 |
. sorta like il duce Cuomo ending the 'Moreland Commission on Public Corruption 'when it got too close to him and his gumbas ? I don't know what Berman has on other Trump associates .It would not surprise me since NY real estate is such a dirty business. But his probe about Rudy is a fishing expedition .Quote:
[Looks like the dufus will have to fire him personally to protect his henchmen from going to jail
There are some who have predicted how the coup part deux would like like .....open defiance of Trump administration orders, not by state officials, but by federal bureaucrats in blue states.
Meanwhile more on the liberal intolerance front The Duluth Minnesota school district is doing the book banning thingy this week . Banned from their curriculum are Mark Twain's 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ' and Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird ' .
Both books do contain racial slurs that were added to the text to depict the language of the period and the attitudes accurately .Quite the contrary to the reason behind the ban; neither book is racist and are widely considered to be anti-racist by people with normal reading comprehension .Huck Finn is set in anti-bellum south and is clearly anti-slavery .Mockingbird depicting racial injustice in Alabama during Jim Crow days .
I can possibly understand the confusion for people who are not students of American Literature .But educators showing such ignorance about the content of books they are banning is very disturbing . Are educators in the vanguard of this American culture purge ?
Can't say if Rudy is dirty or not, or anything about Cuomo and ending an investigation, but the dufus mouthpiece lying about Berman stepping down is highly suspicious. Rudy is a nutcase lately and has ties to some nefarious dudes.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm just glad someone is standing up to the dufus and his bully boys!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
My reading of this is though they removed the books from the school curriculum, they remain available in the school library, so the change was removing them from a required reading lists. Make sense Tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Never heard of some of the folks on the hit list, but I can see some unsavory characters got statutes of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...icle-1.3464427
I think the FDR Memorial in the National Mall should be taken down. After all he was the architect of EO 9066 which authorized the transport and internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps
Now even Facebook, that bastion of conservative thought (sarcasm meter pegged) is under attack for supposedly amplifying, "...white supremacists, allows posts that incite violence and contain political propaganda and misinformation, and doesn’t stop 'bad actors using the platform to do harm.'"
The article also says, "The announcement came after groups in the “#StopHateforProfit” campaign, launched Wednesday, including Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color Of Change, Free Press and Common Sense, called on large advertisers to cut ties with Facebook."
It goes on to say, "...that Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, are no longer simply negligent, but in fact, complacent in the spread of misinformation, despite the irreversible damage to our democracy. Such actions will upend the integrity of our elections as we head into 2020," NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement."
Read between the lines. Conservative thought must be done away with at all costs. Zuckerberg, one of the major elite liberals in the country, is now learning that the extreme left has no problems with devouring its own.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technolo...g-ads-facebook
Maybe you need a hundred thousand people in the streets to show how much you care. Blasting people who don't share your EXACT sentiments sure doesn't rally the troops to your side.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
See what I mean! Regardless to address your question see what you think of this article.Quote:
Unemployment and poverty were also big problems in 1960. They had no birth control pill and birth control was more cumbersome, and yet the out of wedlock birth rate was about 1/10 of what it is now. Your argument is not sensible. To blame it on poverty and unemployment ignores history. By that approach, out of wedlock births would have EXPLODED during the Great Depression. That did not happen, so how do you explain that? The truth is, you have it backwards. Out of wedlock births lead to poverty, not the other way around.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/a...united-states/
Losing control of the social norms you found comfortable can be a traumatic life changing event. I completely understand that JL, and actually have much empathy for what you and others are going through.Quote:
The great change has had nothing to do with poverty or unemployment. Social beliefs have changed. It used to be scandalous to be pregnant out of wedlock. Now it's celebrated and supported by federal subsidies. Families used to be a great deal more intact than they are now. We used to honor the teachings of the Bible. Now they are ridiculed. Marriage used to be held as valuable. Now it's just another institution waiting to be destroyed by the left. Men used to be responsible. Now the world is just there for our enjoyment and that includes women. There used to be some mystery about sex. Now it's just another activity in life. Movies used to be pretty clean. Now they are vulgar and crude. All of those factors have contributed, but the first four are primary.
If you would even bother, for five seconds, to read your own articles, then you would have found that the final five or six paragraphs support my statement, and nothing in the article refuted any of it. Well, my first four points are indisputably true. I'll repeat them for your benefit. "It used to be scandalous to be pregnant out of wedlock. Now it's celebrated and supported by federal subsidies. Families used to be a great deal more intact than they are now. We used to honor the teachings of the Bible. Now they are ridiculed. Marriage used to be held as valuable. Now it's just another institution waiting to be destroyed by the left."
