Liberalism, Poverty, and Babies

[PoliticalChic]

According to you. Nationalism is a rightist ideology...Socialism when its just socialism is leftist National Socialism is neither. Its a 3rd position.


I don't need to bring anything to the table. I have 3 white kids who will make sure our bloodline and race continue to live on. That's enough for me.

1. 'The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.'
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

"The Right embraces capitalism,...."


1. For your edification:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M]Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue On Socialism v. Capitalism - YouTube[/ame]


2. "Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

...capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

"What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will'..."


Chief Justice Rehnquist, who, unlike you, actually understood the Constitution, and the correct role of judges, made clear that they had no rights sans the authorization of the actual words of the Constitution:

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges can ONLY render decisions in line with the language of the Constitution.


Once again you reveal the desire for someone to order you around.....which appears to me to be a sign of your lack of self-respect.


"It should not
be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who
may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be
easier just because the individual in question is a judge."
Ibid.



Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.
Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law

Since the People also select the Judges, through their selection of representatives who by their election receive the power to appoint or approve judges,

your entire argument is useless.

It is just as arbitrary for any individual Judge to decide that there are no implied powers in the Constitution, or unenumerated rights,

as it is for any individual Judge to find non-existent powers or rights in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We spend too much money taking care of Red States.

Each day, eternal optimist that I am, I look forward to the possibility that you will compose a meaningful, intelligent, documented post that brings a cogent point....

....and each day I am forced to walk away disappointed.

(sigh....)


With high hopes that the day will soon come when, at least, you become a better purveyor of your petty prejudices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Democrats "played" with the KKK not Republicans

You do know that the two parties have changed in the last hundred and fifty years don't you? There are some anti black threads here that would make stormfront proud and the anti blacks are always the republicans.

No, actually, the Democrat racism has simply been sold to the less astute....raise your paw...and you bought it like it was on sale.


Learn this: reality is defined by actions, not words.


Here are the Democrat actions:

1. In 2005, the Democrats did not name Donna Brazile to head the Democratic National Committee. They chose Howard Dean.

2. “Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/nyregion/20paterson.html

3. President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity."
"I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well. But these-- allegations are very troubling," Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the "Early Show." and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com


4 Harold Ford told not to run for Senator from New York:
“From the start, Mr. Ford’s potential candidacy angered national Democratic Party leaders by disrupting plans for what was planned as a seamless Gillibrand nomination. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to discourage him from supporting Mr. Ford, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York met personally with Mr. Ford to argue against his candidacy.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/nyregion/02ford.html

5. “As state comptroller, [Carl] McCall earned the distinction of being the first African American ever elected to a statewide office in New York. Four years later voters overwhelmingly supported McCall over Republican Bruce Blakeman 64.75 to 32.1%. McCall's reelection in 1998 may have given him the confidence he needed in order to pursue the governor's mansion….The McCall campaign had the support of the Democratic Party; whether or not McCall had the party's full support has been the subject of much debate….Still one wonders just how committed the party was to McCall's campaign….shunned by some of the state's most respected Democrats…McCall blamed his money woes on the national Democratic Party, claiming that the party had abandoned his campaign….” H. Carl McCall for Governor: a lesson to all black high-profile statewide office seekers. - Free Online Library

6. And, most telling, Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:
“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Teddy's anger - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

7. Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak. .. Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which was held at the Washington convention center a few blocks away. “It ain’t about Nancy. It’s about black people,” Waters said. Waters aides expelled from Pelosi event - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

8. And what Governor of Arkansas made the Saturday before Easter "Confederate Flag Day"?
The Arkansas Code, Section 1-5-107. Confederate Flag Day.
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as "Confederate Flag Day" in this state.
No person, firm, or corporation shall display any Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America.
Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

"In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law...'
Mark R. Levin on Trent Lott & Moral Outrage on National Review Online

9. Do Democrats in Congress support blacks by practicing affirmative action in their hiring…and of course this would be our of moral convictions, as they are legally exempt from affirmative action requirements. More than passing interesting, the ‘National Journal,’ a survey of congressional staffers revealed that Democrats hired black employees at the same rate as Republicans: 2 percent. “The Racial Breakdown of Congressional Staffs,” National Journal, June 21, 2005
a. Schweitzer, “Do As I Say,” p. 9

10. Clinton pushed black candidate to drop out of Florida race:
“Bill Clinton sought to persuade Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race for Senate during a trip to Florida last week — and nearly succeeded…Clinton did not dangle a job in front of Meek, who gave up a safe House seat to run for the Senate, but instead made the case that the move would advance the congressman’s future prospects, said a third Democrat familiar with the conversations. Clinton campaigned with Meek in Florida on Oct. 19 and 20, and thought he had won Meek over. But as the week wore on, Meek lost his enthusiasm for the arrangement, spurred in part, a third Democratic source said, by his wife’s belief that he could still win the race. Clinton spoke with Meek again at week’s end, three Democrats said, and again Meek said he would drop out.”
Read more: Bill Clinton pushed Kendrick Meek to quit Florida race - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

By some strange coincidence, the Democrats, again, force a black to the back:
11. “Under an arrangement reached two days ago, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current majority leader, would get the No. 2 job of minority whip come January. Clyburn, now majority whip, would hold the post of assistant leader, newly created for the purpose of heading off a contest for the whip position.” Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice

 

[PoliticalChic]

The basic family values endorsed by conservatives begin with waiting until marriage to have children. Today...giving birth marks the different between classes, between the well off and the poor.

Care to see a Liberal view of the situation?

1. "....The New York Times ran a story under the provocative headline, “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside of Marriage.” The article suggested childbearing outside of marriage was the “new normal”—

[ According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent. ]American FactFinder - Results *


2. .... but sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School and a prominent scholar of the American family.... points out that 94 percent of births to college-educated women today occur within marriage (a rate virtually unchanged from a generation ago), whereas the real change has taken place at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

3. In 1960 it didn’t matter whether you were rich or poor, college-educated or a high-school dropout—almost all American women waited until they were married to have kids. Now 57 percent of women with high-school degrees or less education are unmarried when they bear their first child.

[ June of 1962 Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses. Its offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. Seems a lot of the 'rage' was against values.]

4. ... conservative political scientist Charles Murray ’65 advances in his recent book 'Coming Apart' that poor Americans value marriage less than the middle class does.

[Seems obvious, no?]

5. Edin argues that the poor place tremendous value on marriage—but often see it as unobtainable. “The poor all say they want marriages like middle-class people have, marriages that will last,” Edin says. “Middle-class people are searching longer for their partners, they’re marrying people more like themselves, and as a result marriages have gotten happier and more stable.”

[Really? Lower economic classes place tremendous value on marriage? Really?]


6. [Edin] cites a range of obstacles that prevent the poor from realizing their marital aspirations, including the low quality of many of their existing relationships; norms they hold about the standard of living necessary to support a marriage; the challenges of integrating kids from past relationships into new ones; and an aversion to divorce.

[Does this seem to be a series of excuses? What standard of living is necessary to marry?]


7. But ... they continue to see bearing and raising children as the most meaningful activity in their lives. ... given their bleak economic prospects and minimal hope of upward mobility, being a parent is one of the few positive identities available to them. Middle-class women have substantial economic incentives to delay childbearing (a woman who gives birth right after college earns half as much in her lifetime as the classmate who waits until her mid thirties), but those incentives don’t exist for poor women.

[But their 'bleak economic prospects begin with having children out of wedlock. And those 'middle-class women....somehow they have incentives??]


8. “Early childbearing is highly selective of girls whose characteristics—family background, cognitive ability, school performance, mental-health status, and so on—have already diminished their life chances so much that an early birth does little to reduce them further.”

[So, what the heck, continue down the path of poverty...no responsibility, no recriminations....]

9. .... 15-year-old André, who rejoiced to learn his ex-girlfriend was pregnant.... “He was embracing life and rejecting death,” she explains. “He could have been out there dealing drugs but instead he’s diapering his baby and learning how to twist her hair.

[Heart-warming tale....I wonder if the child will see it that way.]

10. The only way disadvantaged Americans will delay childbearing, she argues, is if they see other, equally positive, paths available. “There’s either guns or babies, and if people have to make that choice, they’re going to choose babies,” she says. “As long as we sustain such high rates of inequality, it’s going to be really hard to get youth at the bottom to buy into a system that’s unavailable to them. "

[Liberalism's answer: No darn way out in America: it's either 'guns or babies.']
Kathryn Edin explains the increase in births out of wedlock | Harvard Magazine Jul-Aug 2012

Gee...I don't know....how about if Liberal elites stopped finding excuses for why bad choices are their 'only' choices.
Sound like a plan?

" I tell you what affirmative action is, soft bigotry, low expectations. Affirmative action is a racist insult disguised as social justice by the Democrats." The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations - The Rush Limbaugh Show

So you have a page full of exceprts from an article about socio-cultural commentary, with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?) and just because you post it in the Politics forum you think it has something to do with "liberalism"?

Where?

Btw you think putting the word "really?" in brackets after a point actually refutes it?

sigh...

What a poor apologist for Liberalism you are.

You can run but you can't hide.


The article in question was a series of excuses for poor behavior, terrible life choices, by a professional Liberal:

"...sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School..."


As usual, you, a Liberal....feel the sting of what is clearly a plan to keep the lower classes in poverty by endorsing, excusing the very behavior that will keep them there generation after generation.


You cannot defend the article, the import....
So...you try to blame the messenger....lil' ol' me?

You failed.

Liberalism fails.

Those who follow Liberalism's precepts are doomed to be failures.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

"What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will'..."


Chief Justice Rehnquist, who, unlike you, actually understood the Constitution, and the correct role of judges, made clear that they had no rights sans the authorization of the actual words of the Constitution:

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges can ONLY render decisions in line with the language of the Constitution.


Once again you reveal the desire for someone to order you around.....which appears to me to be a sign of your lack of self-respect.


"It should not
be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who
may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be
easier just because the individual in question is a judge."
Ibid.



Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.
Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law

Since the People also select the Judges, through their selection of representatives who by their election receive the power to appoint or approve judges,

your entire argument is useless.

It is just as arbitrary for any individual Judge to decide that there are no implied powers in the Constitution, or unenumerated rights,

as it is for any individual Judge to find non-existent powers or rights in the Constitution.

A wonderful system....some elected dolt picks another dolt to be on the court....and you genuflect to both of them.


Here....let's give you an example of that:


1. Hugo Black was FDR's first Supreme Court appontment, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.”
Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU



2. And this one: since FDR hated the Constitution, he appointed Felix Frankfurter, in 1939. This former Harvard Law professor was a champion of the idea of the “living Constitution.”
In case you don't know, the "living Constitution" means no Constitution.

3. Also in 1939, the most left-wing justice, was William O. Douglas, who served longer than any justice in history (36 years). He ‘discovered’ a sweeping right to privacy in the ‘emanations of the penumbras’ of the Constitution, in Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptives).
See how the words of the Constitution mean nothing to Liberals?

4. In 1940, former governor of Michigan, Frank Murphy….also a “New Dealer” who endorsed the expansion of government power over the private economy.

5. In 1941, James F. Byrnes. Later, Byrnes became the segregationist governor of South Carolina.

6. Robert H. Jackson, in 1941, was the 7th, former solicitor general. He wrote the majority decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which denied a private citizen from growing food for his own use on his property.

7. Wiley Rutledge had been a supporter of the ‘court-packing scheme,’ so was rewarded in 1943. Eight is the most for any President.

Need I add Reed? He is the eighth.


Can't wait for one of you jerks to claim that Democrats stopped being racists...

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's your plan to make things better?

If that is an offset to liberal policies of "anything goes" forget it.
The fact is children born out of wedlock are disadvantaged. Children born to women where there is no father in the household are disadvantaged further.
Children born to financially strapped parents or parent are usually doomed.
Children born to people living off the public dole are more likely to follow in the footsteps of the previous generation and become wards of the state.
The fact is that the two parent household is the most stable environment in which children can be raised.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am married and have 3 kids still poor...so that says to me this "expert" is full of shit.

If you are poor, why are you spending money on such luxuries as pay tv and internet?
That's $100 per month you could be using for necessities. Or putting away for a rainy day.
People that bitch about being poor that spend their money unwisely or use credit cards to live beyond their means are IDIOTS...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Democrats need a permanent underclass even if they have to replace government as the male head of household. Think of it, the Mom becomes a dependent Democrat and her child will have lived a life of government dependency. It's a Win-win for the Democrat Party

Of course. The main reason for the creation of social entitlements is to build a permanent voting base for the democrat party.
What person in their right mind would vote against those who've provided them with taxpayer funded benefits for which they need only to fill out some paperwork at the local county Social Services Office.
Hell, applicants are not even required to verify their income.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's your plan to make things better?

Turn off the free money. Tell girls they are on their own if they get knocked up so they better think about who they are opening their legs for because that's the guy who will have to pay for their baby so choose wisely.

Revamp the divorce and child support laws. Getting a divorce shouldn't be akin to winning the lottery these days. If one partner wants to walk out of the marriage, fine, but it should mean the other half losing half his shit in the process from that point forward. Stop allowing parents to use the kids as pawns in support cases or demanding a father pay ludicrous amounts of child support but never allow the father to have any contact with the kids.

If you turn off all the free money involved in having kids, that means not only all money that goes to the poor,

but also all money that goes to anyone else in the form of tax credits, deductions, exemptions etc., that people get by claiming their kids as dependents.

Newsflash...Not all the money goes to the poor NOW...The various departments that administer social safety nets spend in excess of 40 cents of every tax dollar collected just to administer the programs. That's outrageous.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The problem with liberalism is it renders so many social institutions such as marriage "irrelevant"; however, those in the Ivory towers still choose to anyways despite their harangues; it's the poor who suffer from their stupid ideas.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am married and have 3 kids still poor...so that says to me this "expert" is full of shit.

you are a lazy leftard dumbfuck, so your marital status is irrelevant

None of the above actually. I am a National Socialist not a leftist moron. You obviously didn't read the stuff she posted.

I am married and have 3 kids still poor...so that says to me this "expert" is full of shit.

Maybe you should have held off on having kids until you could afford them.

Which would be never as things continue to get more expensive. I would rather be poor but make sure my blood line continues .

No, you are a typical selfish person who only thought of themselves.
"I want".....That is what you felt when you decided to bring kids into this world..
That type of narcissism is typical of leftists.
You people never consider the consequences of your actions.
Rule number one. If you are financially unable to properly raise children, you do not create them. PERIOD.

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to you. Nationalism is a rightist ideology...Socialism when its just socialism is leftist National Socialism is neither. Its a 3rd position.

Not according to me, but according to it's economic form which is socialism with government protectionism of selected private entities. It existed only 12 years and 5 of that was during the war - way too short of the time to evolve into the standard socialist model

but that is way too much for you to comprehend on your current stage of infatuation.

National Socialism is a 3rd way. Not left or right.

Stop disguising your hate for all things not Caucasian.
You're initial posts with a swastika in your avatar were not forgotten.
Neither were your anti Semitic remarks.
Isn't time for you to visit the tattoo parlor again.
You nazi fucks are just another evil street gang.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you turn off all the free money involved in having kids, that means not only all money that goes to the poor,

but also all money that goes to anyone else in the form of tax credits, deductions, exemptions etc., that people get by claiming their kids as dependents.

Dems need poor as a steady voting block, poor and non-living are Dems 2 biggest voting blocs

Then why do Republicans put so much effort into keeping people poor? Seems counterintuitive to me.

Provide examples of GOP policies that are for the sole purpose of keeping poor people, poor...
And please spare me the bullshit about labor unions.
Union members were never poor to begin with. And unions did themselves in with their archaic policies and us vs them mentality.
Have at it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The basic family values endorsed by conservatives begin with waiting until marriage to have children. Today...giving birth marks the different between classes, between the well off and the poor.

Care to see a Liberal view of the situation?

1. "....The New York Times ran a story under the provocative headline, “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside of Marriage.” The article suggested childbearing outside of marriage was the “new normal”—

[ According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent. ]American FactFinder - Results *


2. .... but sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School and a prominent scholar of the American family.... points out that 94 percent of births to college-educated women today occur within marriage (a rate virtually unchanged from a generation ago), whereas the real change has taken place at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

3. In 1960 it didn’t matter whether you were rich or poor, college-educated or a high-school dropout—almost all American women waited until they were married to have kids. Now 57 percent of women with high-school degrees or less education are unmarried when they bear their first child.

[ June of 1962 Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses. Its offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. Seems a lot of the 'rage' was against values.]

4. ... conservative political scientist Charles Murray ’65 advances in his recent book 'Coming Apart' that poor Americans value marriage less than the middle class does.

[Seems obvious, no?]

5. Edin argues that the poor place tremendous value on marriage—but often see it as unobtainable. “The poor all say they want marriages like middle-class people have, marriages that will last,” Edin says. “Middle-class people are searching longer for their partners, they’re marrying people more like themselves, and as a result marriages have gotten happier and more stable.”

[Really? Lower economic classes place tremendous value on marriage? Really?]


6. [Edin] cites a range of obstacles that prevent the poor from realizing their marital aspirations, including the low quality of many of their existing relationships; norms they hold about the standard of living necessary to support a marriage; the challenges of integrating kids from past relationships into new ones; and an aversion to divorce.

[Does this seem to be a series of excuses? What standard of living is necessary to marry?]


7. But ... they continue to see bearing and raising children as the most meaningful activity in their lives. ... given their bleak economic prospects and minimal hope of upward mobility, being a parent is one of the few positive identities available to them. Middle-class women have substantial economic incentives to delay childbearing (a woman who gives birth right after college earns half as much in her lifetime as the classmate who waits until her mid thirties), but those incentives don’t exist for poor women.

[But their 'bleak economic prospects begin with having children out of wedlock. And those 'middle-class women....somehow they have incentives??]


8. “Early childbearing is highly selective of girls whose characteristics—family background, cognitive ability, school performance, mental-health status, and so on—have already diminished their life chances so much that an early birth does little to reduce them further.”

[So, what the heck, continue down the path of poverty...no responsibility, no recriminations....]

9. .... 15-year-old André, who rejoiced to learn his ex-girlfriend was pregnant.... “He was embracing life and rejecting death,” she explains. “He could have been out there dealing drugs but instead he’s diapering his baby and learning how to twist her hair.

[Heart-warming tale....I wonder if the child will see it that way.]

10. The only way disadvantaged Americans will delay childbearing, she argues, is if they see other, equally positive, paths available. “There’s either guns or babies, and if people have to make that choice, they’re going to choose babies,” she says. “As long as we sustain such high rates of inequality, it’s going to be really hard to get youth at the bottom to buy into a system that’s unavailable to them. "

[Liberalism's answer: No darn way out in America: it's either 'guns or babies.']
Kathryn Edin explains the increase in births out of wedlock | Harvard Magazine Jul-Aug 2012

Gee...I don't know....how about if Liberal elites stopped finding excuses for why bad choices are their 'only' choices.
Sound like a plan?

" I tell you what affirmative action is, soft bigotry, low expectations. Affirmative action is a racist insult disguised as social justice by the Democrats." The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations - The Rush Limbaugh Show

So you have a page full of exceprts from an article about socio-cultural commentary, with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?) and just because you post it in the Politics forum you think it has something to do with "liberalism"?

Where?

Btw you think putting the word "really?" in brackets after a point actually refutes it?

sigh...

And another thing....

You'd sound ever so much more intelligent if you restricted yourself to terms you understood.....actually, I've seen your posts....and nothing would help.

Even so, " with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?)..."

First: non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwitər/
noun
1.a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Well, the article states that " In 1960....."
And I provided an indication as to why things changed after that: "June of 1962 Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students,...."


So, clearly my reference to Port Huron was related to changes subsequent to 1960.




Now...your (?) indicates that you are unaware of the significance of Port Huron.
Take notes here.

1. One member of SDS gave this prescription: “four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.”
Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

Here comes: Liberalism blooming out of adolescent rebellion!

2. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.
The above better explained in "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," Bork.



3. Those savages went on to become the disseminators of information.

a. "The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.



To review:

a. I engaged in no 'non sequiturs'

b. The Port Huron savages gave us the Democrat Party of today, and, largely, the same endorsement of out of wedlock births that ensure poverty on the lower classes.



Class dismissed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

The handgun ban in Chicago was never the will of the people. It was the will of local politicians.
The Court ruled the ban was a violation of Chicagoans Second Amendment rights.
What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people?
Two answers...1. Only when it suits your point of view
.......................2. What's right with it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

The handgun ban in Chicago was never the will of the people. It was the will of local politicians.
The Court ruled the ban was a violation of Chicagoans Second Amendment rights.
What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people?
Two answers...1. Only when it suits your point of view
.......................2. What's right with it?

Do you have any idea how government works?

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to you. Nationalism is a rightist ideology...Socialism when its just socialism is leftist National Socialism is neither. Its a 3rd position.


I don't need to bring anything to the table. I have 3 white kids who will make sure our bloodline and race continue to live on. That's enough for me.

1. 'The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.'
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

Cut the bullshit.....
Capitalism is highly regulated.
So what if there is a gap between rich and poor?....Those that achieve and succeed have the right to become as well off financially as their ability permits.
Capitalism DOES NOT concentrate wealth. That is the Keynesian theory of the 'zero sum game'...It has been debunked.
Here is an example of what I find amusing about the left's anti capitalism viewpoint...
Your side curses the business owner for turning a profit. You ignore the fact that the employee has no skin in the game. If he or she loses their job because the business can no longer turn a profit, they simply walk away and seek other employment. The business owner suffers sometimes irreparable financial damage.
Your side screams "CAPITALIST BASTARD deserved it"..
Meanwhile this past summer we had these silly fast food worker protests where they demanded a $15 per hour minimum wage....Now, do you want to explain how those people are NOT capitalists?
You leftists say 'we deserve this'. And "we demand that"....yet when challenged to go out and earn it, you have no response other than vitriolic spew.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will'..."


Chief Justice Rehnquist, who, unlike you, actually understood the Constitution, and the correct role of judges, made clear that they had no rights sans the authorization of the actual words of the Constitution:

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


Judges can ONLY render decisions in line with the language of the Constitution.


Once again you reveal the desire for someone to order you around.....which appears to me to be a sign of your lack of self-respect.


"It should not
be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who
may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be
easier just because the individual in question is a judge."
Ibid.



Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.
Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law

Since the People also select the Judges, through their selection of representatives who by their election receive the power to appoint or approve judges,

your entire argument is useless.

It is just as arbitrary for any individual Judge to decide that there are no implied powers in the Constitution, or unenumerated rights,

as it is for any individual Judge to find non-existent powers or rights in the Constitution.

A wonder full system....some elected dolt picks another dolt to be on the court....and you genuflect to both of them.


Here....let's give you an example of that:

And what system would work better? Do you want to end judicial review?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since the People also select the Judges, through their selection of representatives who by their election receive the power to appoint or approve judges,

your entire argument is useless.

It is just as arbitrary for any individual Judge to decide that there are no implied powers in the Constitution, or unenumerated rights,

as it is for any individual Judge to find non-existent powers or rights in the Constitution.

A wonder full system....some elected dolt picks another dolt to be on the court....and you genuflect to both of them.


Here....let's give you an example of that:

And what system would work better? Do you want to end judicial review?

Simple: follow the Constitution.


In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’”
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13. (Hereafter cited in the text as Scalia.)



Do you know what "Lochnerization" means?