Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: beezzer

No worries.

I have NO problem with shaming racists/xenophobes/homophobes etc... none whatsoever. Its 2015, 1950s mentality has no place in our society anymore.

Right. So you love shaming as negative reinforcement for society to change negative behavior as long as you agree with the reason.

If the reason is to ban homophobia/xenophobia/racism ...then yes. But thats just me, because i LOATHE anyone like that. With a passion.

Is shaming a good thing for society?...i doubt it. And i certainly would never want single mothers shamed, thats utterly disgusting.

Shrug. At least you admit the hypocrisy which is a something most social justice warriors are unable to do.

Social justice warrior? Because i want equality for every person? Thats fine. What does that make you then?

No you don't. You said it yourself--your shaming and outrage is selective.

Look, i know you want to get angry at me and hate me...but dont put words in my mouth and dont tell me what i do and dont want.

What im saying is that i loathe xenophobes/racists and homophobes so much that if they are shamed, then i have no problem with that. I certainly dont belive that there should be a campaign of shaming them. Im not calling for them to be outed in national newspapers...But if one gets called out on their disgusting attitude, then so be it. I'll laugh.

There is nothing more complicated or deeper to what im saying than that. If someone shames any of those type of people then i dont really care and i wont any lose sleep over it.

I believe in equality for every single law abiding person. And dont ever tell me that i dont again please. Thanks!

You have no idea how much it pains me to say I agree with Jeb Bush on anything, but he's right.
Our sense of morality has collapsed and along with it the family unit.
If you disagree you're probably younger than 50 and this is the world you grew up in - the new normal.
The old way was hard on many, no doubt but public shame has been around since the first 2 cave families decided to share a hole in the rocks.
It was part of the glue that gave us social cohesion.
Look around and see how much cohesion we have now as Americans.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
You have no idea how much it pains me to say I agree with Jeb Bush on anything, but he's right.
Our sense of morality has collapsed and along with it the family unit.
If you disagree you're probably younger than 50 and this is the world you grew up in - the new normal.
The old way was hard on many, no doubt but public shame has been around since the first 2 cave families decided to share a hole in the rocks.
It was part of the glue that gave us social cohesion.
Look around and see how much cohesion we have now as Americans.

Funny thing is that it wasn't just Jeb. It was passed by a HUGE majority vote at the time. This is just a dig at Jeb because he is the one running this time. It has been brought up before on the dems side as well in past election races. People just like to skew these things to one side or the other when BOTH actually participated.

a reply to: burntheships

So is your answer to the question posed in the OP that, yes, people do or don't change or, no, people don't change?

I'm probably not reading this post clearly.

originally posted by: James1982
I like the VERY obvious slant on the article. Jeb Bush talks about how shaming could stop both young women AND men from irresponsible behavior, yet the title not only emphasizes but solely states he's targeting women.

Typical divisive BS. Perfect example of how to turn everything into a gender issue in 3 easy steps. Good job lefties, your BS craft is strong.

For the record I despise the entire Bush clan so hush if you plan to accuse me of being a conservative or a republican, wrong tree.

You see, when pointing out the faults of someone else, it's a good idea to make sure your integrity is intact. They failed horribly in that regard.

Maybe this is because the women are easier targets to lock in on. After all, they're the ones with the baby bump or the baby and no wedding right, eh? Kind of hard to spot those unwed fathers.

Not like this isn't just another way for the grand ol' GOP to target women. Uterus police and dozens of other transgressions their ilk have introduced or voted into law. If you cannot see a pattern here you are ignoring the obvious.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
When I was a kid, we were dirt poor. It was embarrassing to take welfare so people worked hard to stay off welfare. That societal pressure helped eliminate people form the welfare roles who didn't really need it.

It is a rather well recognized aspect of how societies work. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize it.

40% of households now make less than a single parent minimum wage income brought when you were a kid.

Things change.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
You have no idea how much it pains me to say I agree with Jeb Bush on anything, but he's right.
Our sense of morality has collapsed and along with it the family unit.
If you disagree you're probably younger than 50 and this is the world you grew up in - the new normal.
The old way was hard on many, no doubt but public shame has been around since the first 2 cave families decided to share a hole in the rocks.
It was part of the glue that gave us social cohesion.
Look around and see how much cohesion we have now as Americans.

