Why Is Mommy A Democrat?

[Deb]

SOCRATES WRITES: The facts are that the vast increase in welfare spending since the mid-sixties has not ended poverty, but helped create a cycle of illegitimacy, irresponsibility, and dependency which ehlps perpetuate poverty, rather than end it.
That is not truly helping the poor, but in the long run making the problem worse.
The breakdown of the family is a major outcome of the welfare state, and is at the root of many of the problems plaguing the urban poor.

And I've got nothing against people working in soup kitchens, helping the homeless, and such. In fact, I think we should all do more of it. That has nothing to do with what I've written here.
Charity and welfare-state socialism are not the same thing, and it is dishonest to conflate the two.
And I've known people who make a living helping the poor and marginalized who never vote Dem.
Also, as I've cited earlier, studies have shown that conservatives give more to the poor than liberals.

All you've given against me are some liberal platitudes, character attacks on some politicians, and a bizarre accusation concerning a dead senator.

And I thank God my Mommy was not a Democrat.

DEB RESPONDS: Poverty is never going to END in this country as long as CEO's make 30 million a year for bankrupting their companies and Republican Presidents continue to cut taxes for the rich, start wars and make all their decisons based on what energy and pharmacuetical companies tell them to do. Please, this country has enough wealth to raise everyone here out of poverty and much of the third world also but, this country, founded on Christianity, only pulls that out when they want to win an election. The people don't really want to contribute to the good of their brothers and sisters of GOD. They might have to give up that second SUV or the lake place or the cruises etc. It is someone elses problem, someone elses children that go to school hungry, not mine. If you think that the "charity" in this country is going to take care of 32 million people in poverty, you are living in a dreamland.
FYI.. the poverty rate has dropped continuously since 1997 based on government figures mostly due to welfare changes Clinton put through and in Minnesota (with one of the lowest poverty rates in the country) due to our willingness to pay taxes. Although, we are dumping in a lot of areas now thanks to our Republican Governor as you can see by the collapse of the 35W bridge and our soaring property taxes and underfunded schools.

Children grow up as they are nurtured. If you do not have a basis to begin with, you are doomed. Children from many of these homes need good role models and mentors. They need Head Start Programs and decent child care and an adequate diet and counselors and good teachers. All the things the current crop of Republicans have tried to rip out of the budget. The money that has been wasted on this trumped up war could have bought a house for every one of these households in poverty. The welfare budget is actually a very small part of the Federal budget but years of conditioning (by people like FOX news) likes to make people think that it is the welfare expenditures that are destroying the country. People always need a fall guy for why their life isn't that great or their job doesn't pay enough and instead of really looking into it, they just blame the poor or the minorities or the immigrants. Everyone but those in power.

You think that if you toss out words as facts that they will become facts. Yes, this is a clear Republican ploy and has worked very well. Most people aren't smart enough to think for themselves, don't know how to research and just assume that whomever is giving the information knows what they are talking about and are just to darn busy trying to earn a living to look into it. I've seen the system work. I worked years issuing those welfare benefits and I have been a nationally ceritified welfare fraud investigator and have civilly disqualified hundreds of families from welfare for fraud. I have seen both sides and everything in between and if I had to choose between standing on the side of the poor or on the side of the rich, I pick the poor. At least I can sleep at night and know that my actions are in the keeping with Christ and not for the betterment of my own materialistic needs. That is a Democrat at its core. That is Minnesota values, that is what I was taught as a child in the Catholic Church. We are all here together. We are the family of man. We are all children of God. We are obligated by that to take care of one another. In my grandmother's farmhouse the three framed photos I remember the most was of the Pope. Jesus Christ and JFK. Lucky me.
So, it really is too bad your mommy wasnt' a Democrat. Mine was. I am so fortunate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it is truly an asset to have you here deb. you show the reality and experience beyond these couch seat potatos.
there are probably many questions you could answer.

not that i'm much better. i help in charity sometimes, and can vouch for its limits, but you do much more from your perspective, and all together.

(that post of soc's saying all dems, via that book, are abortion, sodomy lovers, and socialists who should have a rope tied to their necks for corrupting the youth... really disqualifies him as anyone who should be taken seriously)

Edited December 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Deb]

SOCRATES WRITES: And no, I have no respect for the official Party of Abortion, Sodomy, and Socialism.

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." ~ Matthew 18:6


DEB WRITES: Most Democrats I know are anti-abortion, not big on the Sodomy thing and would much rather have socialism that facism.
For your reading pleasure Socrates, here are some websites for you: [url="http://online.logcabin.org/"]http://online.logcabin.org/[/url] That would be the gay republicans.
[url="http://www.republicansforchoice.com/"]http://www.republicansforchoice.com/[/url] Well, that is self explanatory.

An interesting Pew poll on politics and religion link found that 36% of white protestants and 39% of white catholics would vote for Guliani as the republican party nomination for president. Pro-Choice, Pro-gay marriage, adulterer, married three times, goes to church once a year Catholic. (well, he can't really be a catholic, he just says he is) So, what exactly makes this man a viable choice to run our country beyond his great desire to create even more war? I don't get it. Obviously people only vote party and not issues because this is just sad.

One last thing, I have never really seen sodomy come up on the Democratic platform. I guess we have all heard about it in the back rooms of republican representatives though. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it. And all of them so vocally anti-gay and not just about the act, but the person themselves. My point is that you can't blanket dump your phobic views on a group of people. All republicans are not the same any more than all democrats or independants are the same.

Actions truly do speak louder than words so I prefer to watch what people do rather than what they say. Then I ask if the actions would be pleasing to God.

[Deb]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1436460' date='Dec 20 2007, 10:25 AM']it is truly an asset to have you here deb. you show the reality and experience beyond these couch seat potatos.
there are probably many questions you could answer.

not that i'm much better. i help in charity sometimes, and can vouch for its limits, but you do much more from your perspective, and all together.

(that post of soc's saying all dems, via that book, are abortion, sodomy lovers, and socialists who should have a rope tied to their necks for corrupting the youth... really disqualifies him as anyone who should be taken seriously)[/quote]


Thank you Dairy Girl,

I have discovered even in my own family, that if you have never lived in the city, never had gay friends, never really heard the stories of the poor or talked to the homeless on the street, you have no real insight into their lives. Years ago my older brother would not allow my sister and I to take his son downtown Minneapolis so he could see Santa. I lived there for 25 years and was never a victim of a crime. My three brothers all have licenses to carry a gun. They have never been a victim of a crime either but, they are as paranoid as they can get. They freak out because I leave my doors and windows open during the day in the summer and my only weapon is a big mag light and a Buck knife. My sister and I camp out in the Boundary Waters, my brothers would not unless they were in a tent trailer and fully armed. I guess I am trying to say that people fear what they don't know. We are all human and we all have the same needs. Compassion sometimes can overcome many barriers.
We are all a product of our enviroment, good or bad. We really have to realize that no one shares the same reality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1436452' date='Dec 20 2007, 11:10 AM']SOCRATES WRITES: The facts are that the vast increase in welfare spending since the mid-sixties has not ended poverty, but helped create a cycle of illegitimacy, irresponsibility, and dependency which helps perpetuate poverty, rather than end it.
That is not truly helping the poor, but in the long run making the problem worse.
The breakdown of the family is a major outcome of the welfare state, and is at the root of many of the problems plaguing the urban poor.

And I've got nothing against people working in soup kitchens, helping the homeless, and such. In fact, I think we should all do more of it. That has nothing to do with what I've written here.
Charity and welfare-state socialism are not the same thing, and it is dishonest to conflate the two.
And I've known people who make a living helping the poor and marginalized who never vote Dem.
Also, as I've cited earlier, studies have shown that conservatives give more to the poor than liberals.

All you've given against me are some liberal platitudes, character attacks on some politicians, and a bizarre accusation concerning a dead senator.

And I thank God my Mommy was not a Democrat.

DEB RESPONDS: Poverty is never going to END in this country as long as CEO's make 30 million a year for bankrupting their companies and Republican Presidents continue to cut taxes for the rich, start wars and make all their decisons based on what energy and pharmacuetical companies tell them to do. Please, this country has enough wealth to raise everyone here out of poverty and much of the third world also but, this country, founded on Christianity, only pulls that out when they want to win an election. The people don't really want to contribute to the good of their brothers and sisters of GOD. They might have to give up that second SUV or the lake place or the cruises etc. It is someone elses problem, someone elses children that go to school hungry, not mine. If you think that the "charity" in this country is going to take care of 32 million people in poverty, you are living in a dreamland.
FYI.. the poverty rate has dropped continuously since 1997 based on government figures mostly due to welfare changes Clinton put through and in Minnesota (with one of the lowest poverty rates in the country) due to our willingness to pay taxes. Although, we are dumping in a lot of areas now thanks to our Republican Governor as you can see by the collapse of the 35W bridge and our soaring property taxes and underfunded schools.

Children grow up as they are nurtured. If you do not have a basis to begin with, you are doomed. Children from many of these homes need good role models and mentors. They need Head Start Programs and decent child care and an adequate diet and counselors and good teachers. All the things the current crop of Republicans have tried to rip out of the budget. The money that has been wasted on this trumped up war could have bought a house for every one of these households in poverty. The welfare budget is actually a very small part of the Federal budget but years of conditioning (by people like FOX news) likes to make people think that it is the welfare expenditures that are destroying the country. People always need a fall guy for why their life isn't that great or their job doesn't pay enough and instead of really looking into it, they just blame the poor or the minorities or the immigrants. Everyone but those in power.

You think that if you toss out words as facts that they will become facts. Yes, this is a clear Republican ploy and has worked very well. Most people aren't smart enough to think for themselves, don't know how to research and just assume that whomever is giving the information knows what they are talking about and are just to darn busy trying to earn a living to look into it. I've seen the system work. I worked years issuing those welfare benefits and I have been a nationally ceritified welfare fraud investigator and have civilly disqualified hundreds of families from welfare for fraud. I have seen both sides and everything in between and if I had to choose between standing on the side of the poor or on the side of the rich, I pick the poor. At least I can sleep at night and know that my actions are in the keeping with Christ and not for the betterment of my own materialistic needs. That is a Democrat at its core. That is Minnesota values, that is what I was taught as a child in the Catholic Church. We are all here together. We are the family of man. We are all children of God. We are obligated by that to take care of one another. In my grandmother's farmhouse the three framed photos I remember the most was of the Pope. Jesus Christ and JFK. Lucky me.
So, it really is too bad your mommy wasnt' a Democrat. Mine was. I am so fortunate.[/quote]
I'll ignore the numerous red-herrings and ad-hominems you've thrown in here and get back to the point. The vast increases in federal welfare spending since Johnson began his "Great Society" programs in the mid-sixties have led to sky-rocketing illegitimacy rates among the urban poor, and a breakground in the family, which is at the root of any stable and prosperous society. This is well-documented, if you'll bother to go back and look and my original sources. If you're really interested, I'd recommend reading the works of Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Charles Murray. The key to lifing people out of poverty is to support the family (composed of a man, woman, and children), and give people incentive to work. It won't be acomplished by forced government redistribution of wealth.
Jobs don't come by government action, but from a strong economy, in which businesses are hiring, and in which entrepreneurship is encouraged (rather than small businesses being strangled by taxes and red tape).

