ADVERTISEMENT

Again

Tonight on NBC Nightly News they pointed out that Obama hasn't really made himself present in areas of protest during his time in office. From Trayvon, to Ferguson, etc. he basically hasn't stepped up. I wonder if he'll make the short trip to Baltimore?
 
So when the CIA gives Bush bad intel it's his fault. When the mayor's and police chief's subordinates screw up it's not their fault. Gotta love the double standards with you libs. I can't imagine the faux raging from you dumb fuks if Bush had just killed a couple US citizens in a drone strike.
 
Or the people who broke an innocent persons neck.
do you have proof of that. There is video of him being dragged after he wrecked his bike fleeing from police. The way his neck looked in that video you can't be sure he did not hurt himself during the chase. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your story, you don't seem to have a need for them.
 
Tonight on NBC Nightly News they pointed out that Obama hasn't really made himself present in areas of protest during his time in office. From Trayvon, to Ferguson, etc. he basically hasn't stepped up. I wonder if he'll make the short trip to Baltimore?
Trayvon protests in Florida were mild in comparison to the other 2.
 
do you have proof of that. There is video of him being dragged after he wrecked his bike fleeing from police. The way his neck looked in that video you can't be sure he did not hurt himself during the chase. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your story, you don't seem to have a need for them.

LMAO, you speculate that he hurt himself running, then mention facts. It all makes sense to me now.
 
LMAO, you speculate that he hurt himself running, then mention facts. It all makes sense to me now.
I have no Idea how he got hurt, but seeing the video, I do think he was hurt before going into the van. Did he fall and do it? Did an officer put a knee in his back when taking him down? Don't know. Do know his legs were limp when they dragged him to van.
 
So, are you saying that people stay married because they have money and get divorced or stay single because they're poor?
No, I'm saying that poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, increased crime, increased drug use, increased incarceration rates, and all the other things these people have to deal with are major contributing factors to lack of traditional family structures. It isn't the other way around.
 
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?

Is this a real question?

Just look at the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that a traditional family is far and away the absolute best way to raise children, avoid poverty, and sustain a better life. Child poverty is almost entirely unique to non married single parents. And of course, if the child is living in poverty, then the single parent is also living in poverty.

There is no affordable amount of welfare that can get these people out of poverty.

I'm not a sociology expert so I can't tell you how to reverse this disastrous course we've put ourselves on, but a good start would be to have the left wing and feminists to stop degrading the traditional family, the stay at home mom, and the general idea that sometimes it's better to focus on your children then yourself. Maybe instead of running specials on the "struggling single mom", and glorifying it, we should start running specials on how well children do in a married, 2 parent environment?

But nah, why do that? It's so "traditional" and boring!
 
No, I'm saying that poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, increased crime, increased drug use, increased incarceration rates, and all the other things these people have to deal with are major contributing factors to lack of traditional family structures. It isn't the other way around.

This is not true.

In 1965, only 8% of black children were born out of wedlock. That number was 40% in 2010, and is at a ridiculous 70% in 2015. This is directly from the Urban Institute's study on this very topic.

In 1965, over 55% of black mothers lived with a married spouse. By 2010 that number dropped to below 25%, and today it stands at just 22%.

The report also shows, not surprisingly, that poverty amongst black populations has significantly increased over the same periods of time when the core family structure was broken apart.

I'll give you that drug use and crime is a contributing factor to this breakdown, but this still supports my point that the core breakdown of the black family is THE single biggest contributor to chronic poverty. The drug usage, crime, and subsequent lack of employment is merely the "how" it gradually happened. And sadly, this happened during a period when black people won much more freedom than they had in 1965.
 
Is this a real question?

Just look at the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that a traditional family is far and away the absolute best way to raise children, avoid poverty, and sustain a better life. Child poverty is almost entirely unique to non married single parents. And of course, if the child is living in poverty, then the single parent is also living in poverty.

There is no affordable amount of welfare that can get these people out of poverty.

I'm not a sociology expert so I can't tell you how to reverse this disastrous course we've put ourselves on, but a good start would be to have the left wing and feminists to stop degrading the traditional family, the stay at home mom, and the general idea that sometimes it's better to focus on your children then yourself. Maybe instead of running specials on the "struggling single mom", and glorifying it, we should start running specials on how well children do in a married, 2 parent environment?

But nah, why do that? It's so "traditional" and boring!


This is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Decades of poverty, disenfranchisement, oppression, crime, and outright racism, that you're chalking up to not having a daddy around.
You're a ****ing idiot of biblical proportions, and I'm not just saying it to be funny this time. You really are.
 
LMAO, you speculate that he hurt himself running, then mention facts. It all makes sense to me now.
Mac, you're out of your league. I said we don't know what happened but you, the typical liberal fool, want revenge instead of justice.
 
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Decades of poverty, disenfranchisement, oppression, crime, and outright racism, that you're chalking up to not having a daddy around.
You're a ****ing idiot of biblical proportions, and I'm not just saying it to be funny this time. You really are.

So says the idiot that can't read facts right in front of your face.

You're an excuse maker who thinks he understands societal race problems because you watched a f*cking VICE documentary and read a HuffPo Op-Ed.

You are the worst type of blowhard liberal douche.
 
Is this a real question?

Just look at the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that a traditional family is far and away the absolute best way to raise children, avoid poverty, and sustain a better life. Child poverty is almost entirely unique to non married single parents. And of course, if the child is living in poverty, then the single parent is also living in poverty.

There is no affordable amount of welfare that can get these people out of poverty.

I'm not a sociology expert so I can't tell you how to reverse this disastrous course we've put ourselves on, but a good start would be to have the left wing and feminists to stop degrading the traditional family, the stay at home mom, and the general idea that sometimes it's better to focus on your children then yourself. Maybe instead of running specials on the "struggling single mom", and glorifying it, we should start running specials on how well children do in a married, 2 parent environment?

But nah, why do that? It's so "traditional" and boring!


Maybe those Catholics were right all along!
 
No, I'm saying that poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, increased crime, increased drug use, increased incarceration rates, and all the other things these people have to deal with are major contributing factors to lack of traditional family structures. It isn't the other way around.

It's the government's fault. I bet if we throw more money into education and training it will fix all of those problems.
 
chemmie thinks that if we just kicked in a few more billion dollars at the Federal level and got whiteys to curb their natural universal racism, the chronic black poverty seen in many cities would evaporate, even despite the core family structures being torn apart.

He really thinks this.
 
So, the lack of family structure is the cause...

What causes the lack of family structure? Being born black?
Because, that is what you're saying.
 
I think the lack of a family structure, lack of discipline, inability to raise children with respect for others and property, is a problem with all people...the same potential to be juvenile delinquent exists in all classes. I have seen some pretty brazen trust-fund hipster vandals during the occupy wall-street movement...oh, remember Seattle in 1999? Seemed like a lot of outspoken "poor" people in those events also...or maybe it was just "collective" imagination...

This is further exacerbated by this growing ideology that children belong to the community, not their parents...

41372351-SS_Americas_Most_Destructive_Riots_Seattle_1999.jpg
 
So, the lack of family structure is the cause...

What causes the lack of family structure? Being born black?
Because, that is what you're saying.

Nope, that's what you want to read.

I've already shown how the breakdown of family structure is impacting ALL ethnicities. It's just disproportionally slammed black society, especially amongst inner city populations.

And I've already said that I'm not a societal expert so I can't tell you every reason why black families have disintegrated, or how to fix it, but that is undeniably a root cause of chronic poverty.
 
Nope, that's what you want to read.
I've already shown how the breakdown of family structure is impacting ALL ethnicities. It's just disproportionally slammed black society, especially amongst inner city populations.
And I've already said that I'm not a societal expert so I can't tell you every reason why black families have disintegrated, or how to fix it, but that is undeniably a root cause of chronic poverty.

You have not "shown how the breakdown of family structure is impacting ALL ethnicities." You have made false correlations.

You've just admitted to having no basis for your opinion: "I can't tell you every reason why black families have disintegrated"
You can't give a single reason, because it nullifies your argument.

Since you can't give a reason why black families have disintegrated, causing their own poverty, violence, lack of education, drug use, incarceration rates, etc.
I'll just assume your reason why their families have disintegrated is because they are black.
 
You have not "shown how the breakdown of family structure is impacting ALL ethnicities." You have made false correlations.

You've just admitted to having no basis for your opinion: "I can't tell you every reason why black families have disintegrated"
You can't give a single reason, because it nullifies your argument.

