Tea Partiers the same as the Left Wing anti-governemnt hippies of the 1960's

[Big Fitz]

How does 'free love' lead to the following. We're going to use a little proof called 'logic' and 'critical thinking'. Let's see if you can keep up.

By reducing the social stigma of children out of wedlock, you create an environment for more and more mothers with children, and no husbands. And of course, there becomes a need for social support structures to go with it making this behavior of sex before marriage easier to engage in, thereby subsidizing the whole activity

Being freed of the responsibility of fatherhood, young men have more free time and money to go thug around, with idle time in which to get in trouble. Couple the aging children of the single parents and you have a situation that is ripe with potential for gang activities as young boys and girls seek out an authoritarian figure to fill the bill as 'dad'. Of course,, with the idea of free love mixing up the fact that sex is love, you begat another generation of bastards that continue the cycle.

Now with this cycle in motion, being subsidized on one had by government, and protected (they're victims, not stupid life choices) from the consequences of their actions, and no possible way for consistent adult supervision from the single parent, the cycle continues. The children with no guidance and direction seek out peers in which to form a value system of their own and clump together in gangs and let basal human nature take over in many regards because they have not been taught, successfully, basic morality. That's not to say they're feral, but rather, amoral.

The need for money then finds the easiest way to generate large sums with minimal work, and currently, that's drug dealing and use to escape the pain.

That is how free love enables gang violence and drug use.

 

[KMAN]

There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.

The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.

The younger tea partiers have accelerated drug use to catch up with their elders or they are dumb as a stump without the use of drugs. It could be lack of formal education or not having the ability to read.

The Wacko Left meets the Wacko Right-Tea Party - Hippies.

Just one small hole in your argument... The "hippies" of the 60's hated our constitution.... The "hippies" of today are fighting for our constitution.

Other than that... Yep they are the same...

 

[Father Time]

"
Being freed of the responsibility of fatherhood, young men have more free time and money to go thug around, with idle time in which to get in trouble."

This ladies and gentlemen is the definition of bullshiting

So by logic ANYTHING that gives men more free time leads to crime, the fact that they want to commit crime has no bearing on any of it.

Hell I could make the same argument for a vasectomy or birth control or adoption.

"young boys and girls seek out an authoritarian figure to fill the bill as 'dad'"

Prove they actually do this.

Also prove that single parents don't give their kids any moral guidance

Two parents can't constantly monitor their children either.

The whole argument relies on getting rid of the stigma of children when not in a relationship which he has yet to show is even a part of free love (I can't find it on any site advocating free love).

It can also be summed up as thus. Single mothers lead to crime and drugs and gangs (which he hasn't proven). Free love might lead to single mothers. Let's pretend free love is a major cause.

Why am I not surprised you didn't have anything substantive just blanket statements and the like?

 

[HUGGY]

There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.

The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.

The younger tea partiers have accelerated drug use to catch up with their elders or they are dumb as a stump without the use of drugs. It could be lack of formal education or not having the ability to read.

The Wacko Left meets the Wacko Right-Tea Party - Hippies.

Yeah, I was sure I spotted Bill Ayers and his old lady in the TV coverage of the Chicago Tea Party.

 

[beowolfe]

There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.

The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.

The younger tea partiers have accelerated drug use to catch up with their elders or they are dumb as a stump without the use of drugs. It could be lack of formal education or not having the ability to read.

The Wacko Left meets the Wacko Right-Tea Party - Hippies.

One day you guys will learn to think for yourselves and come up with you own ideas, or at least learn to give credit to those who you are parroting.

BTW, they are not the same. In the 60's none of the things they were protesting were fiction.

 

[HUGGY]

There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.

The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.

The younger tea partiers have accelerated drug use to catch up with their elders or they are dumb as a stump without the use of drugs. It could be lack of formal education or not having the ability to read.

The Wacko Left meets the Wacko Right-Tea Party - Hippies.

One day you guys will learn to think for yourselves and come up with you own ideas, or at least learn to give credit to those who you are parroting.

BTW, they are not the same. In the 60's none of the things they were protesting were fiction.

Ya... I'd like to see what these morons wold be protesting if we had a draft forcing them to send thier kids to die for Bushies wars.

 

[Father Time]

There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.

The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.

The younger tea partiers have accelerated drug use to catch up with their elders or they are dumb as a stump without the use of drugs. It could be lack of formal education or not having the ability to read.

The Wacko Left meets the Wacko Right-Tea Party - Hippies.

One day you guys will learn to think for yourselves and come up with you own ideas, or at least learn to give credit to those who you are parroting.

BTW, they are not the same. In the 60's none of the things they were protesting were fiction.

Ya... I'd like to see what these morons wold be protesting if we had a draft forcing them to send thier kids to die for Bushies wars.

Probably the draft, hell I'd be protesting the draft.

 

[Big Fitz]

"young boys and girls seek out an authoritarian figure to fill the bill as 'dad'"

Prove they actually do this.

What proof will you accept. The fact that I work with school children for a living and see how they interact and look to older students, teachers and me as a role model and to give them guidance, set boundaries, give expectations and encouragement as well as discipline, probably means nothing to you because I'm not linking to some leftwing lunatic blog that backs up your point. So, you can be your own research monkey if you want. I have first hand experience. You can either deny it, like I bet you would any proof I gave, or believe it. I don't have to prove jack shit to you.

So by logic ANYTHING that gives men more free time leads to crime, the fact that they want to commit crime has no bearing on any of it.

Ever hear the phrase "Idle hands are the devil's workshop?" It says that LOGICALLY, if given enough unstructured, unproductive time, a person will find something to do and this is more likely to be of a negative nature. As compared to those people who have something productive to do to keep them busy this is simply more likely. Sure, they may do something other than criminal activity, but they aren't more likely to do something good or charitable or productive. How many Latin King or MS13 charitable drives for the needy do you hear about? Or how many unemployed, youth go about improving their neighborhood? So few that they rate "Man Bites Dog" levels of occurrence.

Two parents can't constantly monitor their children either.

Never said they could. I assert they do a BETTER job than one, and therefore, lapses in parenting are, unfortunately, more likely to occur. That is logical.

It can also be summed up as thus. Single mothers lead to crime and drugs and gangs (which he hasn't proven). Free love might lead to single mothers. Let's pretend free love is a major cause.

What other than loose morality, a socially permissive society to promiscuity and subsidized single parenting system would you say leads to single mothers?

Why am I not surprised you didn't have anything substantive just blanket statements and the like?

And I can't help your inability to follow a logical chain of events. You want charts and data to back up what is blatantly obvious, go get em, research monkey, and bring em back to disprove my assertions. You're just whistling Dixie and neg repping to be a punk otherwise. Just because you don't like what the consequences are of your loony left's good intentions doesn't change the fact that they are what they are.

This ladies and gentlemen is the definition of bullshiting

yes. You are. So go get me some proof showing I'm wrong with graphs and numbers and shit that I'll accept, or butch up, Sally and peddle your papers elsewhere.

 

[Father Time]

You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen free time leads to crime and not having to be a father gives one too much free time. The logical implication is that (for males) not being a Dad makes one more likely to be a criminal.

Well let's see though if that were true we'd probably have a record high level of crime what with all the time saving things we have in modern society.

But wait we don't, in fact the crime rates are decreasing, some have even hit record lows.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Key Facts: Crime Type

Interesting.

I also noticed that you haven't backed up your claims of single mothers unable to teach kids morality, or that they lead to criminal kids.

I never claimed to know what causes single parents but don't let that stop you.

 

[Father Time]

You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.

 

[Big Fitz]

You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen free time leads to crime and not having to be a father gives one too much free time. The logical implication is that (for males) not being a Dad makes one more likely to be a criminal.

Disingenuously misrepresenting my statement. But what else should I expect from a whooped lib who can't get logical progression?