Your final comment about a "traumatic life changing event" is just absurd. This has nothing to do with me. Anyone who cares even one ounce about black America can see that out of wedlock births are a genuine and considerable burden on the welfare of that group. I guess it's just easier to post a snarky comment and go on your way doing nothing.
I read the article TWICE and refuted none, just wanted your opinion for the sake of honest discussion, and you could have refrained from the personal blast. So yet again you highlight the differences in our approach to changing times. Regardless I repeat we ain't going back to shaming, shunning, and shot gunning, no matter if some would prefer it, or hold nostalgia for what they think was a simpler time.
Trust me it wasn't for many, specifically the ones you profess to care so much about, so recognize that a better way is sought by them. Maybe it's not instantly successful, but see it as a works in progress, because the old ways didn't work for US, and changes will be made. You didn't want to listen before, just dictate, and maybe you will never listen, but obviously you sure won't dominate or control the direction some are choosing.
That's all fair enough. I just don't know how to respond to you. I'm ready to listen to what that better way might be, but so far as I know, in all of history there has only been one reliable way. Still, I'd love to know your thoughts. But one way or the other, this has nothing to do with me controlling social norms. It's about the real suffering of children growing up with no dad and the major disadvantages they face in life.
You might find this interesting.
Experts point to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. figure, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing.
'When our parents married, there was a sense that you were marrying for life,' said Edward Zigler, founder and director of Yale's Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy. "That sense is not as prevalent.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-parent.html
You do realize there's a difference between having a father and having a dad. Men can father a child and be married to the child's mother, but too many have no idea how to be a dad. Fortunate is the child who has a father who also knows how to be a dad!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's another area that needs further instruction.
Better to have a dad who is doing a fair job than to have no dad.
Love to know your comments on this.
"Unemployment and poverty were also big problems in 1960. They had no birth control pill and birth control was more cumbersome, and yet the out of wedlock birth rate was about 1/10 of what it is now. Your argument is not sensible. To blame it on poverty and unemployment ignores history. By that approach, out of wedlock births would have EXPLODED during the Great Depression. That did not happen, so how do you explain that? The truth is, you have it backwards. Out of wedlock births lead to poverty, not the other way around."
Now I know you don't know the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is 2020. Get with the times! You sound like my grandfather.Quote:
Love to know your comments on this.
"Unemployment and poverty were also big problems in 1960. They had no birth control pill and birth control was more cumbersome, and yet the out of wedlock birth rate was about 1/10 of what it is now. Your argument is not sensible. To blame it on poverty and unemployment ignores history. By that approach, out of wedlock births would have EXPLODED during the Great Depression. That did not happen, so how do you explain that? The truth is, you have it backwards. Out of wedlock births lead to poverty, not the other way around."
Like tal said earlier in this thread:
"Regardless I repeat we ain't going back to shaming, shunning, and shot gunning, no matter if some would prefer it, or hold nostalgia for what they think was a simpler time."
The usual non-answer. Oh well. Poverty and unemployment cause out of wedlock births except that, of course, they don't.
Far better to have no father than to have a bad father.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You do realize that "bad" and "fair" do not mean the same thing? In fact, not really very close.
I gave you one and repeated tal's on top of it. Sheesh!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Go into the inner city or a multicultural community and ask the residents what causes unemployment and poverty and also what causes out-of-wedlock births. Then LISTEN to what they say!
The question was how your theory totally failed to explain why the out of wedlock birth rate was so low during the Great Depression when the situation was MUCH worse than now, or in 1960 when the situation was not as good as now. And you are really trying to say you answered that??? Really?? As you would say, "Sheesh!"
I worked in inner-city and minority schools for 17 years. I have listened to and observed much.
I sure hope you will come up with an answer.
Get off talking about ancient times, grampa! Let's fix this in 2020!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Still...no answer.
Well, granny, we'll just move on. 8D And by the way, I am a grandpa as of about 4 months ago. Baby due in November.
Am not a granny. Congratulations to you!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My answer is, stop chewing on history. Let's fix this now, for your grandchild(ren).
A better answer would be this. "Well by George, my theory failed when applied to the Great Depression or 1960, so I guess it's not a very good theory." It happens sometime.
So since poverty and unemployment are not really causes of out of wedlock births, what are your ideas for reducing them?
