On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:08:13 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:40:12 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:52:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to
be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the
Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.)

Are there some things you'd like to say about the mothers of these
babies, John? Don't hold back on us...don't be covert...just say it...go
ahead...come out of the closet.


What's there to say, except that they're irresponsible and have
seriously juxtaposed priorities.

Dave

I suppose Harry considers me a racist because I believe in parental
responsibility.

I suppose Bill Cosby is also a racist. He feels much the same way.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/1...sby/index.html


Cosby, as usual, is right on the money. Much of his comedy is derived
from lampooning real life. I've never seen a greater truth than when
he performed his "Himself" routine.

Bill has his finger on the pulse of the black community, and see's
what's wrong. But for some reason, if a white person were to make
these comments, those comments would be carried under the ton of
accusations about racism which would no doubt be the result.

Hopefully, the fact that Cosby is black himself, will allow his words
to sink in a little instead of being discarded out of hand and branded
as "racist" without even considering what the content of those words
are.

It's almost funny to see the spin meisters try to categorize Cosby, in
a continued effort to deny and refuse to face the truth of his words.

Dave

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:06:40 -0500, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:
The "American system" does encourage people to work and improve their
lot in life. This is the system that let's a Pakistani immigrate, buy
a clunker, paint it yellow, and start a cab business making $30,000 a
year.

Well, if the theory was true that the sum of all gov't prgrams
overwhelmingly benefits the poor, and taxes penalize the rich, then this
would rarely happen. Most people would happily sink into "poverty" while
sucking the gov't teat.

But many do. To any normal person with some pride and ambition, living
off the government teat would not be enough. But there are those who
lack either shame or ambition, and they are perfectly happy to let the
rest of us pay for their living costs.

This doesn't happen. Therefor the theory is false.

It does happen, so the theory is true. It doesn't have to be 100% to
make it so. You also left out an important detail; most recent
immigrants come here from places which are not so "kind" with respect
to welfare. They're used to working hard for a pittance. When they get
here, they are rewarded far more for their hard work. The typical
welfare slacker, on the other hand, is an "American" by birth, and
never had a good work ethic instilled in them. They are content to
feed off the government.

One need only look at all the outrage when the welfare program was
tightened up to force recipients to "work" to be eligible, to see just
how lazy these people are.

Very simple logic,
based on very obvious real-world facts. So why do so many people try and
claim otherwise?

Because your logic is flawed, and human beings are not always logical.


But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to
be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the
Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.)

AFAIK procreation is not regulated by the government. Is this the next
step in the new faith-based "moral values" federal government? It seems
rather incongruous for a group of people who claim to want to reduce the
size & scope of government, in theory.

No one is talking about the government regulating procreation
(Although if certain people are happy to let the government pay for
their care, the government should impose some restrictions as part of
the deal), only drawing a parallel that the same people who lack the
ambition to earn their own living also lack the responsibility to
avoid having children in a less than honorable or financially stable
environment.


Many of us 'right-wingers' (if it's necessary to call names)
understand that personal responsibility *does* fall both ways - some
folks have it, some don't.

Maybe that's the difference between a "right-winger" and a conservative.
Without using it as a pejorative, a "right-winger" is somebody who
believes at least 3 totally incompatible & illogical things and tries to
apply them rigidly as political principles.

Which are?

A conservative at least will give a passing nod to reality.


Does that include backing an obvious liberal who flies in the face of
conservative ideals?

Dave

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:10:29 -0500, DSK wrote:

Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free.


Dave Hall wrote:
The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is
small. Less than a dinner at Denny's

In other words, you were wrong.

Hell, I'm not perfect, I do make occasional errors. But my error on
admission price doesn't diminish my overall point.


Now let's work on the scope & scale of
your erroneous conclusions.

There's nothing to work on. Even a cheap admission is still a good
value even for those who aren't "rolling in green stuff". Unless, of
course you want to raise taxes so that admission could be free to
all....


BTW if you spend more than $20 on dinner at Denny's then I suspect your
claims about your weight are equally false.

And what were those claims?

Dave

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:01:16 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


I guess the news of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 has yet to reach you. It is no longer
welfare, more accurately, it is workfare.

In theory anyway.......

