Liberalism, Poverty, and Babies

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, the remedy is fairly simple....

1. Note the following:

a. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

b. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

d. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

e. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

f Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
These are all stated goals of the communist party. The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

Strangely, they coincide with the aims of Democrats, Liberals, secularists.


Each and every one must be reversed, and erased for our culture.
That would be a good start.

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

national socialism is a leftist idiocy

According to you. Nationalism is a rightist ideology...Socialism when its just socialism is leftist National Socialism is neither. Its a 3rd position.

And you bring what to the table?

I don't need to bring anything to the table. I have 3 white kids who will make sure our bloodline and race continue to live on. That's enough for me.

1. 'The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.'
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

 

[Vox]

According to you. Nationalism is a rightist ideology...Socialism when its just socialism is leftist National Socialism is neither. Its a 3rd position.


I don't need to bring anything to the table. I have 3 white kids who will make sure our bloodline and race continue to live on. That's enough for me.

1. 'The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.'
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

straightforward form the textbook of marxism-leninism

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, the remedy is fairly simple....

1. Note the following:

a. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

b. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

c. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

d. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

e. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

f Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
These are all stated goals of the communist party. The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

Strangely, they coincide with the aims of Democrats, Liberals, secularists.


Each and every one must be reversed, and erased for our culture.
That would be a good start.

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. 'The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.'
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

straightforward form the textbook of marxism-leninism

So? Most governments that manage to keep capitalism in check are not Marxist.

 

[Jroc]

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

 

[Vox]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

straightforward form the textbook of marxism-leninism

So? Most governments that manage to keep capitalism in check are not Marxist.

it is not TRUE, so.

that's baloney, in other words.

 

[rdean]

We spend too much money taking care of Red States.

 

[jasonnfree]

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

You do know that the two parties have changed in the last hundred and fifty years don't you? There are some anti black threads here that would make stormfront proud and the anti blacks are always the republicans.

 

[Jroc]

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

You do know that the two parties have changed in the last hundred and fifty years don't you? There are some anti black threads here that would make stormfront proud and the anti blacks are always the republicans.

Bullshit....Individuals are individuals, its the Democrat party that continues to rob people of their liberties, they are the same party as they always have been. Get it straight

 

[Steven_R]

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

You act like if the KKK or Black Panthers or Jews For Jesus or whoever are associated with an idea that no one else can use it. If the KKK has a sound economic idea, I'm okay with agreeing with them. If the Black Panthers have a foreign policy position I think is a good position, I'm fine with agreeing with them.

I won't agree with either of them on social positions, but that doesn't mean their entire platform is tainted just because they have some planks that suck.

 

[Pogo]

The basic family values endorsed by conservatives begin with waiting until marriage to have children. Today...giving birth marks the different between classes, between the well off and the poor.

Care to see a Liberal view of the situation?

1. "....The New York Times ran a story under the provocative headline, “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside of Marriage.” The article suggested childbearing outside of marriage was the “new normal”—

[ According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent. ]American FactFinder - Results *


2. .... but sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School and a prominent scholar of the American family.... points out that 94 percent of births to college-educated women today occur within marriage (a rate virtually unchanged from a generation ago), whereas the real change has taken place at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

3. In 1960 it didn’t matter whether you were rich or poor, college-educated or a high-school dropout—almost all American women waited until they were married to have kids. Now 57 percent of women with high-school degrees or less education are unmarried when they bear their first child.

[ June of 1962 Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses. Its offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. Seems a lot of the 'rage' was against values.]

4. ... conservative political scientist Charles Murray ’65 advances in his recent book 'Coming Apart' that poor Americans value marriage less than the middle class does.

[Seems obvious, no?]

5. Edin argues that the poor place tremendous value on marriage—but often see it as unobtainable. “The poor all say they want marriages like middle-class people have, marriages that will last,” Edin says. “Middle-class people are searching longer for their partners, they’re marrying people more like themselves, and as a result marriages have gotten happier and more stable.”

[Really? Lower economic classes place tremendous value on marriage? Really?]


6. [Edin] cites a range of obstacles that prevent the poor from realizing their marital aspirations, including the low quality of many of their existing relationships; norms they hold about the standard of living necessary to support a marriage; the challenges of integrating kids from past relationships into new ones; and an aversion to divorce.

[Does this seem to be a series of excuses? What standard of living is necessary to marry?]


7. But ... they continue to see bearing and raising children as the most meaningful activity in their lives. ... given their bleak economic prospects and minimal hope of upward mobility, being a parent is one of the few positive identities available to them. Middle-class women have substantial economic incentives to delay childbearing (a woman who gives birth right after college earns half as much in her lifetime as the classmate who waits until her mid thirties), but those incentives don’t exist for poor women.

[But their 'bleak economic prospects begin with having children out of wedlock. And those 'middle-class women....somehow they have incentives??]


8. “Early childbearing is highly selective of girls whose characteristics—family background, cognitive ability, school performance, mental-health status, and so on—have already diminished their life chances so much that an early birth does little to reduce them further.”

[So, what the heck, continue down the path of poverty...no responsibility, no recriminations....]

9. .... 15-year-old André, who rejoiced to learn his ex-girlfriend was pregnant.... “He was embracing life and rejecting death,” she explains. “He could have been out there dealing drugs but instead he’s diapering his baby and learning how to twist her hair.

[Heart-warming tale....I wonder if the child will see it that way.]

10. The only way disadvantaged Americans will delay childbearing, she argues, is if they see other, equally positive, paths available. “There’s either guns or babies, and if people have to make that choice, they’re going to choose babies,” she says. “As long as we sustain such high rates of inequality, it’s going to be really hard to get youth at the bottom to buy into a system that’s unavailable to them. "

[Liberalism's answer: No darn way out in America: it's either 'guns or babies.']
Kathryn Edin explains the increase in births out of wedlock | Harvard Magazine Jul-Aug 2012

Gee...I don't know....how about if Liberal elites stopped finding excuses for why bad choices are their 'only' choices.
Sound like a plan?

" I tell you what affirmative action is, soft bigotry, low expectations. Affirmative action is a racist insult disguised as social justice by the Democrats." The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations - The Rush Limbaugh Show

So you have a page full of exceprts from an article about socio-cultural commentary, with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?) and just because you post it in the Politics forum you think it has something to do with "liberalism"?

Where?

Btw you think putting the word "really?" in brackets after a point actually refutes it?

sigh...

 

[NYcarbineer]

straightforward form the textbook of marxism-leninism

So? Most governments that manage to keep capitalism in check are not Marxist.

it is not TRUE, so.

that's baloney, in other words.

If you would like to convince me that 1) the US has no regulations on business,

or, 2) that the US is a Marxist nation...I'm all ears.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

If you would like to try to convince me that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a liberal...I'm all ears.

 

[jasonnfree]

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

You do know that the two parties have changed in the last hundred and fifty years don't you? There are some anti black threads here that would make stormfront proud and the anti blacks are always the republicans.

Bullshit....Individuals are individuals, its the Democrat party that continues to rob people of their liberties, they are the same party as they always have been. Get it straight

If they're the same parties as always then why did the entire south turn republican after the civil rights era of the sixties? How are democrats robbing people of their liberties? Their liberties to be poor I think. People in republican governed states will have a hard time getting obamacare because their governors won't expand medicaid. A sure way to guarantee the poor in those states to stay sick and poor. Were the republicans always this viciously callous toward the poor? Not in my long lifetime. The tide started to turn for the republicans when multibillionaire funded reagan came on the scene and started this anti government spiel, and the multibillionaires funded enough reactionary media for millions of people like yourself to eventually be swayed into buying into their crap.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Political Chic, that was a most depressing post. Enough to start thinking of a social experiment. What if...

In the curriculum, LIfe Classes begin: Ways out of Poverty; Education is the Way; Strong Families; When to have Children; Career Choices; Life Mates; Financial Decisions, Your reputation; etc.

If we have to teach these things we have to! A controversial section in one class would be having girls (with parents permission) implanted with IUD's in 9th grade.

I have always been against social engineering in the schools. Schools are for academics. But things are not getting any better in the lower class. Students are not learning the positive things they should at home. So, I guess, it's up to the schools.

But the warning is out. The social learning should increase the school day and it does not include the liberal ideologue!

Does this fit your 'Ways out of Poverty' course?

Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com



BTW....did you notice how difficult Obama has made step 3?

"There are now 28 million people working part time versus 116.2 million full-timers. Once all the incentives of the ACA kick in by 2015, those figures could switch by perhaps as much as 10 million, turning into 38 million part-timers versus 106.2 million full-timers—bringing a noticeable decrease in the total number of productive hours workers spend on the job."
More Part-Time Jobs With Obamacare - WSJ.com

Ah, but...if you're an adult with children and your fulltime job doesn't include healthcare coverage,

or pay enough that you can afford to purchase it, then you're going to be among the working poor, or close to it,

and you're still going to end up qualifying for government assistance in the form of Medicaid and the like.

 

[Jackson]

Political Chic, that was a most depressing post. Enough to start thinking of a social experiment. What if...

In the curriculum, LIfe Classes begin: Ways out of Poverty; Education is the Way; Strong Families; When to have Children; Career Choices; Life Mates; Financial Decisions, Your reputation; etc.

If we have to teach these things we have to! A controversial section in one class would be having girls (with parents permission) implanted with IUD's in 9th grade.

I have always been against social engineering in the schools. Schools are for academics. But things are not getting any better in the lower class. Students are not learning the positive things they should at home. So, I guess, it's up to the schools.

But the warning is out. The social learning should increase the school day and it does not include the liberal ideologue!

Does this fit your 'Ways out of Poverty' course?

Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com



BTW....did you notice how difficult Obama has made step 3?

"There are now 28 million people working part time versus 116.2 million full-timers. Once all the incentives of the ACA kick in by 2015, those figures could switch by perhaps as much as 10 million, turning into 38 million part-timers versus 106.2 million full-timers—bringing a noticeable decrease in the total number of productive hours workers spend on the job."
More Part-Time Jobs With Obamacare - WSJ.com

Absolutely. But how do you get the high school kids to adhere to those three rules? It appears we need so much intervention to block the already accepted modes of behavior and accepted norms in the inner city.

 

[Jroc]

You do know that the two parties have changed in the last hundred and fifty years don't you? There are some anti black threads here that would make stormfront proud and the anti blacks are always the republicans.

Bullshit....Individuals are individuals, its the Democrat party that continues to rob people of their liberties, they are the same party as they always have been. Get it straight

If they're the same parties as always then why did the entire south turn republican after the civil rights era of the sixties? How are democrats robbing people of their liberties? Their liberties to be poor I think. People in republican governed states will have a hard time getting obamacare because their governors won't expand medicaid. A sure way to guarantee the poor in those states to stay sick and poor. Were the republicans always this viciously callous toward the poor? Not in my long lifetime. The tide started to turn for the republicans when multibillionaire funded reagan came on the scene and started this anti government spiel, and the multibillionaires funded enough reactionary media for millions of people like yourself to eventually be swayed into buying into their crap.

Individual liberty is "crap" to you? that's all that needs to be said. As far as billionaires? The democrats have more of them..Get it straight talking points boy

 

[Pogo]

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

David Duke called. He said... well, he didn't say anything, he was laughing too hard. He just read your post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

"What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will'..."


Chief Justice Rehnquist, who, unlike you, actually understood the Constitution, and the correct role of judges, made clear that they had no rights sans the authorization of the actual words of the Constitution:

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges can ONLY render decisions in line with the language of the Constitution.


Once again you reveal the desire for someone to order you around.....which appears to me to be a sign of your lack of self-respect.


"It should not
be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who
may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be
easier just because the individual in question is a judge."
Ibid.



Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.
Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law