants are receiving food from the federal government. FACT.
And are healthier & more able to reach full adult potential as a result. It really represents a failure of free market trickledown economics to actually provide what the vast majority of Americans need, anyway, which is stable employment at a wage & benefit level where they can take care of their own.

Liberals have been saying for 4 decades that having a child is entirely a woman's choice. How long did you think it would take for people to hold them fully responsible for that choice?

Funny seeing a liberal complaining about the policies of a communist country.

And, yes if a man has a problem with his child being aborted, he probably shouldnt be having sex. But that is already the case, since a woman can abort his child without his consent.
So, uhh, the option of abortion lets men off the hook for their own progeny? Really?

You're the one advocating that women who can't afford children should be prevented from having them. Liberals as Communists? Puh-leeze. If anything, Righties have a much more authoritarian bent-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

And, uhh, you got that last part backwards & inside out. Men who have a problem wrt supporting their own children shouldn't be having the kind of sex rendering pregnancy possible, and certainly shouldn't be doing so unless the full implications have been discussed with their partners.

Men don't do that, obviously- "If you want to have sex, I won't do it unless you tell me you'll have an abortion if necessary." is a real turn-off, I'm sure...
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
And, uhh, you got that last part backwards & inside out. Men who have a problem wrt supporting their own children shouldn't be having the kind of sex rendering pregnancy possible, and certainly shouldn't be doing so unless the full implications have been discussed with their partners.

Men don't do that, obviously- "If you want to have sex, I won't do it unless you tell me you'll have an abortion if necessary." is a real turn-off, I'm sure...
Sigh. Liberals have been saying for 40 years that having a child is entirely a woman's choice. FACT.

Do you really think that women now are having frank discussions with their partners about what they would do if they got pregnant :/

Neither men nor women do it.

If a pregnancy results, and the child cannot be supported by its parents, abortion should be expected by both partners. Not extorting the taxpayer for money to pay for their mistake.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Sigh. Liberals have been saying for 40 years that having a child is entirely a woman's choice. FACT.

Do you really think that women now are having frank discussions with their partners about what they would do if they got pregnant :/

Neither men nor women do it.

If a pregnancy results, and the child cannot be supported by its parents, abortion should be expected by both partners. Not extorting the taxpayer for money to pay for their mistake.
Well... so as a Conservative, if you are, you'd willingly pay for preventive measures so that pregnancy does not occur... Morning after pills, 10 cc's of Estrogen, birth control pills and condoms just to be sure to be sure...

I'm sure you don't advocate that Sex is permissable for only the rich or for folks who have rich parents and the like... Each class structure should be able to enjoy this sex stuff, right?

Maybe you've got a long term view to it all... Where if only the Conservatives who usually have riches to protect and financially secure Liberals have kids it would result is a lower Liberal voting population and the Conservative can push all the laws they want... Not bad.

I've another way... Since Boys determine the sex of the child having both X and Y genes and the Girls only have the X gene, we could devote some research to making it possible to create the sex of the child by changing the X Y thingi to only Y so if something happened it would be a boy and in time we'd have fewer and fewer girls... They of course would be Conservative given their parents are... There'd be no more Liberals... and once again the Pledge would contain " under God "... What you think?():)
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Well... so as a Conservative, if you are, you'd willingly pay for preventive measures so that pregnancy does not occur... Morning after pills, 10 cc's of Estrogen, birth control pills and condoms just to be sure to be sure...

I'm sure you don't advocate that Sex is permissable for only the rich or for folks who have rich parents and the like... Each class structure should be able to enjoy this sex stuff, right?
You can get birth control pills for $9/month

Condoms are like a quarter a pop.

Not exactly what I would consider rich.

It is not my job to pay for other people's entertainment.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
You can get birth control pills for $9/month

Condoms are like a quarter a pop.

Not exactly what I would consider rich.

It is not my job to pay for other people's entertainment.
So you would limit entertainment based on how rich one is...

To some a dollar is a fortune... especially if one must choose between diapers and formula over say... Birth Control Pills... Which would you rather see these single mothers opt to pay for? Maybe you'd advocate paying for the diapers and formula IF the mother pays for the pills? ...given the child is the beneficiary of the food and diapers and everyone loves kids even the kids of liberal poor people.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So you would limit entertainment based on how rich one is...

To some a dollar is a fortune... especially if one must choose between diapers and formula over say... Birth Control Pills... Which would you rather see these single mothers opt to pay for? Maybe you'd advocate paying for the diapers and formula IF the mother pays for the pills? ...given the child is the beneficiary of the food and diapers and everyone loves kids even the kids of liberal poor people.
Entertainment is limited based on how rich one is. That is a fact. Should the government purchase NFL Season Ticket for me?

We shouldnt allow there to be single mothers in the first place. Children need 2 parents. The fact that every time poverty comes up single mothers follows shows that.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Entertainment is limited based on how rich one is. That is a fact. Should the government purchase NFL Season Ticket for me?



We shouldnt allow there to be single mothers in the first place. Children need 2 parents. The fact that every time poverty comes up single mothers follows shows that.
I don't know about season tickets but if NFL means 'Not for Liberals' and if you consider a season ticket to be some period of time regarding the issue we were discussing ' Sex is a form of entertainment ' My question is to do with should there be a limit on when or if the poor should participate when or if they couldn't afford to pay the delta cost of having and raising a child should that happen and because the rich no doubt, can afford it they have more of a right to the entertainment... (your word ... not mine) Imagine if it were the same girl and two guys... one rich and one simply a nice poor liberal...

How do you propose to eliminate the single mother syndrome? Should Government create laws or fund programs or simply marry the offending partners?

Shoulda, coulda, woulda are not really action thingi... they are an explanation for failure to do something, I'd think.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,674
13,754
136
Sigh. Liberals have been saying for 40 years that having a child is entirely a woman's choice. FACT.

Do you really think that women now are having frank discussions with their partners about what they would do if they got pregnant :/

Neither men nor women do it.

If a pregnancy results, and the child cannot be supported by its parents, abortion should be expected by both partners. Not extorting the taxpayer for money to pay for their mistake.
It's only a rabid minority that thinks it's "extortion" of any sort, of which you're obviously a member.

It's still the govt of the people, for the people, and by the people, even if it has a few kinks. Welfare laws came into existence on the basis of legislative action by the representatives of the people.

You seem to think that people, particularly women, *like* living on the dole, when that's far from true. They'd generally prefer a decent paying job with benefits, of which there is an increasing scarcity due to the efforts of the Lootocracy.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I don't know about season tickets but if NFL means 'Not for Liberals' and if you consider a season ticket to be some period of time regarding the issue we were discussing ' Sex is a form of entertainment ' My question is to do with should there be a limit on when or if the poor should participate when or if they couldn't afford to pay the delta cost of having and raising a child should that happen and because the rich no doubt, can afford it they have more of a right to the entertainment... (your word ... not mine) Imagine if it were the same girl and two guys... one rich and one simply a nice poor liberal...

How do you propose to eliminate the single mother syndrome? Should Government create laws or fund programs or simply marry the offending partners?

Shoulda, coulda, woulda are not really action thingi... they are an explanation for failure to do something, I'd think.
There is a natural limit on people consuming entertainment.

Poor people can still have sex so long as they are willing to have an abortion if they get pregnant. I am willing to have the government provide abortion loans at 5% interest, the same rate used for bank bailouts.

Yes there should be a law restricting who can have children. It is harder to be cold medicine than to become a parent.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY