Racism as a tool .

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 101 discussions (804 posts)

81
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
I think I am becoming allergic to words. I am starting to hate them. This issue gets down to COMMON SENSE. I cannot keep fighting brains with only words, words and more words… a fire hose of words which I cannot... will not…
I am done…
I must save MYSELF.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Kathryn, common sense. Where is the common sense in subjugating oneself to another for their profit and not your own?
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Private interests are not our interests."

That simple little statement tells all we need to know about you. You are a member of the collective, and you have zero respect for the individual citizen or his private property rights.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you want my respect earn it. I'm not a serf doffing my cap at his Lordship.
  Those private interests have zero respect for me or my property rights.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you dishonestly mischaracterized what I said to suit your purposes. I didn't ask for your respect. I said you have no respect for the individual citizen or his private property rights. Neither did Marx, and nearly 100,000,000 have died due to his twisted philosophy.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Dishonest! Rubbish. You is not you personally, it is all who disrespect me.
  
  And who are the nearly 100,000,000 who have died as a result of Marxist philosophy?
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're right about one thing John...I have zero respect for Marx, and any fool who would follow him.
  
  And yes, I know that Marxists like to quibble over exactly how many have died due to their philosophy, and why, but I have no intention of entertaining your silly defense of Marxism. Suffice to say that millions have died due to Marx's collectivist rantings.
  
  That you and other Marxist adherents don't care about the millions of dead tells us all we need to know.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say I didn't' care, I just asked you to explain but as you won't I have no qualms about claiming 100,000,000 deaths due to capitalism and in the spirit of not having to justify claims I don't expect you to challenge that, just accept it.
  
  By the way, I don't follow Marx. He had some interesting ideas but they aren't really relevant to the 21 century.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"A capitalistic society offers freedom? I maintain that the capitalistic the nation the less actual freedom people have."

Define 'freedom' in that context.
reply report
1. 0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think I already did that. The freedom to be educated, leave a job.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're confusing rights with freedoms. We are all free to seek higher education, but we have no right to have it given to us.
  
  This is the philosophy of the left. They feel they have a right to a 'free stuff', but since nothing is free, what they really mean is that they think they have a right to their 'share' of what someone else earned. That's the dangerous collectivist thinking that threatens real freedom.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, we are not all free to seek a higher education and you will see that the more capitalistic the country is the less free we are to seek said education. To be free to make choices is what we are talking about. I'm not saying post secondary education should be free, but then again why is primary and secondary education completely publicly funded and post secondary education is not? I know that where I live post secondary education is partially publicly funded, but still rather expensive, I currently have two children in university.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ?? Confusion. What law prohibits looking for, and buying, higher education?
  
  And it's much the same here - government grants abound as well as subsidized loans, for higher education. It's still expensive, but a person willing to work can make it happen.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He means 'free' as in don't have to pay for it. This is the new entitlement society and I'm sure that 'Rad Man (aptly named) thinks he's entitled to a 'free' education courtesy of someone else's money.
  
  I'm sure our friend John sees it the same way.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, I don't have the sort of muddled thinking necessary to warp everything I read.
  
  Rad man stated quite clearly that the question wasn't paying or not paying but freedom of access. He even says "I am not saying that post secondary education should be free"!
  
  How do you manage to read that as a demand for free education?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Have to agree with John here (will wonders never cease!) - I read it as "free access", not free to be educated. Perhaps RadMan will elucidate.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, I had to go and lie down
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I did too. The thought of agreeing with you once more gave me such a case of the willies I got all light headed and had to lie down for a time. Scary though, that!
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So what is 'free access' as opposed to some other kind of access? How is access being denied?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong name, wrong family, wrong address, wrong colour, that do you?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I asked. I don't have the answer, so asked the person making the post.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123433? … ost2615723
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope not free quite the opposite, in countries that handle their education properly anyone can get a student loan (interest free) with a subsidization for texts and living expenses if they have the grades, if you get really good grades the state will even pay off a lot of your debt for you, then the student pays back what he owes very slowly with the money they make from their career, additionally the whole nation benefits from their increased education, analysis of this system in Australia found that it contributed 450% more public funds than it cost.
  
  Plus it rewards people with the brains to be doctors etc. rather than just parents wealthy eneough to put them through the best universities.
  
  It's a... well a sane system unlike what we have in the US.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome back Josak.
  
  They will never understand that. All they know is that somebody might better society at their expense.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Cheers, good to see you
  
  Yeah the desire to cling to every thing yelling "Mine! mine!" ends up hurting us all and ironically eneough harming even them. I suspect these people never stop to consider why their doctor costs five times more than it does in the rest of the developed world... it's because there is a shortage of doctors because the education system isn't accessible.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And their health system costs so much because they insist on the capitalists being able to profit off them.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yup.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/troyonink/2 … r-college/
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly my point, what passes for a post school education system in the US is "we won't charge you interest on this loan while you are in College then afterwards we will charge as much as 8% interest, plus we will have a maximum loan amount that won't cover many more expensive courses (like medicine)" (that's if you successfully apply mind you) "Oh and also you better be able to work while studying medicine while getting decent grades because living costs are out"
  
  If you don't understand the massive difference between that and what was outlined above then I really can't help you.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Student loan debt is now over $1 trillion!!
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What's the mortgage debt? Bet it's waayy over that.
  
  Shouldn't we be providing free housing, and erase all that terrible debt?
  
  What's the automobile debt load? Shouldn't we be giving cars away free (more important here than the UK, you understand)? Shouldn't food be free? And electricity and clean water? Sewage/garbage removal? Shouldn't everything in life be free, or at least paid for by someone else? Why just pick on health care and education and food and at least a subsidy for housing?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Man did we not JUST cover that it isn't free?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry - I had the wrong sub-thread.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123433? … ost2615791
  
  Radman clarified his statement to mean that education should be paid for by someone other than the student.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I said no such thing. I pay my taxes and I pay for the education of my children through both my taxes and my bank account. Should we all pay no taxes and would we all be able to afford to educated our children without paying taxes? Is education not good for the society we live in? We pay for healthcare as well and it supplies freedom. If we let corporation completely have their way we would all work for minimum wage and be without healthcare if we lost our jobs. Without a government dictating what a minimum wage is we'd be working for much less an hour and the corporations would be making much more money. Freedom is the ability to make your own choices.
  report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In their notion of a perfect world, all that would indeed be 'free'. That's the insanity of the far left.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  *Sees people on the left right above this comment specifically saying it's not free and explaining exactly how it is not with figures on how it performs and explanations on how it works* *ignores that and makes sweeping and incorrect generalization based on emotion rather than fact*
  
  Sums up the right pretty well I think.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Is there any real difference in a massive subsidy and just paying for it outright? Seems just a matter of degree to me, and not a large one at that.
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123433? … ost2615826
  report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you don't understand what free means.
  
  When you give something away for free it means you give something and receive nothing in return, if you receive a return 450% larger than you gave away then you aren't giving anything for free you are making a (wise) investment.
  
  If you receive something for free it means you don't pay for it, if you pay it back 450% then you aren't receiving something for free, you are the focus of an investment.
  report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who pays back free education? The person trading his now valuable skills for a commensurate amount of money? That's "paying it back"?
  report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. Their better education allows them to find better, higher paid work and therefore pay more in taxes. They have greater disposable income which they spend providing employment for others who also contribute more to the tax pool.
  They are also more employable which reduces the drain on other tax payers and yet you are all struck with fear that someone may get something for nothing to the extent where you will cripple your countries economy.
  report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Correct. True freedom is given those without the means the ability.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How much is taken from US citizens individually to support unfortunates? 100 per year?
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Rad man stated quite clearly that the question wasn't paying or not paying but freedom of access."

Then Rad Man needs to define "freedom of access'.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why? It's perfectly clear to most of us.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then tell us what that means. How hard could it be?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness has already done that.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Wilderness has already done that."

No he didn't, and he confirmed that right after you claimed otherwise.

Trying to get a straight answer out of you is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness said " I read it as "free access", not free to be educated."
  
  You only get straight answers off me.
  reply report
0
Rad Manposted 10 years ago
How do you guys get "I am not saying that post secondary education should be free" to "free education"?

I'm aware of the problems my learning disabilities cause, but that was a leap to say the least.

There are those who can't find any jobs, can't get excepted into a higher education and can't afford one, I'm currently paying for two with another hopefully in a few years. I've worked hard to be able to afford to house and educate my kids while they work part time jobs to save a few dollars. Luckily we live in an area with access to transportation to the universities otherwise the cost would go from $7000 a year for tuition to as much a $25000 a year. Do you guys think the same thing should be done for high school? What about grade school? What's really the difference? Do we make people pay for their own education starting from 4 years old? Most of us might agree that early education is a necessity, but where is the line and when does it become part of our freedom to choose? I'm not sure what higher education is like wherever you guys are, but an 85% average doesn't get one into many schools where I am, therefore for some that freedom to become anything you like is not really a choice is it?

Corporations are inherently greedy and opportunistic psychopaths by there very nature. They need to look after their stock holders at all costs. The less government intervention the more greedy they become. One needs to look no further than big banks and how they are responsible for the destruction of entire environments. They need to be given rules just and toddlers do.

Freedom, in my opinion is being free to make decisions without fear and with respect of people being hurt. Fear of losing ones medical insurance because of a decision works for the benefit of corporations, while they make billions and pay employees as little as possible.

Sorry for the ramblings, it's a rather complicated issue.
reply report
1. 76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Guess I misunderstood, then - sounds like you really do mean a free education rather than the ability to walk into the college as they choose to or not.
  
  Can I have the freedom to choose between caviar and lobster? Can I choose which wine I wish with that dinner, from a $4 wine to $4,000? Can I choose to drive a lamborghini? Or fly a private jet? I don't think so in any of those cases - why then should I pay for someone else to choose to have secondary education? It's not like the country has a dearth of people with that education already, paid for by themselves instead of someone else.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I'm confused now as well. I think it would have been clearer if Radman hadn't expanded on his theme.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Having said that, why should doctors, for instance, be selected from those who can afford the training whilst those who cannot afford, although they might make better doctors don't get to be doctors?
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Bingo.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How do you tell the difference BEFORE training and years of experience? Will you just guess and spend millions training everyone that wants that high paying job? Pick and choose by looks?
  
