ADVERTISEMENT

Again

jetsaholic said:
Chemmie, you're stupid. That area of Baltimore is not a hood or a black predominant area. That's right by Camden Yards, where the Orioles play. It's right by the harbor and city hall. I know you bask on sounding stupid and whatnot but try and be smart stupid.
Click to expand...

I've been to that area several times. I know exactly what that area is like, and it isn't anywhere near affluent.
 
chemmie said:
I've been to that area several times. I know exactly what that area is like, and it isn't anywhere near affluent.
Click to expand...
You've visited. I live near it. I'm actually going on Saturday. I'll tell you how many poor, black people I run into.

You're wrong. I'm right.
 
Camden Yards is in Washington Village, where over 25% of kids live in poverty. That area abuts up against some of the most impoverished areas in the city. Fed Hill, South Baltimore, Inner Harbor -- yea, there's money there. Other areas, not so much.

Children-in-Poverty-2012.jpg
 
jetsaholic said:
You've visited. I live near it. I'm actually going on Saturday. I'll tell you how many poor, black people I run into.

You're wrong. I'm right.
Click to expand...
You live in a middle-class suburb of Washington D.C., in a different state, an hour (at least) from Baltimore!!
 
I got an idea...

Let's socially engineer the f#ck out it. That'll fix it. Yep.

Let's abolish the pillars of faith many stood behind to curb the violence also...

Oh, and let's take away the 2nd Amendment too...because people shouldn't be able to protect themselves, family or business against a mob because they should know and accept "all the social discourse that let up to it" . So open the doors and let them loot.

While we're at it, let's just take some financial property away from others and just hand it to the poor. They'll know EXACTLY what to do with it.

That's Chemmie's Utopian vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
chemmie said:
You live in a middle-class suburb of Washington D.C., in a different state, an hour (at least) from Baltimore!!
Click to expand...
And how close do you live? How many times have you been to the area in the past year?

Oh, and my neighborhood is a white, rich neighborhood in one of the richest counties in the United States, thank you very much.
 
jetsaholic said:
And how close do you live? How many times have you been to the area in the past year?

Oh, and my neighborhood is a white, rich neighborhood in one of the richest counties in the United States, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

I lived in a middle-class suburb of Philadelphia, in a different state, an hour (at least) from Baltimore!!


...and I watched The Wire.
 
Malthus Doctrine said:
I got an idea...

Let's socially engineer the f#ck out it. That'll fix it. Yep.

Let's abolish the pillars of faith many stood behind to curb the violence also...

Oh, and let's take away the 2nd Amendment too...because people shouldn't be able to protect themselves, family or business against a mob because they should know and accept "all the social discourse that let up to it" . So open the doors and let them loot.

While we're at it, let's just take some financial property away from others and just hand it to the poor. They'll know EXACTLY what to do with it.

That's Chemmie's Utopian vision.
Click to expand...

Stop posting, dumbass. Nobody reads your inane garbage anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfversusbcs
chemmie said:
You live in a middle-class suburb of Washington D.C., in a different state, an hour (at least) from Baltimore!!
Click to expand...

chemmie said:
Stop posting, dumbass. Nobody reads your inane garbage anyway.
Click to expand...

You're a hypocrite. A limo-liberal, and claim some moral secular superiority above all others displayed by your nasty habit of speaking for others like you just did. I'm right too. Because when you see some people in real life you act like the nicest person in the planet. If you think that what you say online has no bearing in real life, then you have MPD. Na, I'm not the dumb-ass.
 
Malthus Doctrine said:
You're a hypocrite. A limo-liberal, and claim some moral secular superiority above all others displayed by your nasty habit of speaking for others like you just did. I'm right too. Because when you see some people in real life you act like the nicest person in the planet. If you think that what you say online has no bearing in real life, then you have MPD. Na, I'm not the dumb-ass.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this stuff at?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfversusbcs and chemmie
The median household income 1/2 mile around Camden Yards is $54,513, the median income for Maryland is $69,272 which makes Maryland the richest state in America based on median household income. The U.S. Median household income is $51,939, which means the 1/2 mile around Camden Yards is above average in the entire country.

Most demographic groups use what is called tapestries or mosaics to describe a demographic group. Within one half mile of Camden yards the largest population is call full pocket empty nesters, basically rich retired people, the next larger group is called urban up and coming, basically younger single people living in an urban area with disposable money. Those two groups make up 25% of the people around Camden Yards. Basically only 27.4% of the people living within 1/2 mile of Camden Yards are below the poverty line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
Okay, now that is over with... let's get back to the riots, looting, and the real issue of abject poverty. Nobody is denying the rioters are hurting their cause. However, they are a minority of overall protesters.

