 |
Clinton didn't have TWO wars to pay for under the books and Obama put them on the books to include them in his budgets. That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No argument that overspending is an issue, but that doesn't mean tax structures are NOT a problem. Two sides of the same coin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Like a lot of lawyers, they are past their use-by date. Dershowitz and Giuliani are two prime examples. Rudy was terrific early on, now he defines the expression "unhinged".
You have nothing to say, so you sputter. I thought you left.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Athos play nice all opinions are accepted even if we disagree
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sorry, P, you lack any credibility for me which is why I rarely directly respond to you. And I certainly do NOT accept all opinions. I do respect right-wing arguments - tomder being a worthy example - but I don't often agree with them, and I never agree with a Trump supporter.
Trump's edicts and his attitudes toward immigrants and the press, and his disparagement of the rule of law (among other of his attributes) are chillingly similar to the 1930s fascist programs and ideas. Even his body language is an almost comical spot-on replication of Mussolini's strutting, arms folded, head-nodding, self-congratulatory posture.
Stop living in the past, Trump is a class on his own, Trump is no socialist, he is a populist, a would be demagog, but his oratory skills are lacking, so he speaks in short sentences and catch phrases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
You say I have no credibility, but where is yours. You would rather have someone like Hilliary because she is slapped with a demorat label, but she has no credibility at all, Without the support of those super nominations she would hardly have any support and you would have been voting for Bernie. Now I don't say Trump has credibility but he did get elected and he did it in a way that counted, which indicates he had a smart team.
I think you should spend your time on your next wish list
My goodness. All quiet on the western front.
I would have voted for Bernie, though I don't line up all the way with his platform. I do think an American version of socialism would shame the Chinese, Russians and all those tin hat dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It's not in your genes
Russia verges on being a third world country. China was a big nothing until they began to move in the direction of... capitalism and free enterprise! Name the socialist country that has matched the economic growth of the U.S. the past fifty years. Socialism promises to erase poverty. We don't like to say this, and I realize it's not popular, but most poor people in America are poor because they make poor decisions. Some have mental and physical problems that limit them, and I get that, but the majority doom themselves to poverty with their lifestyle decisions. Having three or four children out of wedlock, for instance, is nearly always a decision to stay in, or near, poverty. I think it would be amazing if we woke up one day and the out of wedlock birth rate had dropped to 10% or less. That by itself would result in a much lower poverty rate.
Tal, we just ended up buying a new stove. From what I could read, and the videos you dug up (thanks!), there is a relay that energizes the upper element that can fuse stuck. In that case, you have to replace the entire electric control unit for over three hundred bucks. Just made more sense to get a new one.
China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years
If that's the case, why do conservatives seek to make birth control hard for poor people? Why do you FORCE poor woman to have those out of wedlock kids? LOL in contrast, females with means and insurance see the oby/gyn a few times a year for birth controlling procedures and drugs and I respectfully submit if poor woman had the same access and means to such care we wouldn't see women and children in poverty as we do now. Doing it your way has been a recipe for MORE children out of wedlock, and expecting the least of us to toe your moral line has done nothing to help, or guide those in such need, it's made matters worse, as capitalism has failed as miserably as socialism. If you speak of choice you must also recognize that some have more choices than others, and some are forced into bad choices because of OTHERS. Limiting the choices of others has as much consequences as bad choices. Heck guy a LIVING wage would go further in eliminating poverty than almost any other policy. Most poor people I know are working poor, or displaced poor after they lost a job through no fault of their own, they had for years or decades. Some are DIVORCED, lose everything and find themselves in overwhelming situations. It takes YEARS to correct poor choices or BAD times and a STRONG social safety net is NEEDED for BOTH.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Glad you solved your problem. I always feel it helpful to know your OPTIONS. Just curious what would you do if you didn't have the RESOURCES for a new oven?
Not hardly, because they need us a lot more than they let on. There are a lot more of them than us. They require MUCH help.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I am 65 years old and I have never heard of any conservative who forced a poor woman to have sex and get pregnant. BC pills are 10 bucks a month. Condoms are what, a quarter? And there is always your beloved Planned Parenthood with their free services, not to mention the many other free and low-priced clinics there are. How do you explain the fact that poor women 60 years ago had children out of wedlock only rarely, and that was before BC pills? Getting pregnant, outside of rape or incest, is a choice. Having sex is a choice. Having 3 or 4 kids out of wedlock is a choice. Don't throw that on conservatives.Quote:
If that's the case, why do conservatives seek to make birth control hard for poor people? Why do you FORCE poor woman to have those out of wedlock kids?
