'S.C. Republican: Aid like feeding strays'

[The T]

What conclusion can one come to after reading this?

"Bauer, who's running for the Republican nomination for governor, made his remarks during a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn that included state lawmakers and about 115 residents, according to a Greenville News account written by Nathaniel Cary.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply."

S.C. Republican: Aid like feeding strays - CharlotteObserver.com

Joe Bageant: One party has no heart, the other no spine

I agree with him on the following points in the proper context:

"They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is, you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better,” Bauer said.

Bauer said it was time to confront “babies having babies, somebody's got to talk about. Politicians don't want to talk about it anymore because it's politically incorrect.”

He said government hasn't made requirements to make those receiving aid be more responsible.

“They can continue to have more and more kids and the reward is there's more and more money in it for them.”

I Concur. Too many are given a FREE RIDE and making it a Lifestyle with no thought of recompense...In other words? Too many take a Safety Net...and make it into a hammock...and then squeal when the hammock is taken from them.

 

[chanel]

Absolutely. Too many throwaway kids used as meal tickets. Every single pregnant girl I have known has been THRILLED with the idea of having a baby. And so are their mothers. It means another check in the house.

Raising a child is expensive and hard work. Unless someone else is doing it for you.

P.S. WHERE ARE THE DADS IN THIS EQUATION??????

 

[The T]

Absolutely. Too many throwaway kids used as meal tickets. Every single pregnant girl I have known has been THRILLED with the idea of having a baby. And so are their mothers. It means another check in the house.

Raising a child is expensive and hard work. Unless someone else is doing it for you.

P.S. WHERE ARE THE DADS IN THIS EQUATION??????

That's the idea in any event...

Charity is a wonderful attribute of Human Compassion. But when that compassion is expected as a matter of course versus taking matters into one's own hands to change their fortunes?

It becomes a LIABILITY for both parties concerned.

And a matter of History as we witness NOW.

Both Parties should NEVER be bogged down to the point to where their Individual Liberties are concerned...There are things such as Hand-Ups, and Hand downs...ONE of these is an affront to Human dignity.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I was poor growing up, and lord knows I did not make a ton of money as a soldier.... but the key word is WAS.... I worked my ass off, advanced, and did what I had to do to provide... and I worked my way into being a success

So?!?!? The MBA grad here in Manhattan who is now working at Starbucks and living back w/his parents worked hard and "did the right things" too. We lost over 200K GOOD jobs w/benefits because of Wall Street's shenanigans. You never know when your situation can change on a dime in this country (now more than ever). If you get laid off, can't find a job that pays real money for 3 months, 6 months or a year, you suddenly find yourself living off unemployment and you find yourself in POVERTY. See how easy that is? Add in no health insurance + a medical emergency and you've got a real problem. Hard work does not always = success and advancement. Hell, most bosses now fire their most proficient employees and hire an entry level person so that they don't have to pay the more experienced person's higher salary. Who can stick around long enough to "advance" anymore? That is more and more the norm. Besides, some of the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs are also the least compensated.

 

[The T]

I was poor growing up, and lord knows I did not make a ton of money as a soldier.... but the key word is WAS.... I worked my ass off, advanced, and did what I had to do to provide... and I worked my way into being a success

So?!?!? The MBA grad here in Manhattan who is now working at Starbucks and living back w/his parents worked hard and "did the right things" too. We lost over 200K GOOD jobs w/benefits because of Wall Street's shenanigans. You never know when your situation can change on a dime in this country (now more than ever). If you get laid off, can't find a job that pays real money for 3 months, 6 months or a year, you suddenly find yourself living off unemployment and you find yourself in POVERTY. See how easy that is? Add in no health insurance + a medical emergency and you've got a real problem. Hard work does not always = success and advancement. Hell, most bosses now fire their most proficient employees and hire an entry level person so that they don't have to pay the more experienced person's higher salary. Who can stick around long enough to "advance" anymore? That is more and more the norm. Besides, some of the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs are also the least compensated.

MORAL of this story? Someone that still doesn't get it, and is stuck on STUPID.

Son? Stuck on pregressive "WealthEnvy" is no way to go through life. You have an ally...it's name is LIBERTY...Individual Liberty, Life, And the Persuit of happiness at YOUR pace.

It appears to me that YOU haven't LEARNED that lesson. And what a damned shame.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not attending PTA meetings isn't either abuse or neglect.

if the kid is doing shitty in school and mommy and daddy dont seem to care Ravi....that is neglect.....

I've never attended a PTA meeting. Does that mean I don't care? Please...stop the stupidity.

stop the stupidity?.....read what i said....ok,did you read it?.....now was your kid doing good in school or did he/she just go to eat lunch and clown around?

 

[Ravi]

if the kid is doing shitty in school and mommy and daddy dont seem to care Ravi....that is neglect.....

I've never attended a PTA meeting. Does that mean I don't care? Please...stop the stupidity.

stop the stupidity?.....read what i said....now was your kid doing good in school or did he/she just go to eat lunch and clown around?

Both...but you are avoiding the issue. The idiot in the OP was the one that brought up attendance at PTA meetings.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Ewe folks should argue about something stupid and useless next time.............

 

[The T]

I've never attended a PTA meeting. Does that mean I don't care? Please...stop the stupidity.

stop the stupidity?.....read what i said....now was your kid doing good in school or did he/she just go to eat lunch and clown around?

Both...but you are avoiding the issue. The idiot in the OP was the one that brought up attendance at PTA meetings.

So why do you belabour the point if you find it in disgust? Apparently you have a propensity to blame others for what YOU say, and your response.

If it wasn't important to you? WHY respond and give it creedence?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Truthfully, I think hoarding money and resources "just because you can" is more of a sin.

are you serious?.....putting money away is a sin?.....hey maybe those people that do, will be much better off if they happen to lose their job,than those that dont....i sure as hell would not want you as a financial advisor....

 

[The T]

Truthfully, I think hoarding money and resources "just because you can" is more of a sin.

are you serious?.....putting money away is a sin?.....hey maybe those people that do, will be much better off if they happen to lose their job,than those that dont....i sure as hell would not want you as a financial advisor....

I'll openly DITTO this statement. Piss Poor Planning Portends Piss Poor Performance...

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've never attended a PTA meeting. Does that mean I don't care? Please...stop the stupidity.

stop the stupidity?.....read what i said....now was your kid doing good in school or did he/she just go to eat lunch and clown around?

Both...but you are avoiding the issue. The idiot in the OP was the one that brought up attendance at PTA meetings.

Ravi....if the kid is doing shitty in school and mommy and daddy dont seem to care.....is this neglect?

 

[Ravi]

stop the stupidity?.....read what i said....now was your kid doing good in school or did he/she just go to eat lunch and clown around?

Both...but you are avoiding the issue. The idiot in the OP was the one that brought up attendance at PTA meetings.

Ravi....if the kid is doing shitty in school and mommy and daddy dont seem to care.....is this neglect?

I don't know. Seems? Can I be on the panel that decides if you are a good parent or not?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Both...but you are avoiding the issue. The idiot in the OP was the one that brought up attendance at PTA meetings.

Ravi....if the kid is doing shitty in school and mommy and daddy dont seem to care.....is this neglect?

I don't know. Seems? Can I be on the panel that decides if you are a good parent or not?

your a good dancer Ravi.....can i have the next dance?.....

 

[Ravi]

Ravi....if the kid is doing shitty in school and mommy and daddy dont seem to care.....is this neglect?

I don't know. Seems? Can I be on the panel that decides if you are a good parent or not?

your a good dancer Ravi.....can i have the next dance?.....

No. I'm sorry, but I can't dance with people that think punishing children for the actions of their parents is okay.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Southern Democrats were conservative and became republicans because of civil rights legislation. I'm sure you must know that.

That's an interesting theory you've cooked up considering the majority of southern state legislatures are still controlled by Democrats and the southern shift to the GOP at the Federal level really didn't begin until the 80s with Reagan. The south became friendly to Congressional Republicans because of their typical support of social and cultural issues, ie. abortion, religious views, family values, etc. It's got nothing to do with civil rights hence the reason the Democrats are still very strong at the state and local level in most southern states and that's because they are culturally conservative, unlike the national Democratic party which is culturally liberal overall. But I'm sure you didn't know that.

Wrong

Republican House Member Misrepresents History On Civil Rights Legislation | The Moderate Voice

… On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.

However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%). In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

The marriage within the Democratic Party of the northern liberals and the southern Dixiecrats had always been a strange one based more upon a common enemy (the Republican Party) than upon common ideals. In fact, when the 1948 Democratic platform came out strongly in favor of civil rights, delegates from 13 southern states held their own convention shortly after the adjournment of the Democratic National Convention and nominated Strom Thurmond to run for president on their own “States Rights Democrats” ticket.

While Mr. Davis is clearly correct in his assertion that Southern Democrats were staunch foes of civil rights in the 1960s, Southern Republicans, though fewer in number, were equally adamant in their opposition to civil rights legislation.

The modern Democratic Party owes its current character far more to the Northern liberals than to the Dixiecrats. If the old Southern Democrats are to be labeled as racist, then Al Gore and Bill Clinton are Southern Democrats in name only as their defense of civil rights places them solidly among the Northern Democrats and not with the Dixiecrats of old.
In the two decades following the 1960s, the now-notorious “Southern Strategy” begun by Richard Nixon and continued by Ronald Reagan led to an exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Those were the Democrats who voted against the emancipating legislation of the civil rights era: the racist, white supremacist Dixiecrat Democrats — not the ones who form the Democratic Party today.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't know. Seems? Can I be on the panel that decides if you are a good parent or not?

your a good dancer Ravi.....can i have the next dance?.....

No. I'm sorry, but I can't dance with people that think punishing children for the actions of their parents is okay.

since that is not what i said....my next question is why are dancing around the question i have asked you twice...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Or is it because Americans are not really "poor"?

Americans don't have the first clue what it means to be poor. Virtually nobody in this country is poor.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Truthfully, I think hoarding money and resources "just because you can" is more of a sin.

Well then, show us how committed you are. Go out and give away every dollar in your bank account, wallet, and 401k. You haven't spent it as this point so you clearly don't need it and you don't want to be a big, bad sinner do you?

I've heard a lot of stupid opinions in my life and this one ranks right up there at the top.

If you get laid off, can't find a job that pays real money for 3 months, 6 months or a year, you suddenly find yourself living off unemployment and you find yourself in POVERTY. See how easy that is? .

Well, it wouldn't have been so easy had he been a sinner hoarding his money because then he'd have a nice nest egg to get by on until he finds employment again.

Do you realize the paradox in your two statements here? No, I'm guessing not otherwise you wouldn't have written them in the first place.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Southern Democrats were conservative and became republicans because of civil rights legislation. I'm sure you must know that.

That's an interesting theory you've cooked up considering the majority of southern state legislatures are still controlled by Democrats and the southern shift to the GOP at the Federal level really didn't begin until the 80s with Reagan. The south became friendly to Congressional Republicans because of their typical support of social and cultural issues, ie. abortion, religious views, family values, etc. It's got nothing to do with civil rights hence the reason the Democrats are still very strong at the state and local level in most southern states and that's because they are culturally conservative, unlike the national Democratic party which is culturally liberal overall. But I'm sure you didn't know that.

Wrong

Republican House Member Misrepresents History On Civil Rights Legislation | The Moderate Voice

… On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.

However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%). In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

The marriage within the Democratic Party of the northern liberals and the southern Dixiecrats had always been a strange one based more upon a common enemy (the Republican Party) than upon common ideals. In fact, when the 1948 Democratic platform came out strongly in favor of civil rights, delegates from 13 southern states held their own convention shortly after the adjournment of the Democratic National Convention and nominated Strom Thurmond to run for president on their own “States Rights Democrats” ticket.

While Mr. Davis is clearly correct in his assertion that Southern Democrats were staunch foes of civil rights in the 1960s, Southern Republicans, though fewer in number, were equally adamant in their opposition to civil rights legislation.

The modern Democratic Party owes its current character far more to the Northern liberals than to the Dixiecrats. If the old Southern Democrats are to be labeled as racist, then Al Gore and Bill Clinton are Southern Democrats in name only as their defense of civil rights places them solidly among the Northern Democrats and not with the Dixiecrats of old.
In the two decades following the 1960s, the now-notorious “Southern Strategy” begun by Richard Nixon and continued by Ronald Reagan led to an exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Those were the Democrats who voted against the emancipating legislation of the civil rights era: the racist, white supremacist Dixiecrat Democrats — not the ones who form the Democratic Party today.

Don't throw an opinion piece at me and tell me I'm wrong. Do you even know what the Southern Strategy was and still is today?

I have given you the facts of the modern political structure here in the south. The Democrats are still incredibly strong and influential in state politics all around the region and it is entirely based on their support for cultural issues and gun rights. I live here. You don't. Don't proceed to tell me what is going on in my own back yard. Typical Yankee elitism. You people think you know everything.