And the welfare reforms of the '90s you mention were actually proposed by the Republicans in Congress, and were vetoed a couple times by President Clinton, before he finally gave in to political pressure and signed them into law. As I've said, they're a small step in the right direction, and restrict, rather than increase, welfare.

And since you apparently feel compelled to take jabs at my mother, she is a woman of excellent Christian character, who grew up dirt poor in rural Arkansas, and through intelligence and hard work, was able to be the first in her family to attend college, and graduated, and went on to get a Masters, and has dedicated her life to education. (Probably not your stereotype of all conservatives being born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and living privileged lives away from the concerns of "commoners." And no, I do not believe she would be better had she been a Democrat.)

And this is just me, but I find placing a pampered, womanizing politician next to Christ and the Pope to be just this side of sacrilegous.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1436472' date='Dec 20 2007, 12:07 PM']SOCRATES WRITES: And no, I have no respect for the official Party of Abortion, Sodomy, and Socialism.

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." ~ Matthew 18:6
DEB WRITES: Most Democrats I know are anti-abortion, not big on the Sodomy thing and would much rather have socialism that facism.
For your reading pleasure Socrates, here are some websites for you: [url="http://online.logcabin.org/"]http://online.logcabin.org/[/url] That would be the gay republicans.
[url="http://www.republicansforchoice.com/"]http://www.republicansforchoice.com/[/url] Well, that is self explanatory.

An interesting Pew poll on politics and religion link found that 36% of white protestants and 39% of white catholics would vote for Guliani as the republican party nomination for president. Pro-Choice, Pro-gay marriage, adulterer, married three times, goes to church once a year Catholic. (well, he can't really be a catholic, he just says he is) So, what exactly makes this man a viable choice to run our country beyond his great desire to create even more war? I don't get it. Obviously people only vote party and not issues because this is just sad.

One last thing, I have never really seen sodomy come up on the Democratic platform. I guess we have all heard about it in the back rooms of republican representatives though. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it. And all of them so vocally anti-gay and not just about the act, but the person themselves. My point is that you can't blanket dump your phobic views on a group of people. All republicans are not the same any more than all democrats or independants are the same.

Actions truly do speak louder than words so I prefer to watch what people do rather than what they say. Then I ask if the actions would be pleasing to God.[/quote]

Yes, I am well aware that there are some rotten Republicans out there. You're not telling me anything I'm not already aware of.
And the "Log Cabin Republicans" and "Republicans for Choice" are regarded as contrarian fringe groups in the G.O.P. and hardly represent the views of most Republican voters.

However, support for abortion-on-demand is written into the very party platform of the Democrats.
From the [b]Democratic Party Platform[/b]:[quote][b]Pursue embryonic stem cell research [/b]
Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 Jul 10, 2004

[b]Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay [/b]
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004

[b]Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right [/b]
Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000[/quote]

As for homosexuality, the Democrats favor awarding homsexual "unions" the same benefits as families, and giving homosexuals special federal protection by Orwellian "hate crime laws."
[quote]Keep marriage at state level; no federal gay marriage ban
[b]We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.[/b] In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004

[b]Pass hate crime legislation including gays [/b]
The very purpose of hate crimes is to dehumanize and stigmatize. Every crime is a danger to Americans’ lives and liberty. Hate crimes are more than assaults on people, they are assaults on the very idea of America. [b]They should be punished with extra force[/b]. Protections should include hate violence based on gender, disability or sexual orientation. And the Republican Congress should stop standing in the way of this pro-civil rights, anti-crime legislation.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000[/quote]
Every major Democratic candidate for president over the past three decades has been 100% in favor of abortion, not just keeping it legal, but funding it with tax dollars.

And the Democrats in Congress have fiercely fought to block the confirmation of any pro-life Justice to the Supreme Court. (And were successfully able to block pro-life Reagan appointee Judge Robert Bork in 1987).