That is a good point. I am referring to the generationally poor who have been raised on welfare with no real intention of working. For those who are in a temporary situation there is unemployment insurance, or for divorced women there should be a divorce financial settlement. But here is where we part company. I think that helping the poor should be an individual undertaking for you and me. You seem to believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Tal, and other liberals, should display their compassion for poor people by getting other people to support them through taxation.Quote:
Most poor people I know are working poor, or displaced poor after they lost a job through no fault of their own, they had for years or decades. Some are DIVORCED, lose everything and find themselves in overwhelming situations. It takes YEARS to correct poor choices or BAD times and a STRONG social safety net is NEEDED for BOTH.
If I didn't have the resources for a new oven, I would buy a used one, or get the cheapest one I could find and pay for it over two years. I have been poor before in my life. I know what it's like. I would not have forced Tal to buy me an oven through taxing him. I would, and have done so many times, consider it to be my job to take care of me and my family. It is also my job to help the poor, and it is your's as well, but not by forcing the feds to take money from others (the "rich") in order to do so.
The terrible thing is this. By getting poor people accustomed to living on the resources of others, you are robbing them of their only real chance to escape poverty. That is to work, to work hard, to work 70 hours a week if need be, and then to have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU purchased the food on your table. The only real avenue of escape from poverty, for most people, is to get married, have children inside of marriage, work hard, spend wisely, and work together. Welfare robs them of the incentive to do that.
Who appealed to AD as an economist?Quote:
That Dieshowitz guy is a brilliant lawyer, gotten a lot of innocent people out of jail, but as an economist?? His opinion is worthless.
Xi jinping's great leap backwards will derail any gains they had from their pseudo-capitalism.Quote:
China has outstripped the US in the last fifty years
You may be right but it is his answer to maintain the boom and China is indebting many poor nations
I should have specified conservative policy makers. Specifically in Texas where I am. They have been shutting down MANY PP clinics across the state, regulating the doctors who do the actual abortions (Stiff hospital affiliation standards, which hospitals understandably balk at strenuously), and some pretty tough building codes. The funny thing is the emergence of private clinics and emergency facilities, like you said being pushed statewide, but do they cater to women with no insurance or treat Medicaid recipients for women health needs? As to the BC being cheap, yeah if you have an insurance carrier to pay the rest after your copay. How about those conservatives who run Hobby Lobby that refuse to provide insurance to their female employees for any kind of pills or procedures that deal with anything to do with BC? How about those states that conservatives control that didn't expand Medicaid? Such policies and legislation does affect the availability of female services as it relates to any kind of responsible actions for POOR females even in light of the facts that the need for abortions go down with education, and care available to them. Your point of this being an old ongoing issue is well taken but a clearer understanding I think of the solutions to those choices as far as sex and families go for the poorest among us goes back to what I originally said about a strong social safety net being needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I mean its great to be able to see that OBY/GYN regularly, and when needed, get scripts, and guidance, and access to those inpatient procedures if you are a few days weeks pregnant despite whatever BC you may use, and that does happen, and I just think poor woman should have that same CHOICE for care and guidance and support.
*Condoms help but are not 100% effective so not a guarantee at all and yes I know a few who use them and the pill and still got pregnant. Browse these forums if you decline to take my word for it.
I respectfully submit that the case for generationally poor is overblown, and the governments own data indicates that public aid is used by the working poor as well as people going through hard times, typically on average for TWO years. Children born out of wedlock is a NON FACTOR in a country with a 50% divorce rate for a FIRST marriage, and many who live together in long term relationships. A marriage license or religious affiliated ceremony doesn't protect anyone from the life altering break up of the family structure. I won't get on the subject of education both primary and higher being sorely and systematically underfunded, staffed, and inadequate, that's more to the leadership of the state, nor will I fault those that have shared in the states failings due to budgets cuts because of closing businesses and high unemployment, and massive infrastructure degradation. I find it amazing that nobody minds being taxed for guns and weapons of war, windfalls to rich guys and a bunch of corporate welfare to international conglomerates, but no help for struggling in need men woman and children. It's my position that EVERYBODY be treated fairly while keeping the trains running on time and the roads and schools open and maintained and not just a cash cow for rich guys who hoard their money. You saying taxation shouldn't support ALL the people, just the rich investor class job creators? DUDE, those job creators barely support their own workers let alone their country. Got to be a better way. Research Amazon workers on food stamps to get an idea of what I'm talking about. What you thought Walmart was the only gouger in town? That's your local taxes at work. You are paying workers instead of the boss they work for. So lets put this welfare charity tax stuff to bed until we address the corporate welfare that destroys the tax base like poor people never will. Yeah I did the MATH!Quote:
That is a good point. I am referring to the generationally poor who have been raised on welfare with no real intention of working. For those who are in a temporary situation there is unemployment insurance, or for divorced women there should be a divorce financial settlement. But here is where we part company. I think that helping the poor should be an individual undertaking for you and me. You seem to believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Tal, and other liberals, should display their compassion for poor people by getting other people to support them through taxation.
