Are any lefties from an intact family?

JudoThrowFiasco said:
noticed that you edit to actually tag (half of) them -- and you if you saw them in other threads, you could've called them out in them.

If you're going to call someone out, then actually call the out -- dont be sheepish about it.
Click to expand...
trying, but like jvs isn't actually jvs, it's @Jack V Savage
 
By "intact" do you mean does dad still have his balls?
 
jimmas99 said:
In what way?
It sounds like the Classic right wing " paint everyone with the same brush " Aproach.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem weird to you that nobody who was called out in the OP has responded?

I don't paint everyone with the same brush, at least not racially.
 
nostradumbass said:
It doesn't seem weird to you that nobody who was called out in the OP has responded?

I don't paint everyone with the same brush, at least not racially.
Click to expand...

No, they probably don't want to confirm your bias....

Your initial request do seem a little creepy to me, calling them out like that. It seems a little stalkish.

What is your Point? or are you just interested to know?
 
Well let's see, token leftist checking in.

Spent about equal time being raised by my mom and step dad as well as my dad and a step mom.

Both mom and dad were military, step dad used to work for nasa and jpl.

Step father is the hardest working and most amazing person I know, also an atheist lefty.

Father is an alright guy. Works hard. Mormon conservative.

So tons of positive influence growing up from all sides.
 
carlos cadona said:
Loaded question for another circle jerk.
Click to expand...

stupid people on both sides circle jerking and calling names and pointing and exaggerating the deficiencies on the opposing team while completely ignoring the ones in their own. business as usual.
 
Big_Chief_Stove said:
Not really, liberals are generally in favor of expanding welfare. Welfare in the US is directly linked to the degradation of the family unit in the black community.
Click to expand...
You got a source for that?

My parents have been married for 42 years.

The pettiness of this thread represents how low the right is bringing down discourse in America.
 
Limbo Pete said:
Strange thread
Click to expand...

Yep, and the multiple posts crying for attention and wondering why the people he tagged aren't bothering to respond are pretty pathetic TBH.

Desperate pleas to be noticed. I'm guessing TS has some family issues of his own he needs to work out. Maybe mommy and daddy were around, but they loved his siblings more and created this complex in him? Maybe daddy missed all his little league games?
 
I'll bite the bait:

I'm fairly liberal. My parents are divorced, but I spent equal time with both parents. Dad was present but not a particularly strong masculine influence; mom was super over bearing, became more mellow as we got older, but now is a super uptight, conservative, evangelical type slowly becoming more unhinged. Not quite full blown #pizzagate, but getting there. I got married this year and I'm looking forward to having and raising kids in the near future. My wife is very liberal and her parents are both very liberal and are still married. Our relationship is pretty traditional in the sense that I'm "the man" in the relationship.

AMA, I'm not a straw-man liberal.
 
Satsui Ryu said:
You got a source for that?

My parents have been married for 42 years.

The pettiness of this thread represents how low the right is bringing down discourse in America.
Click to expand...
"The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.


When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislationand added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggestedthat the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.

Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar valueof public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubledsince 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomenasuch as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mothergenerally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute studynoted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.[2] Another Cato report observes:

“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare......"

This is a clip from "Discoverthenetworks.org"

It all started with the war on poverty. Welfare is essentially an incentive to avoid having a two parent household, which in turn cultivates an environment where the children are much more likely to commit crime.

You've never heard of this before? It's sociology 101. Lol at "being petty and lowering the discourse" by acknowledging long running trends and also you referencing your parents marriage as though that debunks my statement.
 
Happiness said:
You are entitled to several tickets to free sympathy sex. Just make sure your voice quivers when you describe how much your childhood pains you; look earnest, suggest that you need to discuss your pain in private over a glass of wine.
Click to expand...
Don't forget to bring the playdough and coloring books!
 
I'll out-liberal anyone here and my parents have been married for 40 years. No prior children, no physical violence, no separations.

My observations from the Mayberry are that a lot of dudes who come from messed up families and/or backgrounds are actually right-wing. It's the ol' "I've had a miserable life so I know that people are basically rotten and only out for themselves so I should also only be out for myself too."
 
Big_Chief_Stove said:
"The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.


When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislationand added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggestedthat the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson.

Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar valueof public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubledsince 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomenasuch as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mothergenerally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute studynoted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.[2] Another Cato report observes:

“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare......"

This is a clip from "Discoverthenetworks.org"

It all started with the war on poverty. Welfare is essentially an incentive to avoid having a two parent household, which in turn cultivates an environment where the children are much more likely to commit crime.

You've never heard of this before? It's sociology 101. Lol at "being petty and lowering the discourse" by acknowledging long running trends and also you referencing your parents marriage as though that debunks my statement.
Click to expand...
Color me shocked the source was from a clearly right wing biased site. What's next, going to follow it up with a "study" from the CATO Institute.
 
Yep. Parents happily married for 35 years.

Any other questions? Does that ruin your theory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,896
Messages
55,453,137
Members
174,784
Latest member
Username Required LMAO

Share this page

Back
Top