Funny thing is that it wasn't just Jeb. It was passed by a HUGE majority vote at the time. This is just a dig at Jeb because he is the one running this time. It has been brought up before on the dems side as well in past election races. People just like to skew these things to one side or the other when BOTH actually participated.

When the original bill was approved, many lawmakers who passed it said they did not read it thoroughly and were unaware that it contained the publication provision. NYTimes 2003

The people who voited for it didn't read it and neither did the governor who signed it. Or so they claimed after it was challenged in court and it was subsequently repealed.

What this whole blip in our country's law-making history shows most of all is that the people we elect are ignoramuses who just go with the flow.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
When I was a kid, we were dirt poor. It was embarrassing to take welfare so people worked hard to stay off welfare. That societal pressure helped eliminate people form the welfare roles who didn't really need it.

It is a rather well recognized aspect of how societies work. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize it.

40% of households now make less than a single parent minimum wage income brought when you were a kid.

Things change.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

If you disagree you're probably younger than 50 and this is the world you grew up in - the new normal.

I disagree. Born in 1958 (56 now, pushing 57). And there are more of us (over 50s) here than you apparently realize.

a reply to: Aazadan

Things change.

Not in his world.

It isn't 1950.

Mothers don't have to be married, people get welfare because let's face the fact that wages have not kept up with the cost of living and inflation, and people that aren't willing to roll with the changes, will be left wondering if the world has gone mad, all because they couldn't keep up.

a reply to: daryllyn

Do you think that children are better off with a 2 parent home or a 1 parent home?

a reply to: beezzer

Obviously 2 parent homes are ideal, but you have to face the fact that its not anywhere close to as taboo, as it was in 1950, to be a single parent.

It depends on the situation, no? How many permutations of this scenario can we think of?

Is a two-parent home where the parents hate each other and fight all the time better than a one-parent home that is peaceful?

Many kids today have three or four parents and two homes.

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: beezzer

Obviously 2 parent homes are ideal, but you have to face the fact that its not anywhere close to as taboo, as it was in 1950, to be a single parent.

So a child would benefit from living in a 2 parent home over a 1 parent home.

And we have people (politicians) looking at a myriad of ways to encourage people to provide a better environment for the children.

And we have people here that appear resistant to endorse any attempt to encourage 2 family homes that would benefit children.

So many times, those on the left cry, "It's for the children!"

But when it comes to issues like this? Maybe it's not so much for the children after all.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ~Lucidity

There is public shaming now.

If you disagree with gay marriage, you are publically shamed.

Yep and don't forget if you disagree with gun control.

Gun owners are publically shamed.

And the rich have too much money they are publically shamed.

Them evil corporations are too greedy, and their ceo's are 'fatcats'. They are shamed publically.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So some people are against abortion and want to shame people who opt for the adoption route like this? Then if the mom wants to keep her kid and can't afford it and needs assistance, that's a no-no too.

Nice.

Better yet, excessive shaming correlates highly to suicide rates. So if you give the kid up for adoption you're shamed. If you keep it you're shamed, and if you just can't take it any longer and kill yourself the kid now goes without parents.

Perfect system.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It depends on the situation, no? How many permutations of this scenario can we think of?

Is a two-parent home where the parents hate each other and fight all the time better than a one-parent home that is peaceful?

Many kids today have three or four parents and two homes.

I'm speaking in general terms. Looking at the big picture.

If you want to argue that 2 parent homes are worse than 1 parent homes, then that is your right, thought I find the assumption foolish to even consider.

What is this? The 50's? The whole premise is ridiculous. I'm over 50 ATA and I disagree. I can't see how anyone can support this type of thinking.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You lot have plenty of guns over there may i suggest someone pop a cap or two in this fools arse. Im sure there will be plenty of unwed single mothers willing to take up the challenge.

On a more serious note the Man is an obvious moron, seems to run in the family if you ask me.

a reply to: neo96

Is this shaming, or just food for thought?



And once again, you really cannot shame those who are incapable of feeling shame.

Hell I don't even think shame should be a verb.