A fair tax contribution/distribution system is in order if you want America to be great again. The one we have now is nowhere near FAIR or effective. I know poor myself and can say with certainty it's not even a matter of taking from the rich, it's more like giving MORE to the rich and very little is left for anything else. Poor people don't cause recessions/depressions, or global financial meltdowns... RICH guys do. I got nothing against them but why should I slobber over them and just give 'em my life for little return? LOL, I know where the cheap parts are, and the easy credit terms can be found.Quote:
If I didn't have the resources for a new oven, I would buy a used one, or get the cheapest one I could find and pay for it over two years. I have been poor before in my life. I know what it's like. I would not have forced Tal to buy me an oven through taxing him. I would, and have done so many times, consider it to be my job to take care of me and my family. It is also my job to help the poor, and it is your's as well, but not by forcing the feds to take money from others (the "rich") in order to do so.
Got ya' on the working hard deal, not so much on escaping poverty through marriage. It's that 50% divorce rate that looms large. Just don't buy that last line for reasons outlined above.Quote:
The terrible thing is this. By getting poor people accustomed to living on the resources of others, you are robbing them of their only real chance to escape poverty. That is to work, to work hard, to work 70 hours a week if need be, and then to have the satisfaction of knowing that YOU purchased the food on your table. The only real avenue of escape from poverty, for most people, is to get married, have children inside of marriage, work hard, spend wisely, and work together. Welfare robs them of the incentive to do that.
He is entitled to his opinion when getting his face time. Your choice to agree, disagree, or ignore.Quote:
Who appealed to AD as an economist?
I admire any 65 year old guy who can work 80 hours a week.
8)
Interesting reply. I have three questions for you.
1. Why is it that the out of wedlock birth rate was so low in 1960 (about 5%) compared to now (about 40%)? Bear in mind that this was before any birth control than those old unreliable condoms.
2. Can any woman get pregnant who is not having sex? If the answer is "no", then wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex? If you feel that is not sensible or possible, then explain how it was both sensible and possible for nearly all of recorded human history. And if they become pregnant by having unprotected sex, then why would any other American be forced to pay to support her?
3. Would you be OK with the feds issuing a poor person a voucher entitling that person to 300 dollars a month of your income? That way you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually contributing to the benefit of a poor person.
One point. Ten dollars a month for birth control pills is the actual price at Walmart and several other stores, not a co-pay. In fact, it is actually cheaper than 10 bucks.
And certainly there's NO pressure on her to have sex.... New rule for males: No more sex unless you're married to her.Quote:
2. Wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex?
Ahh, Wondergirl. Now you are catching on! I agree with you completely.
There is pressure to do many things. Drugs, drunkenness, party down, drop out of school, and so forth. The challenge is to do what is productive, and I would say what is pleasing in the sight of God.
And males will say when she says "no"....?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What does that have to do with it? So you are seriously suggesting that women should base their decisions on what they think a man will say? A woman makes a decision to live wisely. Why should she care what some stupid men say about it? What if they won't date her because she won't do drugs, or she won't get drunk? Should she change her standards then?
No. When she says no to requests/teasing/pleading/etc. for sex, males will honor that. In fact, they won't even bring it up.
I haven't located the world in which men are not sexually interested in women. I just don't think it's a good reason to get pregnant out of wedlock, and especially if a woman then wants to get other Americans to support her. Better to use some wisdom.
So you're saying it's really the woman's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Okay, males are interested -- and will have self control.
I'm saying we all make decisions, and we all need to shoulder the load of the consequences of our decisions. Don't expect others to do so. If a woman wants to have sex outside of marriage, then spend ten bucks a month and get on the pill. Or she can do whatever she wants, but don't ask other Americans to pay for the consequences of her decision. It's called responsibility. And yes, men need to exercise self control. I fully agree. If a man gets a woman pregnant, then he should help support the child.
So let me ask a question. Since a woman cannot get pregnant outside of sex, then wouldn't you consider her wise to postpone sex until she gets married? And please don't respond with more nonsense about men exercising self control. Men don't get pregnant. It's the woman who will have to make the most sacrifices, and should therefore think the most carefully. It is in her best interest to do so.
Isn't it amazing how many problems are solved by the institution of marriage?
That's what I was taught by my Lutheran pastor father. (Um, what about getting pregnant via artificial insemination?)Quote:
Since a woman cannot get pregnant outside of sex, then wouldn't you consider her wise to postpone sex until she gets married?
If they can't, the castle will be raided.Quote:
And please don't respond with more nonsense about men exercising self control.
So men and women both need to exercise self-control. I can go with that.
jlisenbe; I have three questions for you.
1. Why is it that the out of wedlock birth rate was so low in 1960 (about 5%) compared to now (about 40%)? Bear in mind that this was before any birth control than those old unreliable condoms.
You mean back in the day when unmarried pregnant females disappeared to relatives or boarding houses run by nuns that had adoptions services, or back alley doctors and knowledgeable women versed in those kinds of things or given societies attitudes the simple answer was pregnancy went unreported.
2. Can any woman get pregnant who is not having sex? If the answer is "no", then wouldn't it be sensible for unmarried women to simply not have sex? If you feel that is not sensible or possible, then explain how it was both sensible and possible for nearly all of recorded human history. And if they become pregnant by having unprotected sex, then why would any other American be forced to pay to support her?
Yes that was the sensible attitude but maybe you should ask the females why they had sex, or got pregnant. You may be shocked to learn that sensibility was not an option, or sensibility was overwhelmed by that primal need to breed, whether marriage was an option or not. Many women think pregnancy keeps a man so how sensible is that?
3. Would you be OK with the feds issuing a poor person a voucher entitling that person to 300 dollars a month of your income? That way you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually contributing to the benefit of a poor person.
You keep coming back to this idea that it's your personal money going to the welfare of women and children be it a mistake or out of wedlock. Two points to consider, 1. it comes from the general fund yes TAXES. and 2. After a mistake as you call it what does it matter since the outcome is a CHILD and needs love and support because it's here for whatever the reason.
Hey I see your point and I'm sure we all have MANY things we don't want our tax dollars going to. Personally I don't want a rich fat cat getting welfare and destroying my local tax base and I have to subsidize a working person because the bosses don't pay enough for food lights or babysitters.
Yeah it would be nice if all humans were more sensible, there would be no wars, crime, or poverty. If only they were sensible. The reality is humans are not sensible, They are flawed so their thinking, actions, and behavior will be flawed. Wonder why God made us so flawed instead of sensible. Remind me to ask when I meet my maker.
In the meantime I have to make the best choices I can and hope for the best. Stuff happens though even when we make excellent choices. Now we have another CHOICE. How we deal with it. So a woman has made mistakes and you say let her and her mistakes pay the consequences. I simply say since I have made many mistakes myself, the best choice is to forgive and help her do better.
Quite simply that's the choice I make. Maybe that $300 bucks is a small price to pay for being a good human, if you choose to look at it that way. Seems very sensible to me in the grand scheme of things. I mean that could be me depending on the milk of another humans kindness.
One point. Ten dollars a month for birth control pills is the actual price at Walmart and several other stores, not a co-pay. In fact, it is actually cheaper than 10 bucks.
I would much prefer a female see a doctor first just to make sure she isn't taking something that may not be healthy for her just because it's cheap and easily available. That would be the sensible course of action to take, and the path I guided my daughters and female relatives and friends too. Some listened some didn't.
You should read the inserts that come with those products.
Before Roe v. Wade:
Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death. This was the technique used by Vera Drake, the protagonist of Mike Leigh’s 2004 award-winning movie. Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy. As a young doctor, I removed a rubber catheter from the uterus of a woman with fever of 106 degrees. A dietitian in a nearby city had inserted the catheter through her cervix to induce an abortion.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_6324610.html
That is simply not true. Did those things happen? Yes, but not in anything close to being enough to explain the difference in numbers between now and then. The truth is, sexual activity outside of marriage was not nearly as prevalent as it is today. It was a different moral climate.Quote:
You mean back in the day when unmarried pregnant females disappeared to relatives or boarding houses run by nuns that had adoptions services, or back alley doctors and knowledgeable women versed in those kinds of things or given societies attitudes the simple answer was pregnancy went unreported.
Then I encourage you to do so, and I'll join you, but don't force others to pay when they don't want to. It is an issue for private charity, not forced charity by the feds. Again, I don't think any American has a right to the wealth or income of another American.Quote:
I simply say since I have made many mistakes myself, the best choice is to forgive and help her do better.
*cough* In which hole had you buried your head????Quote:
The truth is, sexual activity outside of marriage was not nearly as prevalent as it is today. It was a different moral climate.
An age old debate and age old remedies, I think we should reintroduce the chastity belt with some innovations, making it suitable for both sexes, however this would never be adopted in the land of freedom where you are free to stuff up someone's life every day of the week anyway you can
The rise of the divorce rate may be a factor in the changing mores as well as people coming out and rejecting the mores that don't work for them any longer. Or maybe woman have decided they have had enough of being told what to do and how to do it and have taken to planning their own lives. I'm sure we aren't talking about them, as you seemed to be focused on poor females. That's an incomplete equation because as WG points out a female CANNOT have sex and get pregnant without a MAN right. Why is his choice not a MAJOR factor in what you see are those choices? You seem to place no responsibility on HIS choice to make a baby and walk away from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Maybe what has changed the moral climate is the choices MEN make when they get a female pregnant. Maybe there is a need for poor MEN to be helped in some ways also. I just reject the notion that it's all the woman's fault for being left with bad options and bad mouthing while the man just finds another female to impregnate. It's a problem for poor folks man or woman to make such 'mistakes". Maybe it's the men we should be educating and guiding to the path of good orderly direction and maybe the female will follow to put it simply.
A helping hand to insure the real victims of the mistakes of fellow humans, their children, have what they need to make better choices would seem the path to go. Rather than exclusively lament the choices of others a SOLUTION to the task at hand would be desirable and more productive. So what's your solution to that? You got a better solution than a social safety net that everybody contributes to equally to ensure help for THOSE victims (THE KIDS) who had no say in the parent(S) bad choices?Quote:
Then I encourage you to do so, and I'll join you, but don't force others to pay when they don't want to. It is an issue for private charity, not forced charity by the feds. Again, I don't think any American has a right to the wealth or income of another American.
Don't let me get started on this notion of taking another mans wealth. A false narrative that hides the truth of blaming the least while the most extract even more. Poor people don't take your wealth, they are just easy targets to blame after you are ROBBED by someone else.
What a well thought out, scholarly response. It's these kinds of non-thinking comments that get tiresome.Quote:
*cough* In which hole had you buried your head????
I think I can sum this up easily.
1. Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant.
2. If a woman does have sex, she should use some sort of birth control. The same is true for men.
3. If she doesn't do so, and becomes pregnant, then it becomes an issue for her, her family, and the man to solve. She should not have the right to take money (assisted by the feds) from other Americans.
4. Marriage is the solution to all of those problems. Not a perfect solution, but the best solution.
5. That we are living in a sex-saturated, promiscuous culture, much more so than it was 60 years ago, is the most obvious truth in the world to anyone willing to see it. Out of wedlock birth rate differences (800% increase) cannot be explained by backroom abortions and boarding houses. And even if a single woman was "sent off" to have her baby in another city, it would still be listed as an out of wedlock birth. In fact, with legalized abortion and the universal, easy availability of birth control methods, you would think the opposite would have happened.
So why then do men have/want/demand sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Men who don't have sex with women don't get them pregnant.Quote:
Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant.
jlisenbe; I think I can sum this up easily.
1. Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant.
Men that get women pregnant should take care of their responsibility or pay consequences for their actions. They also made a choice to have sex.
2. If a woman does have sex, she should use some sort of birth control. The same is true for men.
Agreed and if that doesn't go as planned or something goes wrong, both should RESPONSIBLE for their actions.
3. If she doesn't do so, and becomes pregnant, then it becomes an issue for her, her family, and the man to solve. She should not have the right to take money (assisted by the feds) from other Americans.
And if none of the above lacks the ability or resource to adequately address the problem, then the rest of the village has to help. Again though I must point out that accusing the least of us of robbing us, and letting the ones that are actually robbing us blind not have any blame or consequences is a distraction and impediment to solving an ages old problem.
4. Marriage is the solution to all of those problems. Not a perfect solution, but the best solution.
Do the math, poor people's needs cost a lot less that what our corrupt officials skim from the economy. You still have addressed how to stay married. The failure of marriages to endure makes it not only less than perfect but undesirable because of the devastation and disruption of real lives by all involved. I think that's why people have rejected in growing numbers the institution of marriage and seek other ways of living.
5. That we are living in a sex-saturated, promiscuous culture, much more so than it was 60 years ago, is the most obvious truth in the world to anyone willing to see it. Out of wedlock birth rate differences (800% increase) cannot be explained by backroom abortions and boarding houses. And even if a single woman was "sent off" to have her baby in another city, it would still be listed as an out of wedlock birth. In fact, with legalized abortion and the universal, easy availability of birth control methods, you would think the opposite would have happened.
Actually the opposite is happening as education and availability of options to unwanted pregnancies gives females choices to better themselves and raise their kids without a man's help. More and more that is the choice being made and we have more woman gainfully employed and with good careers. The whole stigma of females having out of wedlock children has lost all it's negative meaning when they take care of their kids. How is that a bad thing?
A cared for well raised child to productive adult hood is becoming the acceptable option despite preoccupation with name callers and label makers. Ill say it again since you focus on the taking of your money, the cost of corrupt politicians shilling for rich donors far outweighs the cost of raising a child be they B@STARD or baptized.
Let's hold everybody equally accountable for their actions, not just poor people, who have few options. Interesting discussion my friend, but I'm not buying out of wedlock kids or poor females have caused all the ills in our society. Marriage is not the answer to corruption, or wage inequality, and banning porn or sex won't change those things. Nor is out of wedlock kids that grow up to be productive good humans a bad thing either. Why even judge those of humble beginnings like they can NEVER learn to do better.
It's a FACT hungry kids can't learn so well, be they ba$tards or baptized, and more women are taking their kids and leaving bad marriages than they did back in the day. So marriage can also be a very sad miserable trap. Seen plenty of those too!
I could resist posting this absolutely perfect representation of my opinions
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...jOW2MsLQoQ--~C
How on earth you can say the opposite is happening is just mind-blowing. The rate of out of wedlock births is up 800%, but you say it's going down?? Good grief. Facts and truth no longer matter to you.Quote:
Actually the opposite is happening as education and availability of options to unwanted pregnancies gives females choices to better themselves and raise their kids without a man's help. More and more that is the choice being made and we have more woman gainfully employed and with good careers. The whole stigma of females having out of wedlock children has lost all it's negative meaning when they take care of their kids. How is that a bad thing?
How is it a bad thing? Well, just for instance, in 2016, 32% of single-parent families with children were living in poverty versus just 7% of two-parent families. Additionally, 63 percent of suicides nationwide are from single parent homes, 75 percent of children in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families, and more than half of all youths incarcerated in the U.S. lived in one-parent families as a child. Those children perform less well in school and are less likely to get a college degree. But fear not, for in Tal's imaginary world, all is well.Quote:
The whole stigma of females having out of wedlock children has lost all it's negative meaning when they take care of their kids. How is that a bad thing?
Where did you get this nonsense? I've never said poor females have caused all the ills in our society or that marriage is the answer to corruption or wage inequality. I have never suggested we ban sex or porn. What dream world are you living in?Quote:
I'm not buying out of wedlock kids or poor females have caused all the ills in our society. Marriage is not the answer to corruption, or wage inequality, and banning porn or sex won't change those things.
The way to stay married is... to stay married. Not real complicated.
I don't mean to sound ugly, but this has become frustrating. It would be very helpful if you would stop posting the party line and engage in facts. Just five or ten minutes on the internet would show you that children from single parent homes face enormous challenges. You say they need a village. I say they need a mom and dad to raise them. Now some kids don't have that, and we need to help them. I get that. The difference is, my approach is that I need to be involved, and have been for decades. Your approach is to show your heart of compassion by forcing other people to help. Sorry. That's not compassion. It's fake compassion.
Might add that in 1960, about 90% of families were two parent homes. Wonder how it is that they were so much more successful in the business of marriage than we are today?
It had to do with religious beliefs which have been lost, thus leading to the breakdown of marriage and society and the rise of the me generationQuote:
Wonder how it is that they were so much more successful in the business of marriage than we are today?
Might not be all of the answer, but it certainly is the foundation.Quote:
It had to do with religious beliefs which have been lost, thus leading to the breakdown of marriage and society and the rise of the me generation.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 PM. |