As for actions speaking louder than words, consider the [url="http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm"]100% pro-abortion voting record of Dem front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton[/url].
[quote]Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)[/quote]

If most Democrats are so pro-life, why do they always elect such militant pro-aborts to national office??

And trashing all conservatives and Republicans based on the alleged actions of [i]one[/i] Oregon senator is an absurd ad-hominem. I might as well dismiss all your positions based on the shenanigans of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or the notorious flamer Barney Frank (D-MA).

And no, for the record, I am NOT a fan of Guilliani, who should not be president. Nowhere did I say I support any and all Republicans. You read alot into my posts that just isn't there. I do not, however, see any reason to give support to the Democratic Party.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Socrates

[Deb]

Did you want me to read something by Charles Murray to educate myself? Would that be this Charles Murray or another one? Please, I would like to know.


[b]Murray, Charles[/b]
4 [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=3#roles"]institutional roles[/url] for $564,431

Charles Murray, one of the chief ideologues of the right, is a Bradley Fellow at the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=19"]American Enterprise Institute[/url], and has close connections to the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=198"]Manhattan Institute[/url], where he was a Bradley Fellow from 1981 to 1990. He has received more than [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/grantsearchresults.php?searchString=Charles+Murray"]$1 million[/url] from the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1"]Bradley foundation[/url] over the past decade, enabling him to write two important conservative books, [i]Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980[/i] (1984), in which he argued that social programs designed to help the poor actually hurt them, and [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=8"]The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life[/url] (1994), in which he argued that Black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. Both books were roundly criticized by reviewers and social scientists, but had broad impacts in the popular press and, in the 1980s, in the Reagan and Bush administrations.

One good critique of Murray is[url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=8"]The Bell Curve: Roadmap to the "Ideal" Society[/url], a full chapter from [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=6"]The Feeding Trough[/url], and is available on this web site in its entirety.

A full debunking of [i]The Bell Curve[/i] by Nicolas Lemann is available at [i]Slate.com[/i], or by clicking [url="http://slate.com/?id=2416"][b]here[/b][/url]. It reveals mathematical errors, logical errors, and the misuse of statistics (i.e. the purported "IQ" test actually has questions on subjects as involved as Trigonometry, thus measuring educational attainment, not innate intelligence).

Stephen Jay Gould, author of the 1981 bestseller "The Mismeasure of Man," added a chapter in the 1996 reprinting of his book, specifically dedicated to critiquing [i]The Bell Curve[/i]. Anyone seriously interested in Murray should read this book. To get a flavor of what Gould has to say, take a look at the outline of his critique:

<H2 style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.8em; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">THE BELL CURVE</H2>[list]
[*]Disingenuousness of content
[*]Disingenuousness of argument
[*]Disingenuousness of program
[*]GHOSTS OF BELL CURVES PAST
[/list]This critique puts [i]The Bell Curve[/i] in its proper perspective as one in a long line of attempts by whites of European descent trying to find a genetic basis for their supposed superiority over other races and peoples.

In 2007 he said that Jews have many more members who have higher I.Q.'s genetically speaking compared to others. Hmmmm Still on that I.Q. by race. Doesn't say much for the 60% of welfare recipients. Oh, those would be the white ones.

I think I would prefer to get my statistics from someone other than an employee of a right wing think tank. Might just be a tad bit of bias in their writing.

His book on poverty covered a period up until 1980 so would be a bit out of date. Might try something a little more contemporary than 27 years ago. The welfare system now does not even resemble what was around then. I know. I started in welfare in 1981.

I certainly did not take pot shots at your mommy. I am sorry if you thought I did. My mom grew up dirt poor in Wisconsin as a child in a family of ten. The silver spoon reference was directed to people who maybe are your age or mine?

What this whole debate has drawn from is your comment, may I remind you:

..."Because "Mommy"'s a lazy welfare-dependent bisexual crack-addict silly sally who aborted all her other kids, and wants Uncle Sam to subsidize all her various vices?"

That comment was definitely not in keeping with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the teachings of Jesus Christ, Democrats and would be most likely found coming out of the mouth of some stereotypical white trash red-neck who hasn't spent more than one day out of the mountains but, who may or may not be a crack addict.

That's all folks!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1436480' date='Dec 20 2007, 12:20 PM']Thank you Dairy Girl,

I have discovered even in my own family, that if you have never lived in the city, never had gay friends, never really heard the stories of the poor or talked to the homeless on the street, you have no real insight into their lives. Years ago my older brother would not allow my sister and I to take his son downtown Minneapolis so he could see Santa. I lived there for 25 years and was never a victim of a crime. My three brothers all have licenses to carry a gun. They have never been a victim of a crime either but, they are as paranoid as they can get. They freak out because I leave my doors and windows open during the day in the summer and my only weapon is a big mag light and a Buck knife. My sister and I camp out in the Boundary Waters, my brothers would not unless they were in a tent trailer and fully armed. I guess I am trying to say that people fear what they don't know. We are all human and we all have the same needs. Compassion sometimes can overcome many barriers.
We are all a product of our enviroment, good or bad. We really have to realize that no one shares the same reality.[/quote]
I'm honestly not sure what the point of all this is.
If you had happened to be the victim of a crime, would you see things differently?

I don't consider myself to have lived an excessively "tough" life, yet I've been the victim of crime several times (mostly petty thefts, though once someone broke into my parked car and stole a couple thousand bucks worth of stuff, apparently after burglarizing a nearby house).
And once while living in the left-wing wonderland of downtown D.C., all those sharing an apartment I was renting were burglarized but me (not having the small electronics they were stealing).
I keep my 12 gauge on hand at night, just in case.

Crime happens, of course, and is not just some right-wing paranoid fantasy.
Maybe if someone did try to mug you, and one of your gun-toting brothers happened to be on hand to save you, you might thank and appreciate them, rather than dismissing their crazy "paranoia."

Afterall, they say a "neoconservative" is a "liberal who got mugged."

Edited December 21, 2007 by Socrates

[Deb]

The point isn't about having been a victim of a crime. The point is that the odds of being a victim of one is very slight and living your life in a state of paranoia isn't really living your life. You perceive things based on what you see on the news and see crime everywhere.

The point is that if you have never even known someone who was gay, you can invent them into your mind as some horrible demon.

The point is that if you don't have any interaction with the poor or know anything about the details of their life or growing up, you don't see them as people, you see them as abortion having, crack addicts sucking off the system.

The point is that if you grow up in a nice house with all your needs met and a good school and money for college, you do not always see that someone who was born into nothing, with uneducated parents, moving every four months, no stable schooling etc., may just need a little help from society.

My brothers would never be with me to stop a mugging. They don't go to clubs downtown or there to eat, camping in the wilderness or anyplace where it might be dangerous. I don't really need a man or a gun to protect myself. I work downtown and I know how to talk to people who approach me on the street. Be not afraid actually is very sound advice.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Deb

[Adrestia]

Am I the only person who thinks that both Deb and Socrates have valid points which are not mutually exclusive?

This debate reminds why I find politics so frustrating. Both parties (meaning Deb & Socrates) express points with which I am in 100% agreement, and both say things that make me cringe and wonder which past era they just left.

I need a chimera.... or is it a mosaic... not sure which word to use here... some help hot stuff?

Edited December 21, 2007 by tgoldson

[Nathan]

Wait... since when do Democrats have children?