  Or should we train only those willing to put out the effort to pay for their own training in the hopes that that extra effort means they will be a better, more caring doctor rather than someone just wanting high pay without any consequences?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Uhhh like the sane world does if you have good grades then you can get in. Seems downright blindingly obvious to me, I would love to see you argue that ability to pay for an academic course is a better indicator of capacity to succeed in it than academic performance.
  
  This should be good.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's rather like saying to little Johnny in SK. "Well Johnny, nice job. But unless your parents can afford another $15,000 for grade 1 your 95% average for SK is meaningless and little Billy get in with his 65% because his family has the money. That's freedom alright.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Don't give them ideas. The exact same people were the ones opposing funded primary schools back in the day and every new thing they oppose they claim will ruin America, until it works, then they supported it all along.
  
  You can sit on the shore and watch it happen with same sex marriage.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Uhhh...by the time good grades are acheived, the cost has already been paid - you do know that?
  
  Not the ability to pay - we all have that. The willingness to work and earn, through hardship and hard work, what is necessary. The willingness to take on a debt load if necessary. The willingness to put forth a great deal of effort to become a doctor. It is worth far more than good grades, IMHO.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously school grades... Seriously I don't see how this can be complicated.
  
  No we don't all have that ability to pay, mainly those born privileged.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Enthusiasm. I want to be a doctor because I want to serve the people against I want to be a doctor because it will make me a lot of money.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope, you're still not understanding. Did I say post secondary education should be free of charge? Did I say secondary education should be free of charge? Did I say primary education should be free of charge?
  
  I'm simply saying pure capitalism or countries with less involved governments and a capitalistic society limit real freedom. The freedom to choose.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I guess the definition of "freedom" is being understood differently, then. I will not, nor can you or anyone else, give me the freedom to flap my arms and fly like a bird. Freedom, to me, does not include the impossible, and "impossible" includes whatever you cannot do yourself. You do not have the freedom to force others to help you do what you wish - only what you can accomplish alone or with willing and freely given help.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So I guess we should abandon government funded primary and secondary education then? Because we don't want to force others to help educate others children? The little 4 year old should learn to fend for himself then right? And hey, I don't use the roads on the other side of town, I'm not going to pay for those.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, in your opinion does this country need all college grads or do we still need a lot of blue collar workers, primarily learning by OJT? I know where I stand - I was a humble electrician - but what is your take? And if you choose to go the OJT route you should pay for someone else's college? Or should we just give the cost of higher education to everyone and let them do what they wish with it?
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We were talking about freedom right. The freedom to choose. There are many who wish to be an electrician. Me being one of them.
  reply report
2. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We are TWINS Rad...
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Guess I misunderstood, then - sounds like you really do mean a free education rather than the ability to walk into the college as they choose to or not"

That's the way I read it, and that's why I'm always suspicious of terms like 'access'. That's the same term used by the feminists concerning birth control when they really mean is free, as in no cost to them!

As you may have noticed, you'll never get more than a mealy-mouthed dodge from the left when they're not willing to reveal their real positions and goals.

BTW, 'free education' at any level is not free. It's paid for by the taxpayers, but they never get credit for it from the left. The left credits big government.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh don't be silly. the government only has tax payers money. I've never heard anybody claim any differently.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes they do - I've seen several counts where people are advocating printing more money and giving everyone the equivalent of a minimum wage. Madness, of course, but we see it all the time - far too many people think govt. is just a bottomless pit of money, to do with as they please. Including our politicians that think trillion dollar deficits are just fine, that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren can pay it off with no trouble.
  reply report
2. 84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hey! If that were dollars, we could all have "access" unlesd of course, someone decides to pry my share from my cold dead lazy fingers. Lol... guess it is your gigazillion.. lol...
  reply report
3. 0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Women should pay for their own birth control as men should pay for their own (blood flow) pills. However if one wants to purchase insurance that covers those costs then that between them and the insurance company.
  
  Education is not free, it's paid for by the people for the benefit of the people. Still never said it should be free. You guys?
  
  I'm talking about freedom here, the freedom to make choices. I've been self employed for almost 20 years and there have been some very lean years. Freedom.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If freedom means giving up hard earned money to pay for someone else's wants and desires, then we most definitely have a different idea of what the word means. Some things are necessary to maintain the country - taxpayers funding secondary education is not one of them.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"I'm talking about freedom here, the freedom to make choices"

Again, what the hell does that mean? What 'choice' are you not free to make?

Be specific, please.
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"True freedom is given those without the means the ability."

Again, what in the world does that mean?
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We can sum it up thus I believe (rad man can correct me if I am misunderstanding his intent)
  
  If you were a child born to a starving family on the brink of death and a I approached you and said "What a wonderful place you live in, here there are no laws preventing you from mining wherever you want and no obligation to pay taxes, you are so free" and then promptly watched you starve to death that would be a sick joke not a political position that "freedom" is utter meaningless drivel perpetuated by the people who want to mine whatever they please and not pay taxes.
  
  On the other hand if I approach a child and say "well kid you aren't entirely free, you have regulations on where you can mine and you are going to have to pay taxes, on the plus side you get to go to school, make a career and travel etc." then that child has much more freedom in practice than the one above because he has ACCESS to it.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Perfect.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And the starving child is free to go up to you and demand you pay for their support and education. And you are free to either pay it or go to jail. Perfect.
  reply report
84
gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
The worst thing that ever happened to America was progressivism, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, who gave us the Federal Reserve and income tax. As a result we had to endure the great Depression, and sit by while the next progressive president, FDR, stole the people's gold money out of the banks, and forced social programs on us that kept America in a depression until after the war, when we finally lowered taxes and began to boom again. Don't ever let a lying (or ignorant) progressive try to revise that history.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I love the logic it's the same logic as used with the current recession, crisis occurs under conservative administration, instead of taking any responsibility you immediately blame it on the past administration then when the next progressive administration undergoes the long and painful process of fixing your mess you claim that they are to blame for extending it. Rinse and repeat.
  
  Conservatives can't run an economy to save their lives and the facts prove it. See below.
  
  Prediction: Here comes the part where they ignore the facts.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So when GDP was low the rate of growth was high, and you attribute to a democratic president. And when the population growth slowed, so did the rate of employment growth (obviously necessary) and you attribute it to a democratic president. I think you need to dig a little further, look at a whole raft of additional data, and then try to make an honest call instead of a party based one.
  reply report
2. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank God for you, Will Star!
  reply report
84
gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago
There are so many people that refuse to understand the concept of responsibility and accountability. Nothing in this life is free nor should be free. It is the parents' duty, not the government, to provide for and educate their children. In essence, if one cannot afford to provide for nor educate his/her child, then DON'T become a parent. So many people act willy-nilly, not considering the ramifications of their actions. The government does not owe anyone anything. What happened to the concept of paying for health care and education? My parents DID it.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it, you say it like a statement of fact (when in fact it's a merit-less opinion) but please prove that a parent is responsible for a child because they share a percentage of their DNA but people are not responsible for each other within a nation because they share less DNA.
  
  Nonsensical.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you claiming that society should raise all children? A massive government run childrens home? Because...??
  reply report
2. 0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What if your parents could have done it? What if they got ill and were unable to work? Did they really pay for your primary and secondary education with any government involvement? Would you let a child starve if his parents couldn't pay for food because they passed away?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Figured that one was coming - it always does: "YOU WANT TO KILL THE LITTLE CHILDREN!!". Somehow it always comes down to that forlorn cry, without a hint of truth in it.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Red herring anyone?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Would you let a child starve..." Somehow, Rad, it always comes to that when liberals try to justify the massive entitlement society we have become. "BUT THE CHILDREN WILL STARVE!" seems to always be the rallying cry for ever more government charity.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000 in agreement. ENOUGH is ENOUGH, time to apply TOUGH LOVE. TOUGH LOVE is the solution!
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Can't do much tougher than jail, extreme poverty, failing education, skyrocketing sales tax, and JOB REDISTRIBUTION.
  MY daddy made something from NOTHING no dad, no education. But he was a genius. Not everyone has genius. Or a wife at home who knows how to wife correctly.
  I just hope that by the time you all get your wish, I am dead and gone. I really don't want to see that fight.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then just answer the question and be done with it. Would you help out a fellow human? It's really that simple. I would and I do.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  AFTER you answer a question for me: is it ethical to play Robin Hood? To rob (legally or otherwise) to give out as charity according to YOUR wishes instead of theirs? Is that a moral stance to take today?
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, a government has a right to take taxes and use those taxes for the good of society. It's not steeling it's paying. When you go to a movie do you claim the guy at the box office stole your money? Do you think you get to decide how much taxes you pay? How many people would opt out of paying for primary and secondary education? How many would opt of paying for infrastructure?
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In THIS country, taxes must be used according to how the people voted for them to be used… But, of course, you do not live in this country, so how could you know?
  
  BTW, FYI: We are a country of men standing on their own two feet.
  We help one another other because we are human beings with hearts free enough to care. In this country, as everywhere in the entire world, love is what wins in the end. Universal truths are carried forth here, because it is facilitated by the Constitution…not demanded by those who find themselves temporarily in need.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm willing to wager I know more about your country than you do about mine. BTW, we also vote in our politicians.
  
  This folks is why I tend to shy away from political forums. Is there really a need to attempt to insult and belittle me like that?
  
  Next I suppose I'll get some along the lines of America is the best country in the world…
  
  2013 Forbes list of Happiest Countries.
  
  1. Norway
  2. Switzerland
  3. Canada
  11. United States
  
  Bye People, thanks for the conversation.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Don't go Rad!!! Happy is important. This country is angry. Very much so. It's the fault of everyone. Just think what would have happened if those slithering murderous thieves would have picked their OWN damned cotton! Instead, they wanted to do no work...pulled out the rifles and the boats...
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But that isn't what I asked. I didn't ask if government could morally collect taxes for defense, infrastructure, etc. (the good of society) I ask if it could morally (not legally, morally) take my money to distribute to individuals that do not contribute in return. Individual charity, not "for the good of the country", and according to the wishes of a politician buying votes, not according to MY wishes.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If you think it is not for the good of the country imagine millions of hungry laying waste to everything.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Poor people contribute as well.
  Sales tax hits every head here. My 6 yr old must give two cents to the government for each pack of bubble gum. So, again, poor get NOTHING for free here. They may even put in more than they get back! I keep all receipts. I'm running out of room and I do need to make more space. One day, I will find my purpose for saving them; but now I must say that I should count strictly, the tax portion. Probably my 9cents PLUS...
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do poor people not contribute with EACH AND EVERY purchase they make? Not only the food stamps since they are "free" but toothpaste, deodorant, glasses (if one "chooses" to see the hand before their faces), boots, bras, computer privileges to look for a needle in a haystack; all costs money. They must contribute...
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah! Who cares!?!?
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Logic is wasted on a liberal. To them, it's all about emotions. Logic plays no part.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Logically it's all about the good of the society, not the individual.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No it's not. The good of society come first, but only necessities. The good of the individual, when not necessary, always trumps those of society. If that makes sense.
  