Well let's see though if that were true we should have a record high level of crime what with all the time saving things we have in modern society.

But wait we don't, in fact the crime level is decreasing, some have even hit record lows.

Oh boy! Let's not look at other factors that we hadn't been addressing because they were not relevant and then try to use straight line assumption as the basis for truthiness! Yes, crime is decreasing. So is the single parent family in the sense of young unwed mothers and teens. Why? A lot of education on this being a bad thing and re-introduction of morality, amazingly, begrudgingly through the schools and outreach programs. But this is only one factor in many. But if you want to play fantasy land with the information, I'll start dinging you more neg rep for lying.

and since I can't trust honesty from you... here.

Single Parent Statistics
Single Parent Family Demographics Lots of articles backing my logic... as if you'd admit it.
Rise and fall of Single Parent...
Effects of Fatherlessness Boom goes your theory.
Family Life, Delinquency & Crime convinced I'm right yet?

I also noticed that you haven't backed up your claims of single mothers unable to teach kids morality, or that they lead to criminal kids.

Again, you deliberately misrepresent what I said. You claim I'm making erroneous blanket statements then make your own? Semantic hypocrite. But the research I did for you should change your mind. If not... nothing will.

I never claimed to know what causes single parents but don't let that stop you.

Are you through?

 

[Big Fitz]

You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.

Your trolling proves that too much free time leads to delinquency.

nuff said.

 

[Father Time]

You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.

Your trolling proves that too much free time leads to delinquency.

nuff said.

You got nothing in other words.

 

[Big Fitz]

You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.

Your trolling proves that too much free time leads to delinquency.

nuff said.

You got nothing in other words.

Got nothing? What's with the crickets over all the links I provided? hmmmmmmm....

slink away little man.... slink away.

 

[Father Time]

So let's see your first stat says single parents are on the rise.

The third one is outdated
The first and fourth one uses the correlation =causation fallacy (which is freaking ironic that you called me out for using it then use it yourself).

The fifth one cites economic conditions bad neighborhoods, a stigma on the children and says
"Research indicates that at least 25 percent of all families with children are single-parent households. Most of these families do not produce delinquent children. "

So great job shooting yourself in the foot with your own link (moron)

The second I can't find any of their sources cited, but hey one of them says
"many of the negative effects disappear when there is adequate supervision, income, and continuity in social networks"

So it's not some grand feat to raise a kid in a single parent home.

 

[Father Time]

Your trolling proves that too much free time leads to delinquency.

nuff said.

You got nothing in other words.

Got nothing? What's with the crickets over all the links I provided? hmmmmmmm....

slink away little man.... slink away.

Which one of your links talks about free time causing crime?

 

[Big Fitz]

Figures. No proof you'd accept. Stick with your fantasy world.

You've proven jack shit yourself, you know.

 

[Big Fitz]

You got nothing in other words.

Got nothing? What's with the crickets over all the links I provided? hmmmmmmm....

slink away little man.... slink away.

Which one of your links talks about free time causing crime?

If you can't keep up with the conversation, you're not worth talking too either. Go back to remedial posting.

 

[Father Time]

Got nothing? What's with the crickets over all the links I provided? hmmmmmmm....

slink away little man.... slink away.

Which one of your links talks about free time causing crime?

If you can't keep up with the conversation, you're not worth talking too either. Go back to remedial posting.

You still haven't come up with anything to prove free time causes crime.

Your own links contradict your claim that single parent homes are declining and one of them says that most single parent homes do not produce delinquents. In fact it's the only one to provide anything that shows the percent of single parent kids who do bad things. I wonder what that says.

 

[Big Fitz]

Which one of your links talks about free time causing crime?

If you can't keep up with the conversation, you're not worth talking too either. Go back to remedial posting.

You still haven't come up with anything to prove free time causes crime.

Your own links contradict your claim that single parent homes are declining and one of them says that most single parent homes do not produce delinquents. In fact it's the only one to provide anything that shows the percent of single parent kids who do bad things. I wonder what that says.