What a sad state of affairs this country is in

a reply to: ketsuko

You think it's just that simple for everyone don't you?

Did you even read my OP and acknowledge this old mans story?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Some things might be compromised on, and other things can't.

If I have a liberty now and have all I want, what compels me to sit down compromise some of it away to satisfy someone else's need to take it away from me?

Similarly, if they've already taken away from me something I want, what compels them to sit down and compromise some of that taken liberty back to me?

a reply to: CranialSponge

So you think the Police/Military wouldn't lock it down as soon as people start mobbing through the streets with guns, in packs? Remember what happened in Watertown after the Boston ing? Imagine that multiplied by 10, all over the place. With checkpoints everywhere. They would lock it down SO fast..

a reply to: ketsuko

The social ills of a society (country) determine the number of poverty stricken civilians living in said country.


So if your country is bursting at the seams with homelessness and so-called "lazy" poor people, like you guys keep saying...

Well then, case in point to the first sentence.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CranialSponge

Or the economic crash will teach us that, but I think some of us have an idea of what it's like to work our way out of poverty and resent being told we're greedy for not wanting to pay for others who don't expend the same effort.

Some are greedy, and have not had to work their way out.

a reply to: onequestion

I'm just disgusted by a lot of you and this society we live in right now.

Ah.

Let us know what you are doing that we could be doing that would make us less disgusting.

Oohh I'm just waiting for the responses and eating popcorn now.

And this from the guy that doesn't want anyone to "rant on" his thread.

Got it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Some things might be compromised on, and other things can't.

If I have a liberty now and have all I want, what compels me to sit down compromise some of it away to satisfy someone else's need to take it away from me?

Similarly, if they've already taken away from me something I want, what compels them to sit down and compromise some of that taken liberty back to me?

Some of both is being taken from both of us now, Liberty and Funds, why should we not compromise on better ways to spend the funds, and try to find more common grounds on the liberties?

The lot is getting big, big, Big...a sad state we have...thanks.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Yes, there are plenty of social ills, but not all of them boil down to "you have more money than I do and don't deserve it so give it to me now!"

Sometimes things like women persisting in having children out of wedlock, families breaking themselves apart, children who don't value education, schools that don't educate, people who don't speak the primary language, and other factors of similar nature play a large part, too, and I could give every last penny I currently have to some of those people without fixing their other issues and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. They'd still be mired in poverty and likely pass it on to their children.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ketsuko

You think it's just that simple for everyone don't you?

Did you even read my OP and acknowledge this old mans story?

Yes, I get it. People live on fixed income. I have parents who do, and they depend on family to help them. You are suggesting that I vote for social policies that would take away the extra funds I currently have that goes to help my parents, my husband's grandmother, his parents ... you know, family, in order to pay for that nice lady who has four or five kids by four or five different men.

Now, I don't know, but maybe if we paid for less like her, there would be more for your old man and I could keep back more for my parents. And maybe she wouldn't make the poor decision to keep getting pregnant to increase her monthly government allotment.

a reply to: ketsuko

To be honest, I don't give a damn what you choose to point your finger at and place the blame on, it's all moot when looking at the bigger picture.

The simple fact of the matter is that these social ills are happening (and growing worse by the day) because you and your fellow brethren choose to continue to just point fingers...

That blame, hate, and resentment towards one another will inevitably lead towards yet another civil war.

Like I said earlier.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Sometimes things like women persisting in having children out of wedlock

Surely you are not insinuating that women, alone, are the ones having children out of wedlock or that somehow being 'married' assures that the children will be provided for financially.

and I could give every last penny I currently have to some of those people without fixing their other issues and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. They'd still be mired in poverty and likely pass it on to their children.

I agree with you!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CranialSponge


Sometimes things like women persisting in having children out of wedlock,

and there are those among us, who do not want to educate our children about sex, contraceptives, and std's

families breaking themselves apart,

Wife and I have been married 10 years, I have VA healthcare, she has no insurance. If we divorced, and just lived together, she would have insurance for 25 bucks a month, two of us together, even with VA, over $300.00, a bad Obamacare position.

children who don't value education, schools that don't educate,

Blame the first on the parents that are not involved in their children's education, blame the second on a multitude of things, including those that want to teach religion in school, those that do not want to fund public education, and those that think an uneducated parent can teach their children anything.

I could give every last penny I currently have to some of those people without fixing their other issues and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. They'd still be mired in poverty and likely pass it on to their children.

I agree, but that does not mean that between us, we could not find some common sense answers, that would somewhat satisfy both of us, that would improve the situation.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I agree, but that does not mean that between us, we could not find some common sense answers, that would somewhat satisfy both of us, that would improve the situation.

I think you might be asking a wee bit too much of your fellow countrymen.

They much prefer to point fingers, blame each other for everything, divide each other on everything, and hate each other about everything.

Constructive solutions are not in the cards for these type of people.

So civil war until the last man standing, it is.

a reply to: TNMockingbird

Men can get pregnant?!

Look, like it or not, women are the ones who get pregnant.

My mother had a saying, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" There's something to be said for the old-fashioned notion of saying "No" to sex, even with birth control. As unfair as biology is, women get stuck with the consequences of their decision to have sex a lot easier than men do which is where that whole social prescription against sex before marriage came from. It isn't a religious decision as much as many would like to make it so much as a practical one.

And no, having two parents doesn't ensure you won't live in poverty, but statistically speaking, it drastically reduces the odds you will. The three most reliable indicators to avoid poverty are:

1.) Finish high school

2.) Hold down a full-time job

3.) Don't have kids until you marry

Do all three and your chances of living in poverty and raising your kids in the same fall to less than 10%.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I agree, but that does not mean that between us, we could not find some common sense answers, that would somewhat satisfy both of us, that would improve the situation.

I think you might be asking a wee bit too much of your fellow countrymen.

They much prefer to point fingers, blame each other for everything, divide each other on everything, and hate each other about everything.

Constructive solutions are not in the cards for these type of people.

So civil war until the last man standing, it is.

I am a student of history, and lost family members on both sides of the civil war. Civil war in the US is probably my one fear.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TNMockingbird

Men can get pregnant?!

Look, like it or not, women are the ones who get pregnant.

My mother had a saying, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" There's something to be said for the old-fashioned notion of saying "No" to sex, even with birth control. As unfair as biology is, women get stuck with the consequences of their decision to have sex a lot easier than men do which is where that whole social prescription against sex before marriage came from. It isn't a religious decision as much as many would like to make it so much as a practical one.

And no, having two parents doesn't ensure you won't live in poverty, but statistically speaking, it drastically reduces the odds you will. The three most reliable indicators to avoid poverty are:

1.) Finish high school

2.) Hold down a full-time job

3.) Don't have kids until you marry

Do all three and your chances of living in poverty and raising your kids in the same fall to less than 10%.

Yep there have never been any illegitimate children in the past. You forgot the bible verses.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I agree, but that does not mean that between us, we could not find some common sense answers, that would somewhat satisfy both of us, that would improve the situation.

I think you might be asking a wee bit too much of your fellow countrymen.

They much prefer to point fingers, blame each other for everything, divide each other on everything, and hate each other about everything.

Constructive solutions are not in the cards for these type of people.

So civil war until the last man standing, it is.

Sad thing is, the right thinks they are the only ones who support the 2nd Amendment, they are the only ones trained to fight, I would hate to inform them, that many veterans stand on the other side. It will be as ugly the second time as it was the first, and the same group is going to lose.

and there are those among us, who do not want to educate our children about sex, contraceptives, and std's

Ironic statement to make on a day when there is an entire thread on ATS about how you can educate a rapist all you want about rape, but it won't stop him. You can educate a radical Islamist all you want about terrorism, but it won't stop him. But suddenly, all it takes to completely stop kids from getting pregnant is to educate them?

Of course, we can't stop kids from smoking either ...

Another one of those fun inconsistencies in left-leaning thought.

Now I am in favor of teaching the birds and the bees, but I draw the line at safe sex when it includes information on how to have sex. It's not the school's business to teach children how to get it on, only about the mechanics and the consequences.

Wife and I have been married 10 years, I have VA healthcare, she has no insurance. If we divorced, and just lived together, she would have insurance for 25 bucks a month, two of us together, even with VA, over $300.00, a bad Obamacare position.

Well, there you are. It is easier to get government assistance if you aren't married. The Great Society social programs encourage the break up of the family and dependence on government. We replace dad with government and people become dependent. Obamacare only punishes marriage, too.

Blame the first on the parents that are not involved in their children's education, blame the second on a multitude of things, including those that want to teach religion in school, those that do not want to fund public education, and those that think an uneducated parent can teach their children anything.

See? Here is one area where you and I will not compromise. I live in a Common Core state. Common Core is awful and encourages practices that kill intellectual curiosity in children. Being the mother of a bright child and someone who has had a brush with teaching public education myself, I did my research and my two options were to find a private school or to homeschool.

In the end, we found a classical curriculum religious school. It fits our budget and it's one of the more rigorous schools in the city. It was never my aim in life to send my child to a private school having been public educated myself, but from my own experiences in the trenches, I couldn't put my own kid in those places. I love him too much. He needs a place where he can learn and actually be taught.

Religion has less to do with it than you think and corruption in the system much more along with the aforementioned break down of the family. No one values education because no one has parents who do.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I don't think I said that, but please put words in to my mouth. After all, the word "bastard" came from somewhere.