QUOTE]

Here you go, dumbass. I already posted it in this thread but since you refuse to read, I'll post it again.

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.
 
By the way, the last Republican Mayor of Baltimore was in 1967. Maryland has had a whopping 2 Republican Governors since 1969.

Every single member of the Baltimore City Council is a Democrat.

Obama won 88% of the Baltimore city vote in 2012.

But yes, this is totally the end result of right wing policy firm in effect in Baltimore*
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
You don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you?

...and I barely have the heart to tell you about The Myth of The Absent Black Father (lots more links in there for you to ignore)

So... come on and tell us why (in your mind) so many black fathers ignore their children? Why don't they keep the traditional family together? You would think they would, because (again, in your mind) it causes so much poverty and other destruction in their neighborhoods, and causes police brutality and crime and...
 
By the way, the last Republican Mayor of Baltimore was in 1967. Maryland has had a whopping 2 Republican Governors since 1969.

Every single member of the Baltimore City Council is a Democrat.

Obama won 88% of the Baltimore city vote in 2012.

But yes, this is totally the end result of right wing policy firm in effect in Baltimore*

Wow, man...you read my mind. I was about to point out the same thing. Baltimore is like many other suburbs of DC, it is largely run by "community planning" initiatives...many of the results of such were burned down the other night. SMH.
 
Why do you guys bother arguing with chemmie? We all know he's stupid and dumb so why bother?
 
Is this a real question?

Just look at the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that a traditional family is far and away the absolute best way to raise children, avoid poverty, and sustain a better life. Child poverty is almost entirely unique to non married single parents. And of course, if the child is living in poverty, then the single parent is also living in poverty.

There is no affordable amount of welfare that can get these people out of poverty.

I'm not a sociology expert so I can't tell you how to reverse this disastrous course we've put ourselves on, but a good start would be to have the left wing and feminists to stop degrading the traditional family, the stay at home mom, and the general idea that sometimes it's better to focus on your children then yourself. Maybe instead of running specials on the "struggling single mom", and glorifying it, we should start running specials on how well children do in a married, 2 parent environment?

But nah, why do that? It's so "traditional" and boring!

Yes, it was a real question. The "traditional family" is an impractical ideal, but you are right to say that it has its advantages when it comes to being able to provide youth structure and direction. Since we dont live in an ideal world, then we need to be able to mimic that structure the best we can to support kids that are not getting good life direction at home.

Liberals and feminists didn't destroy the traditional family, human nature did.
 
Yes, it was a real question. The "traditional family" is an impractical ideal, but you are right to say that it has its advantages when it comes to being able to provude youth structure and direction. Sine we dont live in an ideal world, then we need to be able to mimic that structure the best we can to support kids that are not getting good life direction at home.

Liberals and feminists didn't destroy the traditional family, human nature did.

Lulzzzzz

Yes, It's such an impractical ideal that it has been the overwhelmingly practiced form of social bond for thousands of years in most every corner of the earth.

You have seriously let some whacked out liberal blogs destroy your cognitive ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
Lulzzzzz

Yes, It's such an impractical ideal that it has been the overwhelmingly practiced form of social bond for thousands of years in most every corner of the earth.

You have seriously let some whacked out liberal blogs destroy your cognitive ability.

I don't read blogs, but the world thousands of years ago isn't the world today (common fallacy conservatives make). Prior to the industrial revolution the family unit provided all structure (food, shelter, protection, etc). That's no longer the case, and so as the world around us evolves humans adapt to it. Human nature pushes us to be independent and branch out and since that has been much easier the past 100 years (since there are other means of getting food and shelter outside the family), that's what has been happening. We haven't done a good job adapting to the loss of social support structure since the industrial revolution.

Always be careful about making arguments assuming a static world over long periods of time, they're usually not correct.
 
Yes, it was a real question. The "traditional family" is an impractical ideal, but you are right to say that it has its advantages when it comes to being able to provide youth structure and direction. Since we dont live in an ideal world, then we need to be able to mimic that structure the best we can to support kids that are not getting good life direction at home.

Liberals and feminists didn't destroy the traditional family, human nature did.

An impractical ideal? Wow. That just tells me, like most libs, your priorities are screwed up.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT