Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy.

[ChrisL]

My son is 21, and he is still a PITA!

How much of a PITA can a person who doesn't live in the same house be?

He does live with me. ???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see we have another vote for a government run sterilization force. Let me guess, compassionate conservative and trump supporter?

It's called common sense. How can you end poverty when the government promotes the procreation of poor people? The more kids you have, the more welfare you get, the larger SNAP's card, the larger HUD house.......sometimes in the suburbs.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class parents usually end up with middle-class children when they grow up. Same thing holds for upper-middle-class and even the wealthy. Poverty is not all the much different.

After all, what do we working people do when we can't afford to have anymore children or children at all for that matter? We use birth control. We make sure we don't have any children we can't afford.

So it's not like I'm asking anything different for the poor than I am for the working.

 

[Vastator]

My son is 21, and he is still a PITA!

How much of a PITA can a person who doesn't live in the same house be?

He does live with me. ???

...and there you have it.

 

[ChrisL]

My son is 21, and he is still a PITA!

How much of a PITA can a person who doesn't live in the same house be?

He does live with me. ???

...and there you have it.

There you have what? Did you kick your kids out at 18 or something?

 

[ChrisL]

I see we have another vote for a government run sterilization force. Let me guess, compassionate conservative and trump supporter?

It's called common sense. How can you end poverty when the government promotes the procreation of poor people? The more kids you have, the more welfare you get, the larger SNAP's card, the larger HUD house.......sometimes in the suburbs.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class parents usually end up with middle-class children when they grow up. Same thing holds for upper-middle-class and even the wealthy. Poverty is not all the much different.

After all, what do we working people do when we can't afford to have anymore children or children for that matter? We use birth control. We make sure we don't have any children we can't afford.

So it's not like I'm asking anything different for the poor than I am for the working.

There have ALWAYS been poor people and poverty, long before there were any social service programs. These poor people always had children. I would not necessarily be against some kind of mandatory birth control and special job training for people who are collecting social services, but you can't just let children starve either. You seem to want to punish the adults. Well, it's most often the children who suffer, and those children didn't do anything wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There have ALWAYS been poor people and poverty, long before there were any social service programs. These poor people always had children. I would not necessarily be against some kind of mandatory birth control and special job training for people who are collecting social services, but you can't just let children starve either. You seem to want to punish the adults. Well, it's most often the children who suffer, and those children didn't do anything wrong.

Which is why mandatory birth control would eliminate that.

Let's say you have to go on some sort of welfare program. You're a single mother with two children. Fine, the taxpayers will provide for you and your family, but that's it. No more children once on that program(s). The buck stops there.

We couldn't trust most of the people on welfare to just agree not to have children because we won't give them anymore. They know we as a society will not allow their children to do without no matter what. They would continue to have children anyway and yes, those children would suffer up to the point we as a society just gave in, and we would be right back to where we are today.

 

[ChrisL]

There have ALWAYS been poor people and poverty, long before there were any social service programs. These poor people always had children. I would not necessarily be against some kind of mandatory birth control and special job training for people who are collecting social services, but you can't just let children starve either. You seem to want to punish the adults. Well, it's most often the children who suffer, and those children didn't do anything wrong.

Which is why mandatory birth control would eliminate that.

Let's say you have to go on some sort of welfare program. You're a single mother with two children. Fine, the taxpayers will provide for you and your family, but that's it. No more children once on that program(s). The buck stops there.

We couldn't trust most of the people on welfare to just agree not to have children because we won't give them anymore. They know we as a society will not allow their children to do without no matter what. They would continue to have children anyway and yes, those children would suffer up to the point we as a society just gave in, and we would be right back to where we are today.

It never stopped them in the past when they didn't have any social services. There are going to be poor people. They are going to have sex, and sometimes a child.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It never stopped them in the past when they didn't have any social services. There are going to be poor people. They are going to have sex, and sometimes a child.

Correct. Nothing can stop that. But if they are going to go to the taxpayer for support of themselves or those children, then you have to be fixed before you get anything.

 

[Vastator]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.

I won't try to answer for Chris, but I don't have a problem with a young adult living with their parents for a limited time. It gives them a chance to save money for a house or have some savings if they move out to an apartment.

If a kid gets out of high school and goes right into the workforce, he or she will never be anything in life if they have to spend all their paychecks just to survive. Living check to check takes you many years before you actually start to save some money.

I have a neighbor down the street who's nothing but a drunk. In his mid 50's, he still lives with his mother and she supports him because he's too loaded to work. It's been that way his entire adult life. I've lived here for over 30 years.

That's a much different story. I would never support my drunken kid no matter what age if he didn't work and decided to just stay home and spend every dollar he got on booze and pot.

 

[Vastator]

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.

I won't try to answer for Chris, but I don't have a problem with a young adult living with their parents for a limited time. It gives them a chance to save money for a house or have some savings if they move out to an apartment.

If a kid gets out of high school and goes right into the workforce, he or she will never be anything in life if they have to spend all their paychecks just to survive. Living check to check takes you many years before you actually start to save some money.

I have a neighbor down the street who's nothing but a drunk. In his mid 50's, he still lives with his mother and she supports him because he's too loaded to work. It's been that way his entire adult life. I've lived here for over 30 years.

That's a much different story. I would never support my drunken kid no matter what age if he didn't work and decided to just stay home and spend every dollar he got on booze and pot.

There a a lot of cases just like that nationwide. It's really a shame too. Also I can't help but notice that in virtually all of those cases the deadbeat lives with thier single mom. Often times single moms go way over board in support of thier babies, due to the guilt of failing to keep the family unit together for a myriad of reasons. It's a pretty sad cycle to witness.

 

[ChrisL]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

I think it's illegal for 16-year-olds to be living by themselves. They would be placed into foster care. Why wouldn't he live at home? To save money and be prepared.

Face the facts, 15-year-olds are still children. Science says so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There a a lot of cases just like that nationwide. It's really a shame too. Also I can't help but notice that in virtually all of those cases the deadbeat lives with thier single mom. Often times single moms go way over board in support of thier babies, due to the guilt of failing to keep the family unit together for a myriad of reasons. It's a pretty sad cycle to witness.

Very much so. You should see what goes on over there.

He and his mother fight like cat and dog. He has no respect for her. Very often you hear him screaming at his mother calling her all kinds of names like MF bitch, stupid whore, and those kinds of things.

This guy never even drove a car in his life as far as I know. He walks to the gas station to buy his beer and cigarettes. His mother is not doing very well, so last month I noticed an ambulance in front of the house. I didn't sit there and stare, but I looked out of the window now and then to see if I could see anything.

While the ambulance was there, I seen him leave the house and start walking to the gas station. I couldn't believe it. Then while he was gone, the ambulance took off with the sirens blaring so I knew they took her to the hospital. All he cared about was getting his beer.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is An Act Of Preserving White supremacy.

A familiar colloquialism is “let kids be kids.” But of course, not all kids are granted this privilege. Tamir Rice certainly was not afforded this privilege. Trayvon Martin was not afforded this privilege. Dajerria Becton was not afforded this privilege. The Black and brown children racially profiled on my neighborhood listserves are not afforded this privilege. Children who do not have their basic needs met due to poverty are not afforded this privilege.

I want my children to explore, play and enjoy the world around them. I also want them to understand that injustice exists. If I am unwilling to unveil how systems of oppression work, I’m playing into the notion that my children’s innocence is more fragile and more important than other children who do not have the option to have their innocence preserved. White supremacy lives on through this choice.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d2d8f4e4b0273330ac3dae?ref=yfp

It is simply never going to end. Never.

Who's responsibility is it [specifically] to make sure those children, who live in poverty, have those needs met?

Children do have the right to free education which is shared by all across all race groups. If your district is not spending that need to provide adequate public schools, isn't that the responsibility of the mayor and district representatives to focus on achieving those goals? Did you not elect local representatives who campaigned to speak on your behalf and meet those needs? What role does your local leadership actually play to you, if you don't hold those we elect to account?

 

[ChrisL]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

If you were out of the house at 16, how did you go to school?

You were out of the house at 16 but on your own at 17? What about your education?

I realize that you are an older gentleman, and you must realize that times have changed a LOT.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is An Act Of Preserving White supremacy.

A familiar colloquialism is “let kids be kids.” But of course, not all kids are granted this privilege. Tamir Rice certainly was not afforded this privilege. Trayvon Martin was not afforded this privilege. Dajerria Becton was not afforded this privilege. The Black and brown children racially profiled on my neighborhood listserves are not afforded this privilege. Children who do not have their basic needs met due to poverty are not afforded this privilege.

I want my children to explore, play and enjoy the world around them. I also want them to understand that injustice exists. If I am unwilling to unveil how systems of oppression work, I’m playing into the notion that my children’s innocence is more fragile and more important than other children who do not have the option to have their innocence preserved. White supremacy lives on through this choice.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d2d8f4e4b0273330ac3dae?ref=yfp

It is simply never going to end. Never.

Teach your children, Pants Up Don't Loot.

 

[ChrisL]

How are 16 or 17-year-old children supposed to take care of themselves with NO experience and NO education?

Is it a good idea to toss your kid out at 16? I think not, and I believe that would be a crime of negligence in my state.

 

[Vastator]

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

I think it's illegal for 16-year-olds to be living by themselves. They would be placed into foster care. Why wouldn't he live at home? To save money and be prepared.

Face the facts, 15-year-olds are still children. Science says so.

Cuz I was adult enough to understand that the law could not prosecute a minor for leaving home; and savvy enough to make my way without adhering to the stricture of legality. Ended up graduating high school at17, military Fromm 18-22; and gainfully employed ever since. What's science as bout that. Not too shabby for a "child" huh?

 

[ChrisL]

My son has NEVER come home drunk, thankfully. He's witnessed alcoholism and he doesn't like what he witnessed.

My son works full time. He is a tree climber. He works VERY hard every day. In fact, he's doing a side job today. He pays me rent too, so now WHAT, Mr. Vastator, who thinks people remain with the mentality of 15-year-olds for the rest of their lives?

Let me start by saying as a poster you are one of the few here who come off as genuine. I like that. And at the risk of breaching the rules I'd simply have to ask myself why a 21 year old gainfully employed individual would still be living with his mother. Arrested development is all I can come up with. I was on my own at age 17. Out of the house at 16.
As far as people remain just As experienced and wise as they were at 15; even when they are much older...? Well what could one reasonably expect when thier lifestyle hasn't really changed since they were 15? Nothing changes, if nothing changes.

I think it's illegal for 16-year-olds to be living by themselves. They would be placed into foster care. Why wouldn't he live at home? To save money and be prepared.

Face the facts, 15-year-olds are still children. Science says so.

Cuz I was adult enough to understand that the law could not prosecute a minor for leaving home; and savvy enough to make my way without adhering to the stricture of legality. Ended up graduating high schools 17, military Fromm 18-22; and gainfully employed ever since. What's science as bout that. Not too shabby for a "child" huh?

Prosecute? They can prosecute the parents and put you in a foster home or a state run home for runaways.