My point is who cares about the riots, when that is simply a symptom of a much larger problem. There is chronic poverty in society right now, and the current system does nothing about it.
On one hand, we have democrats who advocate for welfare and entitlements. These are, of course, just bnad-aids and not a permanent fix. They aren't even a good band-aid fix when the wound is as large as it is now.
On the other hand, republicans think entitlements create dependency. There is a bit of sense in this perspective, but their solution is to cut welfare entirely and let social Darwinism take over. This will only make the situation much worse than it already is.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to address the underlying problems, which are inequality, racism, and the powerful corporate influence in government that keeps the whole system afloat. No politicians have the balls to do anything about it, because they are both too dependent on the monetary influence.
Combine that with the powerlessness that comes from police abuse, rising costs of living, unemployment, disenfranchisement (voter ID laws, long lines at polling, electronic polling that many do not trust, gerrymandering, etc) and you’re just asking for riots in the streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfversusbcs and UCFEE
chemmie said:
Okay, now that is over with... let's get back to the riots, looting, and the real issue of abject poverty. Nobody is denying the rioters are hurting their cause. However, they are a minority of overall protesters.

My point is who cares about the riots, when that is simply a symptom of a much larger problem. There is chronic poverty in society right now, and the current system does nothing about it.
On one hand, we have democrats who advocate for welfare and entitlements. These are, of course, just bnad-aids and not a permanent fix. They aren't even a good band-aid fix when the wound is as large as it is now.
On the other hand, republicans think entitlements create dependency. There is a bit of sense in this perspective, but their solution is to cut welfare entirely and let social Darwinism take over. This will only make the situation much worse than it already is.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to address the underlying problems, which are inequality, racism, and the powerful corporate influence in government that keeps the whole system afloat. No politicians have the balls to do anything about it, because they are both too dependent on the monetary influence.
Combine that with the powerlessness that comes from police abuse, rising costs of living, unemployment, disenfranchisement (voter ID laws, long lines at polling, electronic polling that many do not trust, gerrymandering, etc) and you’re just asking for riots in the streets.
Click to expand...

Right on. The national conversation is tied up on divisive horseshit that gets spewed by pop media on a daily basis, so nobody is putting any pressure on elected politicians to address real problems... Instead people just bicker over ideology and semantics.
 
chemmie said:
Okay, now that is over with... let's get back to the riots, looting, and the real issue of abject poverty. Nobody is denying the rioters are hurting their cause. However, they are a minority of overall protesters.

My point is who cares about the riots, when that is simply a symptom of a much larger problem. There is chronic poverty in society right now, and the current system does nothing about it.
On one hand, we have democrats who advocate for welfare and entitlements. These are, of course, just bnad-aids and not a permanent fix. They aren't even a good band-aid fix when the wound is as large as it is now.
On the other hand, republicans think entitlements create dependency. There is a bit of sense in this perspective, but their solution is to cut welfare entirely and let social Darwinism take over. This will only make the situation much worse than it already is.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to address the underlying problems, which are inequality, racism, and the powerful corporate influence in government that keeps the whole system afloat. No politicians have the balls to do anything about it, because they are both too dependent on the monetary influence.
Combine that with the powerlessness that comes from police abuse, rising costs of living, unemployment, disenfranchisement (voter ID laws, long lines at polling, electronic polling that many do not trust, gerrymandering, etc) and you’re just asking for riots in the streets.
Click to expand...

Actually, the problem is much more defined than ranting about things at a federal level which really don't impact localized povery in inner cities. Inequality has nothing to do with inner city chronic poverty that has existed even during times when wages were "more equal".

Here's your problem:

Among married couple families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
5.4% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[37]
9.7% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[38] and
14.9% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[39] living in poverty.
Among single parent (male or female) families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
22.5% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[37]
44.0% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[38] and
33.4% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[39] living in poverty.
Among individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
18% of white persons (which includes white Hispanics)[40]
28.9% of black persons (which includes black Hispanics)[39] and
27% of Hispanic persons (of any race)[41] living in poverty.
Poverty levels are 4-5 times HIGHER amongst single family homes and/or individuals living alone. There is a demonstrated correlation between marriage and reduction of poverty/building wealth.

There is not a single thing the Federal Government can do to fix the societal decay that has led to the proliferation of single parent homes, rampant divorce, deadbeat fathers, etc You can't legislate responsibility and commitment.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Actually, the problem is much more defined than ranting about things at a federal level which really don't impact localized povery in inner cities. Inequality has nothing to 2do with inner city chronic poverty that has existed even during times when wages were "more equal".

Here's your problem:

Among married couple families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
5.4% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[37]
9.7% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[38] and
14.9% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[39] living in poverty.
Among single parent (male or female) families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
22.5% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[37]
44.0% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[38] and
33.4% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[39] living in poverty.
Among individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
18% of white persons (which includes white Hispanics)[40]
28.9% of black persons (which includes black Hispanics)[39] and
27% of Hispanic persons (of any race)[41] living in poverty.
Poverty levels are 4-5 times HIGHER amongst single family homes and/or individuals living alone. There is a demonstrated correlation between marriage and reduction of poverty/building wealth.

There is not a single thing the Federal Government can do to fix the societal decay that has led to the proliferation of single parent homes, rampant divorce, deadbeat fathers, etc You can't legislate responsibility and commitment.
Click to expand...

Who says the problems are only at the federal level? Big money today influences races right down to the local level, where (as you imply) problems can be best addressed.
 
UCFEE said:
Who says the problems are only at the federal level? Big money today influences races right down to the local level, where (as you imply) problems can be best addressed.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's assume the Big Money Boogeyman is really also into local politics. So what?

You can tell me all of the "ills" of the Big Money Boogeyman, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that poverty in these areas will continue so long as 75% of babies are born out of wedlock, divorce rates are in excess of 65%, single parent households are the norm and not the exception, etc.

In the US, just being married drops the likelihood of child poverty by 82%. Child poverty amongst married families is 6.8% while it's 37% amongst single parent homes.

There is a mountain of data that shows this, yet the left wing in this country still mocks and ridicules the idea that a traditional family structure is absolutely crucial to the country. Instead of promoting the idea that marriage is a necessity, we run stories that cheerlead single parents instead of asking WHY there are so many single parents.

The single mom feminist gets a full page write up in the NY Times but the stay at home mom gets ridiculed. That's where we're at. In societal decay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFRogerz, UCFballboygrownup, jetsaholic and 2 others
UCFKnight85 said:
Ok, let's assume the Big Money Boogeyman is really also into local politics. So what?

You can tell me all of the "ills" of the Big Money Boogeyman, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that poverty in these areas will continue so long as 75% of babies are born out of wedlock, divorce rates are in excess of 65%, single parent households are the norm and not the exception, etc.

In the US, just being married drops the likelihood of child poverty by 82%. Child poverty amongst married families is 6.8% while it's 37% amongst single parent homes.

There is a mountain of data that shows this, yet the left wing in this country still mocks and ridicules the idea that a traditional family structure is absolutely crucial to the country. Instead of promoting the idea that marriage is a necessity, we run stories that cheerlead single parents instead of asking WHY there are so many single parents.

The single mom feminist gets a full page write up in the NY Times but the stay at home mom gets ridiculed. That's where we're at. In societal decay.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmmm, I agree to a small extent but only because "traditional family structure" implies two role models that can provide a better perspective to their kids growing up... but you can't mandate that just like you can't mandate personal responsibilty, etc.

Again, a cycle that started as a result of telling black men they're at best 2/3rds human and denying opportunity to them for decades is still around. Dads don't stick around, because their deadbeat dad didn't stick around, because his dad was beaten down by a system conpetely stacked against him. If you deny that (which I don't think you do), then you imply these deadbeats are just born in to society and their life outcome is independent of the the influences they have around them growing up... that sets up for some scary "solutions" to the problem.

I gotta go stick my face in to some more code, but I think your thinking is on the right path.
 
I think 85 has his cause and effect relationship backwards.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Ok, let's assume the Big Money Boogeyman is really also into local politics. So what?

You can tell me all of the "ills" of the Big Money Boogeyman, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that poverty in these areas will continue so long as 75% of babies are born out of wedlock, divorce rates are in excess of 65%, single parent households are the norm and not the exception, etc.

In the US, just being married drops the likelihood of child poverty by 82%. Child poverty amongst married families is 6.8% while it's 37% amongst single parent homes.

There is a mountain of data that shows this, yet the left wing in this country still mocks and ridicules the idea that a traditional family structure is absolutely crucial to the country. Instead of promoting the idea that marriage is a necessity, we run stories that cheerlead single parents instead of asking WHY there are so many single parents.

The single mom feminist gets a full page write up in the NY Times but the stay at home mom gets ridiculed. That's where we're at. In societal decay.
Click to expand...
85 is right on this. The break down of the family system in the US is the underlining cause of many of the issues we see today.
 
Looks like conservates can be idealists too!

So what is unique to the "traditional family structure" that gives it an advantage over any other social support structure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

James Jenson

OT: I need your help 1/10/25. Yes it’s that day again.

Replies
38
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
firm_bizzle
firm_bizzle
B

The Athletic: How do top high school football stars feel about NIL figures, transfer portal? Recruiting confidential

Replies
2
Views
616
The Dungeon - Knights Only
lazysunday
L
B

Women’s basketball

Replies
38
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
TB Knight
TB Knight
SADUCFKNIGHT

It’s time to discuss Chins:

Replies
25
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
litehedded
L
DFaulk_23

OT: Birthday

Replies
10
Views
777
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Good Knight Sweetheart
Good Knight Sweetheart
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back