  So society does not NEED more highly educated people; it will add little or nothing. Society DOES require an educated population to survive and prosper, thus the free primary education, but the same cannot be said of secondary education and thus it is not incumbent on individuals to supply it for everyone.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And there it is...the dream of a socialist paradise.
  
  Some of those who view the masses as superior to the individual see themselves as an anonymous member to be taken care of from cradle to grave by their benevolent masters. They will be safe, warm, and well fed, like a child. All they have to do is obey.
  
  Others see themselves as the elitists who will be in charge of the seething masses, and they are the real monsters because they envision strict control and the death of dangerous individualism by any means necessary. Those who step out of line will be dealt with swiftly and permanently.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What is "IT?"
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Logically it all about the good of the society, not the individual."
  
  Yes, Let us turn in the sunlight swimming happily as one big happy school of fish. Because "logically" we have no inner polestar, no guiding light within and must depend exclusively on each other!
  
  Yet, some do believe in their own destinies, hopes, dreams and ambitions. Some do feel an inner sense of purpose and reason to exist. Some find themselves tapping into free will, intelligence and awareness. So, let the fish, (like those in Canada,) swim in their schools.
  
  Some of us are more evolved.
  reply report
3. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, not from the poverty stricken... that DOES help some. My parents could not afford our electricity at times... so they shouldn't have had ME??? How rude...
  Sex is free (unless it aint) but what else does one DO when they cant do anything else?
  I didn't have a TOTALLY poverty stricken existence. My parents HAD jobs. Until they didn't. What do we do with such rubbish??? Oh, that's right...drop em atop the heap.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Boredom seems a very poor reason for bringing a life into this world...
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not boredom. Fun! Natural fun...
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, it isn't boredom but reckless irresponsibility that causes parents to have children that they can ILL AFFORD. Where is the intelligence and foresight regarding parenthood? Parenthood to so many people is a right instead of a privilege and look at what the FIRST though created? If parents had children when they can AFFORD to, poverty would be eliminated by least 50%.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then everyone could KEEP 50% of their 9 allocated cents!!!
  I'm gonna go to Disneyland with my freed up money!!! Wait... they may take that 4.5 cents and give it to China for just being China... gotta love America and her citizens that will be begging for Lazarus one day...
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Greatest country on earth? Just how is that measured. Are you number one in education, healthcare and standard of living?"

"Most bald eagles."

And that's what the far left really thinks about America.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A better measure than you have provided which is none... also I mean you know what satire is right?
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Ah bad news, it turns out Canada might have more bald eagles. Damn!
  
  Because if we are measuring by wealth per capita, quality of life, education, healthcare etc. it's just not
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What Canada has is an abundance of beavers and a few bald eagles.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How about if we measure it by the size of home, per occupant? And the number/cost of large toys like RV's? And the open places (Canada would win, Europe would lose big time). Don't forget that Americans, on the whole, do not have the same values, wants and desires as other countries with people crammed elbow to elbow.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
One of the smartest men who ever lived, Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winning economist, discusses the capitalistic system with Phil Donahue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alP0WiL2P0g
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  At last count there were five times as many progressive economist Nobel prize winners than conservative, incredibly weak reply, no answer to the facts except more opinion pieces. The facts have a liberal bias.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  From wikipedia:
  "Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition."
  Nowhere in that do I see reference to redistribution of wealth, socialism or using tax monies to pay for wants or even needs of individuals.
  reply report
2. 0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Capitalism works well if it's regulated. Corporations need to have rules. A minimum wage for example.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
This is logic vs emotionalism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYW5I96h-9w
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope you through this whole this thread is, economists intellectually beating up on teenagers however isn't very interesting, or elucidating to your point.
  
  How about you answer the facts huh, why do Conservative governments provide fewer jobs, less growth and more inequality throughout American history?
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"At last count there were five times as many progressive economist Nobel prize winners than conservative..."

Which should be no surprise since the Nobel committee consists of liberals.

But not many of those progressives wanted to debate with Friedman, because they knew he would hand them their butts!
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Incorrect, pretty much all of his contemporaries debated Friedman at various points, also you may have noticed Friedman has kind of disappeared from the public spotlight as the years went past and more and more of his predictions failed to come about. While Keynes and Krugman continue to be influential.
  
  Friedman has even become more and more moderate as the years go past for example saying this about Austrian economics (what you are advocating).
  
  "I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm."
  
  Milton Friendman
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  TO be clear that is Milton Friedman advocating economic interventionism, exactly what you oppose.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"you may have noticed Friedman has kind of disappeared from the public spotlight as the years went past and more and more of his predictions failed to come about."

That's probably more likely to be because he died 8 years ago.

Try to keep up.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  First of before he died secondly Keynes died almost seventy years ago and is still very much a part of the public debate.
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
Hey! Who's playing with the negative sign in my post?!?!
reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
Is there a way to find out how much of the individual American's money goes to social programs?
reply report
1. 87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Right at 60 cents out of every federal dollar is spent on social programs:
  
  https://www.google.com/search?q=federal … B870%3B628
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Now, that is totally unnecessary. People have to start taking responsibility and be accountable to themselves and for their families. The problem is an entitlement society. That is what these social programs create. So many people have become so accustomed to these social programs that they feel that these programs are necessities. An example of this is our current welfare system. Think how much America would prosper if this program was slashed by AT LEAST 60%!
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is WHAT some Americans have become........I'm entitled, ENTITLED, I tell YOU.........
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Seems ridiculous. Have you actually thought about that figure? Lots of things are paid for with government funds. Poor people are not THAT important in a capitalist country. War, national security, huge paychecks to the lawmakers, police, fire. We could not afford no 60 cents on the dollar for poor people!!! Insane notion. People probably WOULD stay at home and live off the fat of the land. Lol. Not for one second does this country think of its poor people enough to give them MOST of their money. Still laughing.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We're not talking about Social Security. We are talking foodstamps and healthcare. That figure for welfare? Unreasonable. If the government spent more than half it's dollar to support the needy, they'd certainly have jobs.
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
Poverty: What % of Your Tax Dollar Really Goes to Help the Free-Loading, Indigent, Ought-to-Get-a-Job American's?
- My Esoteric.

I googled the question and a hubber popped up. He says, the amount is small. Like unnoticeable. Which is what I thought. Pennies even...
I feel like we must get better, before we get worse..
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
We are a Constitutional Republic, and our Constitution grants government certain limited powers while protecting the rights, liberties and freedoms of We, the People. The Constitution belongs to We, the People! We wrote the Constitution, and we said so with the first three words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's why "We the People" are the first three words of the Constitution, written in huge script so they cannot be ignored. You can see it here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … ution.html
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Logically it all about the good of the society, not the individual."

No, that is not logical, because America was built by rugged individuals, and even today, individuals continue to create new wonders and discover new things. Kill individualism, and you kill our future.
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Thank You, WillStarr ! ! !
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
My wife is a labor and delivery nurse. Today, well over half of her patients are not married, have no money or insurance, and have no intention of paying for anything.

Their kids will grow up on our taxpayer dime and, without a father's guidance, they will usually turn to crime and drugs. Then they too will have children, also out of wedlock and on the taxpayer dime, many while they are still children themselves.

When over half of all US babies will now grow up to be uneducated, and unskilled burdens on society, we are doomed as a successful nation.
reply report
1. 84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed, also add the illegals to the mix........It will be a CATACLYSM of EPIC proportions. America is going to hell in a handbasket. It is time to stop aiding the underclass, mandating that they work or starve. It is also time to send the illegals to their respective countries-PROBLEM SOLVED.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct. My wife is bilingual so she gets all the Spanish speaking only patients.
  
  Most of them are either illegals or Mexican citizens who come here pregnant, wait until they are in labor, and then show up at a hospital, knowing that they cannot legally be turned away. They get a free delivery, courtesy of taxpayers, and as a bonus, their child is also a US citizen, which Americans will be on the hook for until the age of 18. Many do this over and over and over again.
  
  As a result, several hospitals have closed their labor and delivery facilities, because they are losing vast amounts of money. Those who get free deliveries are also the ones most likely to sue.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  This really SICKENS me to no end. The Great Society whose purpose was to elevate poverty stricken people into the middle class created a mass welfare society which has progressively gotten worse. This Great Society has seen its "zenith" with the Obama administration which has exacerbated this issue with the amnesty program. America is going to be bankrupt. As a result of the influx of illegals, there is going to be a horrific backlash against the Latino population and it will not be pretty at all. Latinos are going to be the scapegoat for America's socioeconomic ills and malaise.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "mandating that they work or starve." spoken like a true socialist. Welcome to the fold grace.
  reply report
2. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Funny, that is what I was getting at!
  reply report
3. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Here is an odd tale: My visiting eleven year old niece and I were walking around in a particular seaside town in So Cal where the locals are affluent and progressive. Three young women were walking together, one with a very young infant… like three days old. My niece and I knew the baby should not be out and around so young. I wondered if there was a father. Suddenly a suspicion arose that maybe the three roommates were raising the baby together. Then I thought, "Stop writing a bad movie script." But, my niece blurted out, (at her tender age,) "Yeah, they probably live together and are raising that baby."
  "There's no Dad?" I asked.
  "Naw!" she said.
  And she should know. She is from a costal community up north.
  However, in conclusion, we were merely surmising and hopefully there is a dad in the picture.
  - probably is.
  One can only hope in this day and age.
  reply report
4. 0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, I wonder what can be done about that? How can we possible turn that around?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Stop supporting the mothers. Sue for delivery costs.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where would the mothers get the money from?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  They probably won't, to pay the delivery costs; instead sell their TV, phone, etc. and get what you can. If they won't work for their dinner, let them starve - that's in line with what you've said before.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Trouble is that I believe in providing work for people, capitalists don't.
  reply report
5. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You mean half of poor/lazy/fatherless babies... not even worth a quarter of U.S. Census numbers. Especially if you consider the fact that black babies are in all of our heads when you make that statement.
  Half of the black population survives...hmmmm...I'm starting to sense a cons...
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Easy in? Easy out ?
  
  No
  
  C O N S E Q U E N C E S ! ! !
  
  Death
  might just be one.
  
  THINK ABOUT IT!
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, death. That's better. Let them slowly die off. Then we REAL people...wait! "The poor you will have with you ALWAYS..." I believe that. Poor in spirit, poor in dollars, poor in health, poor in judgment, poor in...well you get the picture.
  There is not one man alive who is beyond his circumstances. Life happens to all. When you realize that education is next...and 29 people are completing in your area for 2 jobs. Call me. I will drive you to the welfare office and show how to fill out the forms. People with M.A./M.S. degrees will soon be competing for those jobs.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  People without compassion, what a shame. Some think nothing bad will or can ever happen to them. Don't get me wrong, I personally know people who don't and won't work and have children and smoke and get their nails done. Makes me sick. I'd like to think those are a very small minority.
  
  You are right however, when they are talking about moms with children with no dads and no jobs they are in fact picturing blacks. We could let them fend for themselves or we could ensure they get a good education and a trade to fall back on. That would end the cycle rather then letting it continue and complaining about it.
  
  Racial issues are a lot different up here, we still have them, but they are much different.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm so glad you're my friend.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not as glad as I am. Thanks.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I understand. The abuser of the system is possibly more at fault for their situation than others. But they too have issues (mental, physical, and/or systemic). Or, they are happy with little to nothing. I do believe them to be minority. But to withdraw the meager (and I do mean meager) assistance, is downright petty. And dangerous. That mindset has very innovative ways to TAKE what they want. Now who do you think taught them THAT??? LOL...
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ...what is your solution?
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Make it so that everyone has a leg... no need in making things harder for people by hoarding precious food and healthcare. Times were great before all the talk about "ME, first and foremost"
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OMG, I find myself agreeing with you.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I knew you'd come to see things my way. Lmao...
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian...
  
  An then advocate letting people we can help die, the hypocrisy is sickening.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Yes, a government has a right to take taxes and use those taxes for the good of society."

1) Our government has no 'rights'. It has delegated powers. Only the people have rights.

2) Democrat politicians buy votes by taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who did nothing to earn it, with the tacit understanding that they will in turn, vote for their Democrat benefactors.
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"So, in conclusion we were merely surmising and hopefully there is a dad in the picture."

There seldom is. Most of the dads simply deposit their sperm and move on. Lots of these moms have little to no idea who the dad is. Most of these babies will never know or ever meet their biological father, and most of their siblings will each have a different, absent father.

There's such a thing as 'stigma' and it's a useful tool. Not long ago, the majority of Americans smoked, and they smoked wherever they wanted. But today, there's a stigma attached to smoking, so only a minority still smoke, and they do it furtively, and with a sense of shame.

Having children out of wedlock used to have a stigma attached to it, so most women demanded a ring and vows before they submitted to the act that creates a child. Having sex without the benefit of marriage was considered to be a stupid act. It was called 'having a reputation', and no girl wanted to have a reputation, so most refused, and most of those few who did submit were at least engaged.

But radical feminism disposed of that stigma because they thought they could raise children without the nuisance of a father in the house. Today, if we criticize a woman who breeds out of wedlock, we are attacked as sexists and misogynists, as if we were the problem.

We need to return to such useful stigmas, like drug use and having babies out of wedlock. Those acts are detrimental, so we ought to say so and limit them like we successfully limited tobacco usage.
reply report
1. 84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Remember the 1969 song LOVE CHILD by The Supremes. The song detailed the disgrace in being an illegitimate child. This song was a deterrent to anyone who wanted to have irresponsible sex. Yes, having an illegitimate child was considered a stigma, particularly in the Black middle class in the 1960s. It was considered a disgrace. However, in some segments of the Black lower class, having an illegitimate child was not stigmatized but accepted. It was not uncommon to see Black lower class teens pushing baby carriages. Now, it is NOTHING to have an illegitimate child, even among some segments of the Black affluent classes, especially in the hip hop culture where thuggery is prized. Alas, I am tired, off to bed, this world is going to hell.
  reply report
2. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I would say we need to REBEL against those who took away the stigma: The "Love the one your with generation..." MY generation!
  
  AUGHH!!! And here is the actual crux of the problem. The boundaries for Sex is not stipulated anywhere! Just like drug and alcohol use. It is pretty much left up to individual discretion.
  
  And Society IS to blame, as you state, WillStarr. But society has become weak like a pitiful old mare. Like an old mare that has lost it's vigor. Society is full of weak, plodding lifeless boundary-less, sapped-of-all-robust-strength…and why?
  
  NO ONE is setting boundaries and holding anyone accountable.
  
  "Oh, go on... whatever... as long as I am not involved. Just let me smoke… I mean, eat my grass in peace."
  
  That is what the hippies wearing rose colored glasses did to society:
  "Peace man," they said.
  "Make love not war," they said.
  "Turn on and on tune out," they said.
  "Love the one you're with," they said.
  
  And now guess what? They're in political power with all their socialistic liberal agendas, which can only lead to soft despotism.
  
  "Oh, let the poor people buy homes!"
  "Print more money and bail out whoever, I mean hey, no one should suffer consequences!"
  Oh, there are poor tiny Smelt dying? Thats is so environmentally detrimental… just drain off some fresh water."
  "Oh, the youth can't find work? Can't afford cars? Let them ride Bikes! Bike lanes for all!"
  "Oh, the Mexicans and South Amercians need our help? Open the borders to the south!"
  
  ...and of course the GOP and all its greed-oriented corruptions as well.
  "Make oil, not love!"
  "Trick the one you're with."
  (Now, I'm getting really carried away.)
  
  VOTE EM ALL OUT, I say!
  
  This next election better be taken very seriously. It is up to us as far as the future. Do we want a good one or a bad one?
  A good one, of course.
  We have to make it happen.
  We need a thoroughbred society.
  Lets go.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn, with this fiasco administration, people are waking up and looking at the increasingly abysmal and dismal state of America. People will vote SMARTER the next election, they are SICK of what America is becoming.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, good!!! Keep up the good work gmwilliams!
  reply report
3. 84
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Damn! You have the nerve to say "stigmas" served a purpose! What are you a fossil from the 50s?
  
  It appears that nowadays it may label me as a fossil too, but I agree with you. What the hell happened to shame and morals?
  
  Hold on ladies, put those knives away... it doesn't matter what age you are or what era you were/are raised in, getting pregnant should be a choice and not a consequence, and having a father for your choice should be a priority not an "added benefit."
  
  And to the deadbeat dads that fit WillStarr's rant - buiy some Trojans or stick it in a meat grinder, because you are a jerk if you don;t
  
  Just sayin'
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Anderson, LOVING IT, PREACH. I couldn't have said it better. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"The poor you will have with you ALWAYS..." I believe that. Poor in spirit, poor in dollars, poor in health, poor in judgment, poor in...well you get the picture."

The Biblical poor were not lazy louts who lived off others. No, they were the blind, the lame, the sick, the orphan, and the incapable, who simply could not fend for themselves. And that's where our compassion should lie today!

But I once worked with a government program dealing with the 'poor', and I soon discovered that most were just lazy leeches living off of what others earned. That was the beginning of the end of my liberal days.

There should be no federal social programs. They should all be at state and local levels, and paid for by local citizens. That way, we could and would weed out the parasites, and, if we did not like the way the state used our tax dollars, we could move elsewhere, AKA: voting with your feet!
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Must be terrible for you Will, being wedded to a system that not only requires people to be lazy, but actually encourages them.
  reply report
2. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you speak as if the availability of opportunity for all (especially the lout) is there. We have made a society where even the one who works suffers greatly. Remember the lady who FINALLY found a minimum wage job only to become WORSE off? She lives across the street from me. Possibly you too...
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Say what you will, but this is the attitude I ran into every day:
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI#t=33
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know the system down or over there but that's messed up. As far as I know from where I am one needs to apply for an permanent disability to be able to pull that off. I will tell you that some have mastered that system as well, but welfare isn't like that here.
  
  That said I know people who work the system. My own sister didn't want to pay me the $20 for printing stuff that I spend time designing stuff for her that was out of my pocket because she said that what siblings do. Talk about thinking one is entitled. She wanted me to design and print stuff for here for free and she wanted me to spend another $30 to have it delivered to her door, but she didn't want to pay a dime. Haven't spoken to her since. She refused to pay.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Without viewing, I can say me too. I live in the place that you speak of. Round here...things are seriously misjudged by outsiders.
  It is easy to become complacent when every door is slammed in your face. It is easy to give up when your nearest job alternative is minimum wage employment a 2 and a half hour away if you are lucky enough to have a bus route to it. They DO NOT want you to have a driver's license either. Say nothing of the police harassment... Quite a few make it out. But there are often major differences on the inside of a person. Different experience. Different worldview. There are reasons for everything. But many of the people you met, would do better if they could.
  Now ME... I have dreams and ideals and goals. I was taught. Not many have the insides, nor the training. Blame is not a right for anyone. The milk is on the floor. None of us are exempt from catastrophic circumstances.
  reply report
  0
  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Great point, raise the minimum wage so that it's advantageous for one to work. Seems like common sense to me.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then the whole entire economy would come crashing down!!! Heavens no...
  reply report
3. 84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Right again, many of the poor are leeches. They brag about living off others, calling those who work for a living suckers and fools. They also brag about using food stamps to purchase steaks and lobsters while some poor working people can hardly afford steaks and lobsters.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are spot on, and of all the things that rankled me when I worked with welfare people was the utter contempt they had for people who worked for a living. They thought we were the fools, and in a way, they were right, because to this day, we hand out hard earned money to greedy people who think the world owes them a living simply because they exist. That's why I think we should end all social programs at the federal level, and hand it over to the states. If we did, all those cheaters would have to go to work.
  
  Excellent point, gmwilliams!
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why, THANK YOU!
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"That said I know people who work the system. My own sister didn't want to pay me the $20 for printing stuff that I spend time designing stuff for her that was out of my pocket because she said that what siblings do. Talk about thinking one is entitled. She wanted me to design and print stuff for here for free and she wanted me to spend another $30 to have it delivered to her door, but she didn't want to pay a dime. Haven't spoken to her since. She refused to pay."

She expected something for nothing, which seems to be a family trait.

I'm amazed that you don't see how you've just hung yourself with your own rope.
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
I didn't write this. You did, and you provided nothing to back it up:

"you may have noticed Friedman has kind of disappeared from the public spotlight as the years went past and more and more of his predictions failed to come about."

Milton Friedman is quoted all the time, and he is still recognized as one of the smartest and most influential men who ever lived.

BTW, Obama is a Keynesian, which is why the economy sucks and nearly 100,000,000 Americans are out of the work force.
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
Who should decide what the correct minimum wage should be? Who should decide what someone else is worth, if not the employer?

The free market sets wages based on supply and demand, just like all other commodities. During boom times like the Alaskan pipeline, an unskilled and uneducated worker earned three to four times what the same job ordinarily paid.

The left arrogantly assumes that it knows best, so it selects an arbitrary number and declares that it is what someone is worth, no more and no less. But if an employer cannot make the bottom line work with a mandatory minimum wage for an unskilled worker, then he hires someone who is more skilled and productive, and the unskilled worker does not get hired at all. Raising the minimum wage always results in more people out of work.

Wage and price controls have never worked, but the left, in the very definition of insanity, wants to try the same thing over and over again, always hoping for a different outcome.
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Incorrect. Nations with high minimum wages actually have higher employment rates the conservative theory doesn't work. Australia for example has twice the price parity minimum wage as the US (at almost seventeen dollars) and has much higher employment rates. The reason is actually simple:
  
  High turnover unemployment inefficiency: Several economic studies and census' have found a class of worker who regularly bounces between low paid jobs with bad conditions, benefits and wages, they are continuously leaving their workplace on a regular basis precisely because these conditions drive them away and prevent the creation of a loyalty between employee and employer, not only is this inefficient because it lowers worker effectivity and requires constant retraining it also prevents stability which means many workers are often unemployed while changing jobs having left because of the poor wages and benefits.
  
  You really don't know eneough about economics to be throwing these presumptions around.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Gibberish.
  
  We have one thing in common...neither one of us knows what the hell you're babbling about.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry you can't understand it. That doesn't make it gibberish it just means you can't understand it.
  
  Please explain how Australia was a minimum wage of almost $17 and lower unemployment and that it's increases don't correlate with employment growth slow down?
  
  Maybe that is simple eneough.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  To make $18 (not $17) in my area one must have some pretty well defined skills and a good work ethic. Given that minimum wage earners typically have neither (in the US), what does it take to earn that $18 in Australia? Show up two weeks in a row on time or is there considerably more necessary, as there is in the US?
  
  If considerably more, why would anyone achieve those skills and work ethic for only $1? If not, doesn't that mean that the entire wage system is just double what the US is?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It just means that you do your job.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ?? What means you do your job?
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You neglect to mention that there is a separate minimum wage for young workers; the group that the minimum wage is intended for anyway. As in ranging from $6.21 (<16) to $13.92 (19 years old). As few US workers with any skills at all are stuck at minimum wage it kind of puts a different look on the Australian minimum.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There is in the US too so that's meaningless, not to mention in the US we have tipped labor with a much lower minimum wage, in Australia tips still exist but minimum wage still applies. So your point is doubly incorrect.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh? And what is the minimum wage for a 17 year old in the US? An 18 year old?
  
  And tipped employees must earn minimum wage when tips are included; if they do not the business must make up the difference.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, tipped employees are paid a different minimum wage from state to state. I was a server in Michigan for ten years and was never paid more than $2.52/hr. Businesses were not required to make up the difference to full state minimum wage. It is possible that this may be different now, but it doesn't appear to be the case according to the Federal Department of Labor.
  
  http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  According to your chart, the minimum FLSA (federal) wage is $7.25, cash and tip. So if you're not tipped minimum wage the business makes up the difference, with a minimum of $2.13. And that's a federal law; states cannot do less.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm really curious to know where it says that businesses are required to pay you up to the minimum wage if you don't make it in tips? I have never been a party to that, and I've worked for several large corporate restaurants. I'm not being combative, I'd seriously like to know where to find the info.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Minor is counted as 16 in the US and 17 in Aus not a significant difference.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Millions of Americans are on minimum and most American workers are on less than the minimum in Aus. Also in Australia minimum wage only applies to a small portion of workers, generally even just out of school people are paid a few dollars more than minimum, it's seen as being scroungy to pay minimum.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, lots are paid minimum wage, although not as many as you would have us believe. Even McDonalds usually pays more than that. Those with no skills or on totally unskilled jobs; anyone with any skills at all would be a fool to settle for minimum.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-that's why it's called minimum wage. Such jobs are for those with little/no education and skills. Jobs have status and have a pay scale according to the level of education and experience and/or in certain cases, brand and talent. People with the highest skills/education are paid more than those with the lowest skills/education. That is pure inductive and deductive logic.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Seems to me, the more resource circulating, the more money spent, the more employers make in sales, the more revenue to pay in taxes. Everyone wins. But that would mean actually CIRculating.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ...where were you in the 80's?
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You mean right around the time that mortgages of people who raised their children in homes received triple the bill for owning a home??? Oh, moving.
  H.S. Freshman in 86.
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
If that were true, there would have never been a difference in pay for white soldiers than for the black ones. Or any other sector for that matter. More qualified blacks are paid less, period.
reply report
1. 87
  Faith Reaperposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm, well, I know that the Chief of our Investigative Division is black and is paid at the highest level there is, so I guess it just depends where one lives possible. I live in the south. He works hard and is a wonderful person and good man. He deserves every penny, just like anyone else who works hard and who would hold such a position.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I am almost positive that he worked twice as hard, and I'm sure the last white chief was paid more.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Would you like some cheese with that whine?
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Is it free cheese???
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Please explain how Australia was a minimum wage of almost $17 and lower unemployment and that it's increases don't correlate with employment growth slow down?"

Please write a coherent sentence.
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
BTW, Josak, if $17 an hour is good, $27 an hour is obviously better, so why are you Australians so cheap?

Why are you limiting the poor workers to a measly $17 an hour? Don't be such a cheapskate!

In fact, why not raise it to $37 an hour? What the heck, let's just raise it to $100 an hour and make all Australians rich!

Why not? Explain that!
reply report
1. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ( Will: FYI: I think he lives in America. He might just be visiting Australia. He is often in jetliners for some reason. He is originally from South America, Venezuela, I think. He knows all about socialism and advocates it tirelessly.)
  
  Mr. Josak:
  I think you misread what I was trying to say up there. I was merely saying that before one has sex one should be financially capable to support a new life…
  
  Life is, after all, a life and death matter.
  
  All humans must face that truth before putting themselves in a position of creating a new life. In other words one must ask oneself, "Can I AFFORD to create a new little person? If the answer is no, the child could die. I once read a story about a little orphan who sold matches. She sat outside all winter waiting for customers. Eventually she died in the cold. She just perished in her little corner of a tall building in the heart of an American city. Not sure what year it was written.
  
  (BTW Sex usually ends up costing a lot in one way or another… and why burden fellow Americans who are already struggling with their own financial problems and family situations.)
  THINK ABOUT IT
  Be proactive!
  Step away from the eggs.
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's what is required for a decent standard of life, that is what is measured to be so thus the definition, the American minimum wage does not and is not designed to.
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know what constitutes a 'decent standard of life'? Measured by whom? Liberals? What makes you think you're the expert? Why is $100 per hour a 'decent standard of life' for one person, but too much for another person? Based on what?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Economists decide what a decent standard of life is, it's sufficient to cover housing, food, bills and essentials.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I can certainly agree that the American minimum is not designed to give that "decent" standard of living, particularly when it is defined in such a way as to be replete with luxuries.
  
  No, minimum wage is the minimum a single person should need to live on. Not raise a family, not pay large ongoing medical bills, not have a life of luxury. If one wants that, one must learn skills useful in the business world and sell them to a reasonable business. Or apply for welfare, which seems the more popular option by far.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, couldn't agree more. The main purpose of minimum wage is a start up so to speak. People use minimum wage to gain experience and as a start up and move on. Minimum wage jobs AREN'T meant to be lifetime careers. They are jobs for low skilled people who acquire skills and ......LEAVE for better jobs.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  HAHAHAHAHAH and then you complain about people on welfare exactly where you are driving them with that nonsensical attitude. Good work.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
The term is 'entry level' and it refers to unskilled and uneducated young people just entering the job market. To claim that it needs to be a 'living wage' is preposterous, because most of them are still living at home and going to school.

These used to be summer jobs, but now that an employer must pay a minimum wage, he hires someone older, with more experience, so many kids can no longer get summer jobs, thanks to 'helpful' liberal idiots.
reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
I'm grateful to be well taken care of. Not many have that reality. No matter what, people say, government assistance is not the cash cow portrayed. The small amount given to sustain the heavy-laden is not significant enough to jump into the hand-basket that I keep hearing about. But, if you want to jump, not my business. We will account for each and every idle word that comes from our lips.
Lazarus, the beggar, was protected by God. Not the rich man who considered him not fit to eat crumbs from his table.
Crumbs...
reply report
1. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Cgenaea,
  How do you think education could be improved in your area?
  In mine, I would say forget about public school. I would say, get some teachers and create neighborhood schools. There are many people with teaching credentials. They know their basic skills and can teach kids math, writing and reading. All parents have to do is get an affidavit from their state and become knowledgeable about homeschooling requirements.
  With the internet it is so easy to network. Once like minded parents find each other, they can form groups of students. Students can be all different ages. In fact, when different age groups are combined, the older ones can help the younger ones.
  Children should be allowed to work according to their interests and they should be led by encouragement, not force. There is a way to manage a classroom so that discipline AND true learning take place. True learning for me, is working with the curiosity and interest of each child.
  I am actually working on a curriculum called New Direction Education. My system would address/correct some of the issues you mentioned earlier regarding schools/teachers failing kids.
  There is hope for The Individual.
  Every individual.
  
  Here in CA we love our African Americans as all other races. We work hard here to get along as I am sure Florida does. Both states have great diversity. And it hurts me to hear you talk the way you do. We are all God's children made in the image of God. It's absolutely time for every person in the nation to get on the same page. I really thought we were.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Make it more easily accessible.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think education lacks people who care. Especially where the pay is low. Especially when the supplies are subpar. And especially when kids are different. Poorer people generally have a lot of crap at home. The different abilities of processing and coping can become overwhelming.
  School should be the place of monitor it used to be. Then, teachers (the experts in the field) were expected to be held accountable for uh...teaching. Now, teachers expect children to arrive in school with the knowledge already provided at home, by overwhelmed and/or illiterate parents... makes no fn sense to me...
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No one becomes a teacher for the money. It is generally not a career one can survive on. Usually a teacher's partner is making the real money. So, a teacher becomes one for the love of teaching and for the love of making a difference in a child's life. It is such a high.
  
  ...and thats how it was all through the 50's 60's 70's 80's and 90's. But then Bush Jr. comes up with: "No Child Left Behind" and now SOMEONE came up with "Common Core".
  
  The problem is that the Government is DICTATING to teachers EXACTLY HOW AND WHAT TO TEACH! The joy teachers used to have is obliterated, destroyed and utterly killed. (Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the power of the federal government.)
  
  Education is being overtaken by the government by taking away the authority and creativity of each teacher who loves his/her students and wants them to learn. (if I had any sense at all I would open up my own school ASAP and NOT go back to the my Unified School District in the next two weeks!)
  
  Why do we ALL put up with it?
  Survival.
  They have us where they want us.
  Desperate.
  
  However, the power is truly in the hands of the parents. It is not too late to take back the reigns in educating our youth.
  
  it is NEVER too late.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Now see you never told me you got high... lol
  Teachers in the 70's were responsible for the education of their class and they took it seriously.
  Then something happened. Schools became crowded, doublestuffed because of budget cuts needed to cover money mis-manage-ment. Teachers salaries were not commiserate with the influx and regulations in school discipline practices became highlighted in a big way. Teaching became a chore instead of nirvana and student scores reflected that; thus the need for further regulations. Chicken or egg? Doesn't matter. ...milk's on the floor.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Home school??? That is your solution? Then what happens to all the teaching jobs? More people out of work is not a good solution. We need teachers to be amply compensated; have good credentials; and teach, using good tools; in rooms that don't leak in Winter and Spring months.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You are not realizing the severity or the roots of the problem.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You took the words right out of my mouth.
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
And make it more easy to access.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And make sure everyone can access it regardless of their economic status.
  reply report
61
John Holdenposted 10 years ago
"No one becomes a teacher for the money. It is generally not a career one can survive on."

But, but, but!

They must be too lazy and need to go out and get themselves some qualifications!
reply report
1. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "So, a teacher becomes a teacher for the love of teaching and for the love of making a difference in a child's life. It is such a high."
  BTW: A teacher should not start a family unless he or she is married to someone with enough income to do so.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And should they also wear a neat little uniform?
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  no.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn, welcome to my camp regarding the F.E.P. principle of parenting. The F.E.P.principle is that no one should be a parent until he/she is able to support a child financially, emotionally, and psychologically.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  exactly. Why burden your fellow Americans?
  
  It should be a matter of PATRIOTIC DUTY to NOT get pregnant unless you yourself can take care of your own offspring.
  
  Furthermore, you should live in a good school district and you should be able to help the teacher teach your child.
  
  All this hand-out, gib-me gib-me expectation HAS GOT TO GO!
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It certaintly does. So many people believe that they can do and procreate as they please although they cannot afford to take care of their children. However, this does not bother nor perturb them in the least because in their view and mindset, the gub'ment(my play on words) will take care of them and their children. There are some people who want the government to be their benefactor and to take care of them, this is egregious to the multillionth degree.
  
  Why couldn't LIEberals see this? Many people in the United States are poor because of negative mindsets, psychologies, philosophies, and consciousness. They ARE the ones who have to take responsibility and accountability for THEIR own malaise. No one IS going to nor SHOULD do it for them. This dependency culture initiated by the Great Society in the 1960s has reached its ruinous climax under Obumbler. It is time for the gravy train to stop. Kumbaya has stopped and TOUGH LOVE has kicked in. Either they act right or be thrown to the socioeconomic curb.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A million plus ones!
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Pure dreamworld. Yes people shouldn't get pregnant without the ability to care for the child and serious steps have been taken to encourage and allow that (and have succeeded teenage pregnancy is way down) but it still happens and always will so we need a policy to deal with it.
  
  Either you neglect those children and make them grow up in poverty, surrounded by crime and squalor and thereby almost guaranteeing they will continue that legacy OR you offer them a hand out of that life, of course doing the right thing costs money and a little sacrifice by all of us but doing the right thing is always the harder thing to do, otherwise everyone would do the right thing.
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Policy, schmolicy. These teenagers and young people have to learn self-control and to make responsibile choices regarding sexuality and its consequences. In essence, if one is not ready for the responsibilities of sex and parenthood, then do not partake in such activity. There is such a thing as self-discipline and self-control.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In the purely imaginary conservative utopia where that will ever happen sure. Maybe go back there and let the adults deal with the real world.
  
  Teens will be teens and if you cut all benefits for child raising you won't cut pregnancy rates at all, you might increase abortion rates but that's about it.
  
  Teenage pregnancy has never been lower by the way.
  reply report
  61
  Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Last year more than 48,000 babies were born to teenage mothers in Britain.
  
  They cost the taxpayer an estimated £125million in income support alone every year, apart from other costs such as assistance with rent and council tax.
  
  The easy availability of contraception led to steep falls in the teenage birth rate across Europe in the early Seventies.
  
  But while other countries continued to achieve dramatic falls Britain's has not changed since
  
  According to a 1999 report by the Social Exclusion Unit the lack of education in sex and relationships was considered the main cause.
  
  But all the survey's suggest the Prince's Trust may have been more accurate in its assumption that the attraction of financial benefits may be more to blame.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You actually just defeated your own point, across Europe most nations have support for teen mothers and their children several more generous (price parity wise) than the UK and yet their birth rates have dropped... because they provided education.
  
  It's the same here in the US, where we have proper sex education teenage pregnancy is low, in states that have the dumb as nails abstinence "education" (an insult to that word since not a single teenager doesn't know what they supposedly "teach") the teenage pregnancy rate is much higher.
  
  But conservatives will continue to ignore the facts and thus create more people (who they will also work hard to ensure don't receive the help required to get an education etc. which would prevent the problem) who will in turn probably continue this cycle.
  
  It's the circle of short sighted stupidity and it's clearly foreseeable consequences.
  reply report
  61
  Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So you didn't read the post then Josak?
  Its more about financial benefits than sex education.
  Here in the UK there is good sex education with surveys suggesting that Britain is amongst the top 5 nations in the world for participant understanding.
  
  So their lifestyle choice is based on financial gain rather than family planning.
  
  You can lead a horse to water etc etc
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well that doesn't work because the UK has lower than average benefits.
  
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But it says in the Daily Mail that we have wonderfully high benefits and they can't be wrong.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ...not rewarding bad behavior.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Unless...your name is Wall Street, or Bob, needing to erase your debts and start all over again without the harassing phone calls...
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  consequences of actions
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So teaching should be restricted to middle class women with no experience of life or the need to earn a living!
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  My brother and his wife are both teachers. They have two kids and a beautiful home. They are both still paying off their student loans. Why are you speaking about this teacher thing?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why shouldn't I?
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What does it have to do with anything?
  It rained here in CA, John. Isn't that a miracle? Right after Beth said she would pray for our state!
  No one from CA on HP Forums has thanked her.
  So weird.
  Oh, wrong thread.
  
  PS What happened to ahorseback?
  
  TWISI
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't bring up the subject of teaching.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It seems that at least one of us really understands that world good.
  Luckily, they both were able to find teaching jobs once the welfare office slammed the door in their hungry faces. Are they black? Because some things really make a difference here... here, many black couples get that door slam and still no job.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ...where DO you reside?
  Everyone has a hard time finding work. Anyone can feel discriminated against for a variety of reasons. Whoever is hiring has the power. Sorry about that.
  ...and a positive attitude goes a long way for any person looking for work.
  Why do you focus so much on the racial aspect?
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The "happy" state of Illinois. We love OUR African Americans HERE too
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's not ME who focuses on race so much...
  I hear the stories from friends, not news stories or false witnesses of poor people "servicers".
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  seems so.
  Got any real life for instances?
  plus you live where the African Americans were free. Where they helped the southern ones escape. But, why do you want to discuss people who are dead and gone. A new day is here and has been here for a very long time. A very long bloody war was fought over the issue and freedom for the African American was won. We have come a long way since the days of slavery in America and yet you persist dwelling on …. WHAT?
  Why do you insist on pinpointing that which is a very dead issue?
  Prove to us that it is still alive.
  Prove it.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Plenty
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  such as?
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It's hard to keep up with your mind. It changes a lot...
  Today, blacks make up the bulk of inmates. Less than a quarter of the entire land's numbers.
  One of their largest offenses is drug related (here). Now the statistics for serial murderers are totally different, but we haven't caught enough of them. Our police are busy (secretly) perpetuating the drug/gun violence because of drugs "issue." Here, the police make good supplemental income from this crew.
  Blacks are more likely to be/become unemployed through no "fault" of their own. Here.
  Blacks are more likely to be paid less than whites for the same work. Here.
  Blacks are less likely to get a good table at a busy restaurant. still... Here.
  Just to name a few.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why, oh why, can't they refrain from illegal activities? Each one who caves contributes to the whole of the problem.
  They need to listen to their mothers who love them.
  I'm sure their mothers are disappointed.
  - would community outreach programs to listen/address the mothers' concerns help?
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  These turnips have no blood. Many are running on autopilot. Many of their fathers are in jail. Many of their mothers are at work. Monkey see, monkey do...
  But if someone would give these monkeys back their blood...
  But who wants a ton of self-sufficient monkeys hanging around...
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  what? You are incredibly rude.
  report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Was your grandma quick to make you bow your head when white people your age walked by? Grandma is not enough degrees of separation to have forgotten how to be abased. Oh! And do the police follow you around your neighborhood to ensure all tags are good; you are not up to something; you don't look afraid?
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You can rise above it, Cgenea. You really can. You know that. Just be calm. That is my advice for you. I hope you can enjoy the freedom you have in this country. We all need to embrace our freedom. That's all it takes.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I have overcome!
  I'm grateful... but not many of "me" are THAT "lucky". It is a really pervasive situation for most of "me".
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then you can help them and tell us how to help them.
  If you say pay more taxes and let the government fund them…I will disagree, so don't even bother to keyboard that.
  Got any other solutions?
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It is SAD really. I am Black and it is totally implausible that some Blacks adopt the victimology mentality, seeing only negatives and preferring the past rather than to live in the present. Yes, there are Blacks who aren't successful because subconsciously they believe themselves to be "slaves", "the other". They believe in this negative ideology and inculcate their children thus and this explains why some Blacks are impoverished, in the underclass, and aren't successful as they should be.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  With all due respect to everyone's feelings and opinions on this issue, Genaea does live in a northern city, but she lives in a part of that city where race relations are way, way, way less than ideal. Kathryn, I think that you are a lovely person, with an idealism that is to be admired, and GM, in many ways I agree with you that we need to all move forward, but Genaea's not talking of something that isn't real or obsolete. Where she lives, many of these issues are sadly still alive and well.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Which is why my worldview is different. I can see things from a more informed perspective. I have actually been victimized by the police. Before my own first-hand experience, you could not have paid me to believe the police have tendencies towards extreme corruption and it has seeped into the court system. The free public defense is not on the right side. I have watched it with my own eyes. Say what you want about what you THINK... (not u )
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OKAY. I am a white female and I grew up in a white town. But, in the parking lot where I worked… a YMCA, no less, I was handcuffed by white cops... apparently for talking to my boyfriend there after curfew. They handcuffed me and threw me in the patrol car. On the way to the station they called me every name in the book. When we got to the police station the cops said,
  "Want some more?"
  Without even looking at them, I said.
  "Shut up!"
  At that response, one of them threw me down, stepped on my back with his boot, and yanked back my head, by grabbing my hair, as far back as he could.
  They threw me in the holding tank and kept me there until I declared it was my fault. (five hours later I caught on.) I went to court, and eventually, it was thrown out. I should have sued. I didn't have that kind of nature. I told myself to not stay stuck in a jail of my own negativity. I was 21.
  There is a lesson to be learned from every bad situation. We can rise above. It will make us stronger. Discrimination can happen to anyone for any reason at any time… even constantly… like a Boss who hated me for whatever reason. (I finally decided he was raised in daycare and had huge "mother" resentment. Eventually, I just felt sorry for him.) It's basically our own reaction we have control over. Everything out there can be neutral. Its all about how we react.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Imagine how you would feel if that happened to you once a month, for years...
  report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No excuses!!! My dad believed an excuse was a refusal!
  
  For every bad apple there are fifty good ones. I've met plenty of fine cops and some who let me off the hook. It really is not a black and white issue. A positive attitude is truly your personal "get out of jail" card. Right is Might. I'm sure you know that too.
  report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I am the "excuse" queen. But I was taught too. For every action; there's a reaction. I am not asking for special treatment for anyone. But an actual equal shot... that means, a "bail-out" for all who have been last in this country since it started. Or a free bankruptcy for ALL who have also "made bad decisions". In fairness, these people's parents had jobs and a small piece if security for a minute.
  They've also proven to this country many times that they are not "lazy" and they have proven that they are smart.
  Necessity is the mother of invention.
  report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The only person who can give you an equal shot is yourself.
  STAY AWAY FROM ALL THAT IS ILLEGAL.
  report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sure! At home... I'm king. But I live in someone else's home. Their rules are stifling purposely. Moving is on my mind again. Seems like Southern states are more doable. But that is not a pass in regard of them left behind. Systemic rules have made it nearly impossible for many others.
  Illegal activities are also bought and sold by the powers. No jobs + easy money = perfect opportunity to spend those plentiful jail dollars.
  report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There is NO blood in turnips. No matter how you stomp on it, process it, throw it to the ground, pinch it...
  If I do not have the mind to succeed (intelligence/ training), guess what...
  If I do not have thumbs, I cannot unhook the latch...
  Some of our parents did not lose their jobs because the plant closed down. They were able to give their kid boots and a coat to go to school. most could not. They moved into them big buildings and fended for themselves with no skill. They weren't allowed to educate. When schools opened to them, parents could not assist with homework.
  Only boots have "bootstraps"
  no boots...
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I am glad you are here to explain things, gmwilliams. What can we all do to help...
  Do you suppose?
  I just saw a funny movie called Walk of Shame. Its hilarious and touching about modern Day LA. Its about a newscaster named Megan Wells who gets stuck in LA without her cell phone or purse... Loved it.
  reply report
2. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where is that lady with all them zeros when you need her...?
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
Good thing this was not the thinking years ago... there'd be no blacks in America. Nobody on the plantations could afford their children.
Just two generations ago, the black man was retaught that he meant nothing to this country which survived and thrived from the blood and backs of... but yes, the slavery card is out. Now, it is education. They made it so you HAD to have a H.S. diploma to compete in the jobmarket. Then, black people needed cops to escort them to good public (but not REALLY...) schools. Just two generations ago...
Now, they made it so that everything essential is rising in cost; but nobody has any money... jobs have been redistributed again.
Lazy??? I think, engulfed, is a better term. This last recession was a doozie. Many were not devastated. Call it good planning if you want. Zero (no matter how many one adds) plus Zero equals... not 2...
reply report
1. 84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  People would rather make excuses and adopt victimology mentality. Such an ideology is so much easier than to really reflect and examine our foibles/wrongs/fallacies/faults and to take responsibility and accountability to really correct such ills. NO ONE is going to do it for you but YOU. NO ONE is going nor supposed to RESCUE YOU BUT YOU!
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Low social mobility isn't victimology (which btw doesn't mean what you think it does, read a dictionary) it's an economic fact related to opportunity.
  
  For poor people there are a very limited number of ways to get out of poverty and too many people vying for them, it's not due to a lack of effort it's due to a lack of opportunity, go look at the ways out and you will see them crammed with people working their hardest to get them.
  
  Scholarships have forty times more applicants than they can cater to, millions of kids are out there right now dedicating themselves entirely to playing a sport well eneough to get them out of poverty (99.8%+ won't make the cut) and millions more pouring their hearts and souls into music careers again almost none will make it big.
  
  Those are the main three ways out of poverty, #1 get a scholarship that will allow you to get a good education #2 sport #3 music they ALL require massive amounts of talent, dedication and hard work and they are all flooded.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And above all, a massive dose of luck, especially the last two!
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Good thing the government wasn't thinking that when Wall Street needed most of our money so the rich could keep their riches. From THEIR bad decisions. And better, when they came up with Chapter 7, to help THEIR OWN to stay afloat from their own "making poor choices."
  I believe that people should stop whining about slavery too. But just two generations ago, they spit on little black kids and kicked them with consent and much backing. No matter how we like, those mindsets still linger. Those inequities are given. Insisted upon.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ...by yourself.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I insist...
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
There there little doggy; get off of that leash and come out of that gate and stop barking at me... just turn around and unhook that latch...
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
It wasn't that long ago that there were very few out of wedlock births, and that was simply because (like illicit drug use) it was considered unacceptable behavior, i.e., there was a stigma attached to it.

As we see here, the left now claims that nothing can be done about it, because teens will always have sex, yada. yada, therefore we must have legal abortion and massive welfare benefits. In other words, out of wedlock pregnancies are necessary to the left in order to justify the legal abortions and the massive welfare they, as progressive statists, hold so dear.

The attitude of the left, their media, and their entertainment industry is to openly encourage unmarried sex and out of wedlock pregnancies (even among teens) because that plays right into their big government/nanny state schemes! That's why we have free birth control in schools, and that's why we have movies about teens losing their virginity. What are they to think when adults are telling them that they can't control themselves, anyway, so go right ahead!

In order to 'fundamentally transform' society, you must first destroy the existing society. That destruction has been going on for almost fifty years now, so if you are a young person, you never experienced the society that worked, so you believe the left when they tell you that it never existed.

That's the reason the left so stubbornly resists any sort of social condemnation of out of wedlock pregnancies! It's vital to the growth of a big, socialist government. They can't have people making up their own moral standards or returning to what worked! That would be a disaster to the left.
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It wasn't long ago that unmarried mothers were packed off away from home until they had given birth.
  It wasn't long ago that girls who found themselves pregnant were certified insane and spent the rest of their lives in lunatic asylums.
  It wasn't long ago that that girls who found themselves pregnant went to back street butchers to abort, often it was their own lives that were aborted.
  
  Ah the good old days!
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ...when promiscuity was not blatantly encouraged... as is is today.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Who encourages it?
  
  Oh, that's right, corporate capitalists.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're really over the top sometimes, John. Corporations are promoting promiscuity? How, by selling condoms? And the capitalistic system of the economy also promotes? From competition reducing the price of those same condoms instead of a socialistic committee, concerned over our morality, keeping prices (and profits for the government) artificially high?
  
  Is capitalism also responsible for the Salvation Army Christmas toy giveaways? The Smithsonian Institute? Nobel Peace prizes (somebody makes those nice medals, after all!)? Is there a negative anywhere that corporate VIP's and capitalism isn't responsible for?
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Have you watched any television, read any girls magazines, listened to any pop music recently?
  No, I thought not.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No pop noise, no magazines. TV, yes - I enjoy the history channel, NOVA, TLC and the like. Never have I seen promiscuity promoted on any of them.
  
  Nor do I think that TV programming comes from corporations, as such. Corporations supply what people want to see (that's how you get viewers, after all), which puts the ball back into the hands of the people. Just like buying foreign made goods, isn't it? The consumer's wants rule, not the corporations desires, ethics or morals.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sex sells.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I believe that's what I said. The consumer wants it, the business supplies it. And that's the fault of the executive - he should only put on the shelves (screen, whatever) what people do NOT want?
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, sex is a good thing. However, it should be used responsibly and maturely by mature, consenting adults. Sex is not to be used irresponsibly. Before one engages in sex, one should be protected and be aware of the consequences of his/her own actions. If one is not ready nor prepared for sex, then DON'T indulge, pure and simple.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And paedophilia, and drugs, and adultery, and violence.
  It all sells, but the executive is selective about what he sells.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He'd BETTER be - in it's infinite wisdom our nanny government closely monitors what it feels is "bad" for people and prohibits it. Much like setting artificial prices without regard to value or cost, a small group will control what we can see without regard to anyone else's wants.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again, consumers do not stock the shelves. They buy what is available. The "establishment" is not buying good messages. They really make big dollars from the effects of their CURRENT message.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So pre-pubescent girls are clamouring to be sexualised!
  