[XIX]

Was the squirrel pro-animal rights?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1436867' date='Dec 20 2007, 11:36 PM']Did you want me to read something by Charles Murray to educate myself? Would that be this Charles Murray or another one? Please, I would like to know.
[b]Murray, Charles[/b]
4 [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=3#roles"]institutional roles[/url] for $564,431

Charles Murray, one of the chief ideologues of the right, is a Bradley Fellow at the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=19"]American Enterprise Institute[/url], and has close connections to the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=198"]Manhattan Institute[/url], where he was a Bradley Fellow from 1981 to 1990. He has received more than [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/grantsearchresults.php?searchString=Charles+Murray"]$1 million[/url] from the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1"]Bradley foundation[/url] over the past decade, enabling him to write two important conservative books, [i]Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980[/i] (1984), in which he argued that social programs designed to help the poor actually hurt them, and [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=8"]The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life[/url] (1994), in which he argued that Black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. Both books were roundly criticized by reviewers and social scientists, but had broad impacts in the popular press and, in the 1980s, in the Reagan and Bush administrations.

One good critique of Murray is[url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=8"]The Bell Curve: Roadmap to the "Ideal" Society[/url], a full chapter from [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=6"]The Feeding Trough[/url], and is available on this web site in its entirety.

A full debunking of [i]The Bell Curve[/i] by Nicolas Lemann is available at [i]Slate.com[/i], or by clicking [url="http://slate.com/?id=2416"][b]here[/b][/url]. It reveals mathematical errors, logical errors, and the misuse of statistics (i.e. the purported "IQ" test actually has questions on subjects as involved as Trigonometry, thus measuring educational attainment, not innate intelligence).

Stephen Jay Gould, author of the 1981 bestseller "The Mismeasure of Man," added a chapter in the 1996 reprinting of his book, specifically dedicated to critiquing [i]The Bell Curve[/i]. Anyone seriously interested in Murray should read this book. To get a flavor of what Gould has to say, take a look at the outline of his critique:

<H2 style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.8em; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">THE BELL CURVE</H2>[list]
[*]Disingenuousness of content
[*]Disingenuousness of argument
[*]Disingenuousness of program
[*]GHOSTS OF BELL CURVES PAST
[/list]This critique puts [i]The Bell Curve[/i] in its proper perspective as one in a long line of attempts by whites of European descent trying to find a genetic basis for their supposed superiority over other races and peoples.

In 2007 he said that Jews have many more members who have higher I.Q.'s genetically speaking compared to others. Hmmmm Still on that I.Q. by race. Doesn't say much for the 60% of welfare recipients. Oh, those would be the white ones.

I think I would prefer to get my statistics from someone other than an employee of a right wing think tank. Might just be a tad bit of bias in their writing.

His book on poverty covered a period up until 1980 so would be a bit out of date. Might try something a little more contemporary than 27 years ago. The welfare system now does not even resemble what was around then. I know. I started in welfare in 1981.

I certainly did not take pot shots at your mommy. I am sorry if you thought I did. My mom grew up dirt poor in Wisconsin as a child in a family of ten. The silver spoon reference was directed to people who maybe are your age or mine?

What this whole debate has drawn from is your comment, may I remind you:

..."Because "Mommy"'s a lazy welfare-dependent bisexual crack-addict silly sally who aborted all her other kids, and wants Uncle Sam to subsidize all her various vices?"

That comment was definitely not in keeping with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the teachings of Jesus Christ, Democrats and would be most likely found coming out of the mouth of some stereotypical white trash red-neck who hasn't spent more than one day out of the mountains but, who may or may not be a crack addict.

That's all folks![/quote]
Red Herring and muddying the water.

I was not discussing the book, [i]The Bell Curve [/i](I haven't read it, and somehow I doubt you have, but I've heard it's often misrepresented). In anycase, it has nothing whatever to do with my points about the wastefulness of welfare spending. If you want to discuss the claims of [i]The Bell Curve[/i], please kindly start another thread to do so.
If you can provide some counter-statistics to prove the claims about welfare false, feel free to do so.
However, providing someone else's attacks on another book on an unrelated topic is irrelevent.
And, using your own methods, I could just as easily dismiss Dr. Gould's attacks on Dr. Murray, as Dr. Gould was known as a rather virulent anti-Christian atheist.
(However, Gould's atheism would be just as irrelevent to this debate as are his attacks regarding [i]The Bell Curve[/i].)

In the meantime, it seems my original remarks are being taken out of context, and getting blown out out of proportion. It was intended as a facetious and sarcastic remark regarding a book pushing left-wing Democrat ideology on young children, and concerned at a fictional character in said book. As Norseman pointed out, it was intended to embody some of the despicable policies of the Democratic Party, not attack the character of any real person.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1437016' date='Dec 21 2007, 10:52 AM']The point isn't about having been a victim of a crime. The point is that the odds of being a victim of one is very slight and living your life in a state of paranoia isn't really living your life. You perceive things based on what you see on the news and see crime everywhere.

The point is that if you have never even known someone who was gay, you can invent them into your mind as some horrible demon.

The point is that if you don't have any interaction with the poor or know anything about the details of their life or growing up, you don't see them as people, you see them as abortion having, crack addicts sucking off the system.

The point is that if you grow up in a nice house with all your needs met and a good school and money for college, you do not always see that someone who was born into nothing, with uneducated parents, moving every four months, no stable schooling etc., may just need a little help from society.

My brothers would never be with me to stop a mugging. They don't go to clubs downtown or there to eat, camping in the wilderness or anyplace where it might be dangerous. I don't really need a man or a gun to protect myself. I work downtown and I know how to talk to people who approach me on the street. Be not afraid actually is very sound advice.[/quote]
I rarely watch the news. However, I personally have been the victim of multiple crimes - car burglarly and several petty thefts, as well as almost losing all my earthly goods (or even killed had the cops not woken me up and evacuated me in time) in an apartment fire that was the result of arson (though I was not the direct target). And I personally know plenty others who have been victims of various crimes of varying degrees of seriousness. Unfortunately, it's hardly a rare thing.
And, while obviously I do not know your brothers, I do not personally live my life in fear and paranoia. However, I do (as do most people) take basic cautions like keeping my car and home locked up, and keeping a weapon handy. It's not paranoia, it's basic common sense - better safe than sorry. And if anything, I think I tend to error on the careless side.

And, while I don't personally, I know someone who regularly carries a pistol in public, and people routinely actually thank him for it, saying it's good to know that there's a good guy around who's armed, just in case something happens.

Exactly what all this has to do with caring for the poor, though, is beyond me.

While you're quite fortunate to never have been a victim of crime, and I pray this continues to be the case, I have a feeling that if you ever happened to be the victim of crime you'd change your tune pretty fast.
And you speak almost as though you think people only are crime victims by their own fault (if you just know how to talk to people on the street, you'll be ok). That, of course, is not the truth.

There's no need to live one's life in fear, but there's nothing wrong with taking basic precautions to protect oneself and goods, and there's no need whatever to look down on those who do as being somehow cowardly or morally inferior.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1436873' date='Dec 20 2007, 09:45 PM']I'm honestly not sure what the point of all this is.
If you had happened to be the victim of a crime, would you see things differently?

I don't consider myself to have lived an excessively "tough" life, yet I've been the victim of crime several times (mostly petty thefts, though once someone broke into my parked car and stole a couple thousand bucks worth of stuff, apparently after burglarizing a nearby house).
And once while living in the left-wing wonderland of downtown D.C., all those sharing an apartment I was renting were burglarized but me (not having the small electronics they were stealing).
I keep my 12 gauge on hand at night, just in case.

Crime happens, of course, and is not just some right-wing paranoid fantasy.
Maybe if someone did try to mug you, and one of your gun-toting brothers happened to be on hand to save you, you might thank and appreciate them, rather than dismissing their crazy "paranoia."

Afterall, they say a "neoconservative" is a "liberal who got mugged."[/quote]
Jesus was unarmed and look what happened to him! Imagine if he had only had a 12 gauge...