I find it almost laughable, in a sick sort of pathetic way, that these
people have the balls to complain about the "work" that they now have to
do to get their welfare money. I also wonder just how strict the people at
the "workfare" office are about making sure these people are actually
"working".


Perhaps you could share some evidence of this fraud? Your concept of
"welfare" is outdated and has been for years.

Dave Hall wrote:
Hell, I'm not perfect, I do make occasional errors. But my error on
admission price doesn't diminish my overall point.

In other words, you were wrong, but everything you say is still right...
yeah, sure Dave.

No wonder you are slobbering in lust for a President who is
psychologically unable to admit a mistake. You have the same problem
maybe not quite as bad, but you spend a lot of time wishing you had it
worse.


DSK

Perhaps you could share some evidence of this fraud? Your concept of
"welfare" is outdated and has been for years.



May not be his fault. One of the strongest weapons in the propaganda bag has
always been, "The liberals in government take your hard earned tax dollars, the
very bread off your family's dinner table, and give it to dark skinned people
who live in the housing projects so that *those* people don't have to work at
all. The people the liberals give your money to all have large families,
because the more often a woman gets pregnanat and has a kid- regardless who the
father is or whether she even knows who the father is- the more money the
liberals will give her."

You still hear this argument on the right wing radio shows, see it repeated in
public forums, etc. Since welfare was reformed under the Clinton
Administration, there are certain groups who would simply prefer to pretend it
never happened. The traditional
"woman cranking out babies on welfare" propaganda technique is too powerful to
abandon merely because it is no longer true.

On 15 Nov 2004 16:29:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Perhaps you could share some evidence of this fraud? Your concept of
"welfare" is outdated and has been for years.



May not be his fault. One of the strongest weapons in the propaganda bag has
always been, "The liberals in government take your hard earned tax dollars, the
very bread off your family's dinner table, and give it to dark skinned people
who live in the housing projects so that *those* people don't have to work at
all. The people the liberals give your money to all have large families,
because the more often a woman gets pregnanat and has a kid- regardless who the
father is or whether she even knows who the father is- the more money the
liberals will give her."

You still hear this argument on the right wing radio shows, see it repeated in
public forums, etc. Since welfare was reformed under the Clinton
Administration, there are certain groups who would simply prefer to pretend it
never happened. The traditional
"woman cranking out babies on welfare" propaganda technique is too powerful to
abandon merely because it is no longer true.

The 'out of wedlock' birth rate in Washington, DC, is close to 60%,
Chuck.

Whoops.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

JohnH wrote:

The 'out of wedlock' birth rate in Washington, DC, is close to 60%,


Been dipping your wick?


--
A passing thought:

"There is nothing outside the text." -- Jacques Derrida

The 'out of wedlock' birth rate in Washington, DC, is close to 60%,
Chuck.

Whoops.

Probably so. But welfare changed 7 or 8 years ago, and you should get your
facts up to date before diving into a tirade based on old information. If the
OOW birth rate were 100%, that wouldn't negate the fact that many remarks about
welfare, typically heard from the far right, are no longer factually accurate.

Gould 0738 wrote:
The 'out of wedlock' birth rate in Washington, DC, is close to 60%,
Chuck.

Whoops.

Probably so. But welfare changed 7 or 8 years ago, and you should get your
facts up to date before diving into a tirade based on old information. If the
OOW birth rate were 100%, that wouldn't negate the fact that many remarks about
welfare, typically heard from the far right, are no longer factually accurate.




I suspect you are quoting Herring here, since he is the one who is hung
up on the out-of-wedlock birth rate in DC, most probably because he's
trying to make a "racial" point without actually mentioning race.

"Out-of-wedlock" itself is not an issue. I know several women with
high-level jobs who earn more than Herring ever did, and who are
unmarried and decided to have a baby. The issue is one of supporting the
child. The answer is simple: more and better education for teens, and
decent training and jobs for teens who need to support themselves and a
child. And, of course, more easy access to birth control and abortion.

BTW, any number of "red" states have a climbing "out-of-wedlock" birth
rate. DC's, while the highest, is dropping. During the Clinton
Administration, the out-of-wedlock birth rate dropped for six years in a
row for ALL states.

The only possible conclusion...morality has gone down the tubes since
Bush was implanted.



--
A passing thought:

.... Are RAM chips better than EWE chips?