Kenya Tells Obama..

[lapollarecords]

The sooner he is out of office, the better. God willing, the lying snake lady (HC) wont get in and we'll finally and at long last have a decent leader.

I can't see a single decent leader between all the republican candidates. not saying Hillary is one.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Also the Left in this country are using homosexuality to take out Christianity in the USA. Through lawsuits and such and we will see much more of that to come. Christianity is the major obstacle from having a socialistic utopian one world government.

Kenya knows that a society of strong traditional families means a strong society for generations to come. You need a mother and a father for best results. It's common sense or at least it should be. Something the USA has lost. We're so messed up that we light the white house in rainbow colors and give people courage awards for coming out gay and getting sex changes.

"Wake up USA, What happened to you?"- Yoel Romero. And he was right.

Maybe you should move to Kenya. Or Saudi Arabia, they're very family oriented.

The American right only pretends to be family oriented. They never support things that would actually help families that are standard in every other developed nation like universal child care, mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, and universal health care. All the right cares about is that you don't get an abortion. After that, fuck you and your baby, not their concern anymore.

 

[Uchi Mata]

We should be. Check out what Planned Parenthood has been up to lately.

This may be the dumbest thing you've ever posted, and that's really saying something.

 

[Harmonica]

Based on what? Can you quote anything Jesus said to back up your claim? Can you provide any instances of Jesus slapping or physically attacking anyone?

How about cleansing of the temple ?

 

[spamking]

Maybe you should move to Kenya. Or Saudi Arabia, they're very family oriented.

The American right only pretends to be family oriented. They never support things that would actually help families that are standard in every other developed nation like universal child care, mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, and universal health care. All the right cares about is that you don't get an abortion. After that, fuck you and your baby, not their concern anymore.

Please don't whitewash all who you see as right of center like this . . . you can't really say "they never support . . . this or that". How is pushing responsibility and taking care of yourself and your family = f*ck you and your baby?

Help doesn't always need to equal a handout.

 

[spamking]

How about cleansing of the temple ?

He threw tables around. He didn't physically attack anyone.

 

[Harmonica]

He threw tables around. He didn't physically attack anyone.

Then why is a whip being mentioned and why do some of the paintings that depict said event have Jesus swinging his whip at merchants ?

 

[ripskater]

Maybe you should move to Kenya. Or Saudi Arabia, they're very family oriented.

The American right only pretends to be family oriented. They never support things that would actually help families that are standard in every other developed nation like universal child care, mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, and universal health care. All the right cares about is that you don't get an abortion. After that, fuck you and your baby, not their concern anymore.

Isn't child care mom and dad's responsibility? Why is that the job of the state to pay for your kid's childcare?

 

[Uchi Mata]

Please don't whitewash all who you see as right of center like this . . . you can't really say "they never support . . . this or that". How is pushing responsibility and taking care of yourself and your family = f*ck you and your baby?

Help doesn't always need to equal a handout.

Because in the modern American economy it is impossible for poor people to raise a child on income they can earn. Childcare and health care costs have risen much, much faster than inflation and the degradation of wages at the low end of the income scale have made it an absolute necessity for both parents to work unless one of them makes at least a middle class income. The costs to having a child alone are much more than two people making minimum wage can bear. Essentially what America has done by not instituting the kind of protections and support other first world countries have done is make having children a luxury for the majority of poorer people. Ironically, the support we do provide is mostly in forms that incentivize not working, because we do provide food and some medical support but not childcare or maternity leave.

So here's the question: if you're a not particularly smart or talented person but you hold down a low wage job, should you not be able to have children because having them is too expensive? Does the supposedly family loving right really think that having children is a privilege only for the middle class and above?

Personally, I actually do give most conservatives the benefit of the doubt that I don't think they really believe that having kids should be a luxury. What they won't do is recognize how drastically the economic prospects for people at the bottom of the income scale have fallen since the 70s and respond to those systemic changes (which are not the fault of the poor, things like globalization and the tech revolution) with legislation that would actually strengthen social safety nets in family friendly ways.

 

[spamking]

Then why is a whip being mentioned and why do some of the paintings that depict said event have Jesus swinging his whip at merchants ?

I assume for dramatic effect.

 

[Harmonica]

I assume for dramatic effect.

Nevertheless, his flipping of the tables and yelling contradict his earlier teaching on resisting anger that he propagated during sermon on the mount.

 

[spamking]

Because in the modern American economy it is impossible for poor people to raise a child on income they can earn. Childcare and health care costs have risen much, much faster than inflation and the degradation of wages at the low end of the income scale have made it an absolute necessity for both parents to work unless one of them makes at least a middle class income. The costs to having a child alone are much more than two people making minimum wage can bear.

I agree that things today are drastically different for families than when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. But I think families can "make it" if they struggle to make ends meet. It might take some time, but I think they can get by. My wife and I struggled from check to check early in or marriage like everyone else and I wasn't sure about affording kids or other things, but we've made it work. She worked before we had our oldest, but stayed home because after paying childcare, a car payment, and gas her check just barely paid for all of it. We were basically living on my check anyway so she quit, we got rid of her car and adjusted our lifestyle to what it needed to be in order to make things affordable.

I think others can as well, many just don't know how or don't want to.

Essentially what America has done by not instituting the kind of protections and support other first world countries have done is make having children a luxury for the majority of poorer people. Ironically, the support we do provide is mostly in forms that incentivize not working, because we do provide food and some medical support but not childcare or maternity leave.

Yet that hasn't stopped folks . . .

So here's the question: if you're a not particularly smart or talented person but you hold down a low wage job, should you not be able to have children because having them is too expensive? Does the supposedly family loving right really think that having children is a privilege only for the middle class and above?

If you're not a particularly smart or talented person you shouldn't be able to have children until you can provide for them. Regardless of how much folks perceive the cost to be . . .

Some folks are fit to be parents and others aren't . . . regardless of their income.

Personally, I actually do give most conservatives the benefit of the doubt that I don't think they really believe that having kids should be a luxury. What they won't do is recognize how drastically the economic prospects for people at the bottom of the income scale have fallen since the 70s and respond to those systemic changes (which are not the fault of the poor, things like globalization and the tech revolution) with legislation that would actually strengthen social safety nets in family friendly ways.

How have the economic prospects fallen? Do you really think there are fewer jobs or are they just harder to qualify for?

IMO there are way more opportunities out there if you're willing to look for them and work.

But like you mentioned, I think the incentive is no longer there.

 

[spamking]

Nevertheless, his flipping of the tables and yelling contradict his earlier teaching on resisting anger that he propagated during sermon on the mount.

Should tell you how strongly He felt about this particular issue . . .

 

[Harmonica]

I agree that things today are drastically different for families than when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. But I think families can "make it" if they struggle to make ends meet. It might take some time, but I think they can get by. My wife and I struggled from check to check early in or marriage like everyone else and I wasn't sure about affording kids or other things, but we've made it work. She worked before we had our oldest, but stayed home because after paying childcare, a car payment, and gas her check just barely paid for all of it. We were basically living on my check anyway so she quit, we got rid of her car and adjusted our lifestyle to what it needed to be in order to make things affordable.

I think others can as well, many just don't know how or don't want to.

If you're not a particularly smart or talented person you shouldn't be able to have children until you can provide for them. Regardless of how much folks perceive the cost to be . . .

Some folks are fit to be parents and others aren't . . . regardless of their income.

How have the economic prospects fallen? Do you really think there are fewer jobs or are they just harder to qualify for?

IMO there are way more opportunities out there if you're willing to look for them and work.

But like you mentioned, I think the incentive is no longer there.

Great post. I would also like to add that most people either wish beyond their necessities or flat out live beyond their means.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I think others can as well, many just don't know how or don't want to.

What's the basis for that? Do you really think it's more likely that all of a sudden poorer Americans went from being hardworking to being lazy, or that massive tectonic shifts in the organization of the economy destroyed most of the good paying low skilled jobs that those people used to work?

If you're not a particularly smart or talented person you shouldn't be able to have children until you can provide for them. Regardless of how much folks perceive the cost to be . . .

Some folks are fit to be parents and others aren't . . . regardless of their income.

So in other words, yes, the poor should not have children. Good to know that's how you feel, but stop saying you're pro family if you think family is reserved only for the middle class and above.

How have the economic prospects fallen? Do you really think there are fewer jobs or are they just harder to qualify for?

IMO there are way more opportunities out there if you're willing to look for them and work.

I do think economic prospects have fallen a lot for the poor, for a couple of reasons. One big one is that labor's share of income has fallen significantly since the 70s while inflation has continued unabated. Poor people make less money now in purchasing power terms than they did during the Carter administration. Another big reason is the rise of technology and the necessity for education. There used to be quite a few decent jobs for hardworking people who could just show up on time sober without many other qualifications. That is no longer the case. Now education is a necessity to rise very far in almost any organization, but the US does less to help people get educated in an affordable way than almost any other country, and that's assuming you even have the aptitude for higher education (many don't). So in that sense I suppose I think there are jobs but they're harder to qualify for.

Bottom line, there will always be people who are less skilled and intelligent than others. I feel like liberals think there should be a way for those people to have things like families and decent lives, and conservatives ultimately don't give a shit about them. At the very least, they have no interest in using government as a means of improving the lives of the least fortunate, and it's pretty clear at this point that if the government doesn't do it they're not going to be able to do it on their own. I really do wish the GOP would just be honest about that and stop pretending that giving tax breaks to billionaires is going to somehow get a guy with an IQ of 80 a job that allows him to live a relatively normal life and not in crushing poverty and economic insecurity.

 

[Adamant]

Then a Republican can completely destroy the country once more! Lol. Can't wait!

Bush wasn't great, but as bad as he was, Obama's worse. We get another Dem, they will truly, completely destroy the country. Only it'll just be a hand-off from Obama, so we'll continue our downword spiral to hell.

Like blithering working class conservatives who vote against their own interests. So I agree, America is full of idiots and sheep. They tend to watch Fox News.

Yeah.... because liberal policies have worked out great thus far. :icon_lol:


Leftist, liberal nuts are gluttons for punishment.

 

[Gandhi]

Anyone who can't admit bush was much much worse than Obama is a drooling retard.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Bush wasn't great, but as bad as he was, Obama's worse. We get another Dem, they will truly, completely destroy the country. Only it'll just be a hand-off from Obama, so we'll continue our downword spiral to hell.



Yeah.... because liberal policies have worked out great thus far. :icon_lol:


Leftist, liberal nuts are gluttons for punishment.

Can you seriously look at the state of this country the day before Obama's inauguration, compare it to today, and not conclude that things are far better?

Compare Bush's inauguration to his last day and not conclude that things have gotten far better under Obama while they got far, far worse under Bush?

Let's pretend that none of either of those changes were attributable to policy.
Seriously?

 

[Adamant]

I can't see a single decent leader between all the republican candidates. not saying Hillary is one.

Really? I see numerous. It's almost a dream team line-up. At least compared to last cycle, who were a bunch of duds.

 

[Gandhi]

Can you seriously look at the state of this country the day before Obama's inauguration, compare it to today, and not conclude that things are far better?

Compare Bush's inauguration to his last day and not conclude that things have gotten far better under Obama while they got far, far worse under Bush?

Let's pretend that none of either of those changes were attributable to policy.
Seriously?

It's sign that one has lost all critical thinking skills to not be able to admit that bush really was a terrible president. The worst you say about Obama is that he did not live up to the hype. I think that is wrong headed, but one could at least make that argument with a straight face.