So now the admin in you is reduced to lecturing me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I asked you first.Quote:
So since poverty and unemployment are not really causes of out of wedlock births, what are your ideas for reducing them?
Thank you for the congrats. We are looking forward to the "event".
More like advising.Quote:
So now the admin in you is reduced to lecturing me.
I've answered twice. You didn't like my answers. You said they were not practical. Remember??Quote:
I asked you first.
Right. Practical, something beyond the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Most of the time the obvious is obvious because it's what really needs to be done, so I'll stick with my original answer.
The great change has had nothing to do with poverty or unemployment. Social beliefs have changed. It used to be scandalous to be pregnant out of wedlock. Now it's celebrated and supported by federal subsidies. Families used to be a great deal more intact than they are now. We used to honor the teachings of the Bible. Now they are ridiculed. Marriage used to be held as valuable. Now it's just another institution waiting to be destroyed by the left. Men used to be responsible. Now the world is just there for our enjoyment and that includes women. There used to be some mystery about sex. Now it's just another activity in life. Movies used to be pretty clean. Now they are vulgar and crude. All of those factors have contributed, but the first four are primary.
I get you JL, sad that nobody is listening to you. Don't know why that is but what worked for you didn't work for them. Must have been the shaming thing.
let us examine this; Social beliefs have changed, why? I submit that two world wars undid the closely held beliefs. Too much suffering, too many unspeakable acts, too much trauma. People longed for freedom from the attitudes that bred these conflicts. In the first case; it was monarchy gone mad. In the second; it was ideology gone mad. The church was powerless to stop it and receded from relevance and into the vacuum came hedonism, love of selfQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
More like people being tired of being told what to do as the tellers did as they wanted. Church scandals didn't help, nor covering them up.
No the Church scandals just added to the unbelief, people asked how could God allow this? a valid question
That's an interesting observation. It is certainly true that the church had largely become powerless. The failure of the church to stand up for the right during the Civil Rights campaigns, particularly in the south, sapped it of strength. And certainly hedonism and love of self have been major contributors to the rising wave of out of wedlock births.Quote:
The church was powerless to stop it and receded from relevance and into the vacuum came hedonism, love of self
Out of wedlock births have also exploded in Australia. It's gone from 8% to nearly 35% and is only a few points less than what we have here. Church attendance is also very low. Fewer than 2 million attend church weekly.
https://yournotthefather.com/out-of-...hs-by-country/
https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/bl...a-infographic/
Even monolithic religions are not monoliths Clete, go down the road a bit its the same religion but a different sect, more akin to tribalism that we humans are so proud of. Every tribe claims some type of superiority putting it at odds over the customs and dogma of the other groups to ones they prefer. The bottom line is religion has failed us in a practical sense, being overwhelmed by the scope and size of the greater issues we face, even as governance is a failure to solve the economics of a crisis situation. A lack of confidence and disillusionment in what we have always relied on to get us through hard times.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
How has the church failed during the Civil Rights campaigns?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes we are following you into godlessnessQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Most of the church was silent during that time. We should have come down on the side of truth and right.Quote:
How has the church failed during the Civil Rights campaigns?
Are you becoming a liberal? It's always someone else's fault. Truth is, you are walking side by side with us. Take some responsibility.Quote:
Yes we are following you into godlessness
Is it the message, or the messengers?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Which side is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You should probably take some responsibility yourself for turning people off to the message. Bringing in a commandment breaker like the dufus sure didn't help your cause and one could say it made things worse.Quote:
Are you becoming a liberal? It's always someone else's fault. Truth is, you are walking side by side with us. Take some responsibility.
Equal rights under law. The right to vote, for instance.Quote:
Which side is that?
You can forget that. Obama, Biden, and Clinton are not glorious examples of righteousness. They all have their skeletons to hide. If there has been a more corrupt couple of pols than the two Clintons, I don't know who they are.Quote:
Bringing in a commandment breaker like the dufus
Let me help you. Your boy Trump is ten times more corrupt than any two people on the planet. Take the blinders off.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Worth quoting, bolding, and repeating, while agreeing 100%, so go ahead JL, blame somebody else, while the dufus breaks laws and commandments, with his lying, cheating and stealing. And you wonder why nobody listen to you, and turns from your message with that kind of example?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
It ain't the message, it's the messenger for sure. Take responsibility for it and stop blaming everybody else. You just can't can you?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:24 PM. |