  I hardly think so.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  They pay them BIG dollars to encourage it. And put a choke-hold on all the other opportunities. Big dollars are a big attraction to promote what THEY tell them is SELLING. sex sells everything especially when attached to a snAzzy beat.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  unresistant society
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You see? The left will say and do anything to blur the truth. Were there far, far, fewer out of wedlock births when it was considered unacceptable behavior? Yes, of course, and the few who did get pregnant either 'had to get married', or adopted the baby out. Most got married to the child's father.
  
  The myth of back alley abortions was just that...a myth, conjured up by the left to look as bad as possible. Yes, there were inner city abortions performed by unqualified people and yes, some did end up in the death of the mother, but not in a 'back alley', and most were performed by a rogue doctor willing to do it for a fee.
  
  Again, when out of wedlock sex is considered by society to be bad behavior and there's a stigma attached to an unwed woman having a baby, it reduces the number drastically.
  
  There's a very good reason why a woman used to insist on a marriage commitment before she submitted to sex. A husband provides support for his wife and children and the male guidance so necessary to a stable home. Most women are simply overwhelmed when teen sons start experiencing the hormones that make them men, and it takes a father to keep them in line. Daughters also challenge their mothers, but a father is a different story. In a functional family, children are brought up respecting the authority of both mother and father.
  
  The leftist claim that a woman needs no husband and that children need no father in the home is both ludicrous and dangerous to both the family and to society in general. But as you can see, the left has its goals, so they ridicule what used to work, because they openly want government to be both husband and father to unmarried mothers. The stable family is a threat to that goal.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I forgot the "had to marry" often against the will of both parties, and they weren't allowed to divorce either. Two lives ruined.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately that was often the case - two (more likely 3) lives ruined. For 5 minutes of fun and to keep society happy afterwards.
  reply report
  61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We've done it again! Time for me to go
  reply report
  87
  WillStarrposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Three lives were almost certainly damaged by having a baby out of wedlock, but many 'shotgun marriages' were just as content as any other marriage.
  reply report
  76
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  True, IMO. People today don't want to work at a marriage; if it isn't their dream without effort why then end it.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  True, very true. Except when there is substance abuse going on… but even then there can be a glimmer of hope...
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Will the same stigma be attached to out of wedlock MEN who make babies and then leave so they don't have to help raise them?
  
  And many of the rogue doctors charged more than poor girls could afford, which led to "accidents" at home in an attempt to terminate pregnancies. Do those count as back alley abortions, or were they safe and sanitary since they happened at home?
  reply report
  84
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A worst stigma should be attached to them. First thoughts tell me it is probably the male that pushes for sex over a female's initial reluctance - most of the time. so they be "double-stigmatized."
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The male is just as guilty as the female. It takes two to tangle. Both parties should be responsible in terms of sex. Both parties should use protection/birth control. Birth control is not only the responsibility of the female. If a male approaches sex irresponsibly and refuses to use birth control/protection, then dump him and kick him to the curb! I do not play the double standard game! What is good for the goose is good for the gander!
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  One may not TANGO alone...but one may certainly entangle self in lies told to keep him in line. Teen births are no different than before. People are not allowed to toot their noses now because political correctness has humbled SOME of us. But there used to be stigma attached to NOT spanking your children, gay people, and SELFISHNESS was a big one whilst building this country. People shared everything then. They had to. But they didn't have to share with "the help" then. Made things much easier when your hard "earned" dollars helped another family to keep their plantations afloat.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  wow, Mr. GA. I nominate you the handsomest curmudgeon of the year!
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  My thoughts exactly. When the other class made "the mistake" their parents had an auntie down South who would take her in. And yes, the numbers in teen pregnancy has not changed much. Marriage rates have. Not that long ago, it was considered taboo for blacks because the system said that if you have grown-up testes at home, sink or swim. Oh! THAT was ALSO during a time where many of THOSE were found swinging from their necks... yeah...heavenly old days.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
Saul Alinsky's rules for leftist radicals:

1) Sneer at your opponents

2) Mischaracterize what your opponents say

3) Mock your opponents

4) Ridicule your opponents

5) Distort the truth.

6) Create endless straw men

4) Lying is perfectly acceptable

Do you see any of that coming from the leftists in this thread? Or, perhaps more accurately, do you see anything other than that?
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I see all that from some on the right on this thread, none from the left, but lots from the right.
  reply report
  61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No man is so blind as he who refuses to see.
  reply report
2. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hey! Change left to right... the story STILL fits...fancy that...
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"Will the same stigma be attached to out of wedlock MEN who make babies and then leave so they don't have to help raise them?"

Absolutely. It takes two. But there's a reason why women have the final say when it comes to having sex. They are the ones who get pregnant, and that's why 'no means no', and any man who who disregards that is looking at time in prison! That's how society protects women, so in the end, it's their decision. All they have to do is say no.

"And many of the rogue doctors charged more than poor girls could afford, which led to "accidents" at home in an attempt to terminate pregnancies. Do those count as back alley abortions, or were they safe and sanitary since they happened at home?"

Do you have a source for that claim or is it just your opinion?
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have sources for your claims or are they just opinions?
  reply report
2. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wow.
  
  No, I have no sources.
  
  They were opinionated questions, educated by history.
  
  Wow.
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
WILLSTARR WROTE:

Saul Alinsky's rules for leftist radicals:

1) Sneer at your opponents

2) Mischaracterize what your opponents say

3) Mock your opponents

4) Ridicule your opponents

5) Distort the truth.

6) Create endless straw men

4) Lying is perfectly acceptable

Do you see any of that coming from the leftists in this thread? Or, perhaps more accurately, do you see anything other than that?
----------------

John Holden wrote:

Actually, I see all that from some on the right on this thread, none from the left, but lots from the right.
----------------

See? He just did it again:

"Sneer at your opponents. Mischaracterize what your opponents say. Mock your opponent. Lying is perfectly acceptable."
reply report
1. 61
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But that wasn't sneering,mischaracterising, mocking or lying! It was a straight forward observation.
  Would you like me to go through your posts and draw your attention to all the times you do what you accuse the left of doing?
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
So did Cgenaea, whose every post is a distorted smirk. That's why it's fruitless to debate an Alinsky liberal.
reply report
1. 61
  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  . I don't know what I'm smiling for, or who this post was for, but smirks are a GREAT defense. see??? I can do nothing but laugh at the ignorance of "hood matters" and the insistence to continue speaking on them.
  It's hi-la-ri-US. LOL...
  reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
"They were opinionated questions, educated by history."

If it's history, then there's a source.
reply report
1. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Okie doke.
  
  reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
Teen sex is not a new phenomenon. The response to it is... it's ok to sex without a ring. Always has been. The stigma is gone because it created abuses for the mistake makers. White men were not made to marry that fine piece o'tail once he got done with her. She had her light skinned baby and was allowed to keep that baby in the big house. New slave driver with interests in keeping darky in line simply because he was just a little bit better because of his heritage.
This plan, years in the making, has 360'd and it doesn't look as pretty as they thought it would.
reply report
84
gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago
The issue is not so-called left nor so-called right. It is what is logical and responsible vs what is illogical and irresponsible. I identify myself as a Liberal but I believe that each person has to be accountable and take responsibility for his/her actions. I do not believe in the entitlement philosophy and that each mentally and physically healthy person is to help himself/herself and not be dependent upon others to left himself/herself. I also believe that many people in the United States are in dire circumstances because of their negative life choices. Remember, the fault is within ourselves, not in the stars.
reply report
87
WillStarrposted 10 years ago
I've had my say, so thank you all and carry on.
reply report
61
Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago
When Job was tried, he was not instructed to go to a doctor. God knew that it would not work. He was not instructed to visit inmates to show his lack of lazy. He waited and trusted.
Some people have done all they can, to no avail. We will just be still and know that he is God; stand back and behold his salvation.
Now our hands are tied a different way.
reply report
52
NintiethMinuteposted 10 years ago
It's akin to the "sexist" argument, in that someone can deploy it immediately and win any confrontation, simply because of societal norms and laws. In other words, it's a cop-out. An easy way of avoiding the heat of discussion while maintaining your pedestal.

If you attack the opposite sex or another race for a legitimate reason, they could employ the racism/sexism card. Say the only Jewish state in the world is killing hundreds of civilians in Gaza and you condemn them - you're an anti-Semite. Face a woman on any subject and face a barrage of sexism claims, even make sound arguments for the anti-Feminism movement and you're a "rape advocate" or "rapist".

In both cases real victims are pushed back down the ladder by louder, more aggressive "non-victims" who persist on playing the victim.

Once you start calling someone a racist based on their points in a debate, you are admitting they have won. You are playing a card which everyone can see is a personal attack, rather than an actual worthy point.

And this is the crux of the problem in modern society. People feel pressured never to make a cogent argument against Israel or feminism or anything, for fear of being shunned by society itself. If it's not racism or sexism, it's age-discrimination, jealousy etc.

I am not saying those areas of activism (if that's what you call it) are wrong or unjustified, it's the people who discredit those movements by belittling the aims of the entire group. It's like radical Islam - one section of the group (or even people who aren't in that group) begin painting a bad name for the entire group. Feminists are often quick to accuse people of being sexist, so they appear vulgar, loud, uncontrollable, unlikable etc.

And so begins the stereotypes and hatred. And what do stereotypes and hatred do? They reinforce RACISM, SEXISM and DISCRIMINATION. People can tear apart feminism/Islam/Israel/etc in an argument because a few idiots are extreme in their views or a few idiots are extremely sensitive.

So, false (or exaggerated) accusations of racism devalue the anti-racism movement. Using them in a real debate is both cheap and stupid.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Racism as a tool .

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Racism as a tool .

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies