That comment is highly uncalled for.

Sucks to feel like an extinct bird?

Refute it, I thought we were supposed to add to it, he was a little lenient.

Yeah. I stated the obvious.

So, you Would prefer rioting in the cities?

To one that believes entitlements, there is no promiscuity, there is no responsibility, there are no morals so that would be hard to explain.

And having babies without responsibility is no big thing, someone else can be responsible.

And I would guess this little statistic means nothing either...

"In 2009, Time magazine reported that 40% of births were to unmarried women. The following is a breakdown by race for unwed births: 17% Asian, 29% White, 53% Hispanics, 66% Native Americans, and 72% African American."

72%, guess that means that were wearing chastity belts. Can't imagine what happened. Must have been divine intervention.

But really, it's the same old crap, a divine right to entitlements.

someone doesn't understand biology

every sexual encounter doesn't end in pregnancy and every pregnancy doesn't end in a birth, nor does marital status predict pregnancy or incomplete pregnancies

the issue of pregnancy(becoming with child after a sole encounter) is not the same as the issue of promiscuity( having several sexual encounters with many different men)

and neither pregnancy nor promiscuity are exclusively tied to entitlement

Dodo, there is no way to dispute that black women are getting married less often and married black women are having fewer and fewer babies,, both these lead to a higher unwed mother birthrate

what is disputable, however, is whether this has resulted from WELFARE,, which began in the 1930s, or with womens rights movement and the decline of black male employment which began in the 1960s

no one said anything about being chaste, there is a HUGE gulf between being 'chaste' and being 'promiscuous'

one can have sex with 1000 men in 20 years and take precautions(birth control) or reactive measures(abortions) to ensure they don't have 1 pregnancy

another person may be with one man their whole life and have 2 kids

certainly the latter was not more 'promiscuous' than the former because of how often she got pregnant?

Illegitimate, or unwed mother birth rates, is not necessarily an indication of a lack of a biological father in the home. It merely points out that an unmarried woman gave birth.

The welfare system and its companion, child advocate, have weakened the ENTIRE american population. It has run the dad out of the home in order to subjugate generations of recipients at at your expense. And I would agree that these programs foster an environment that not only enables the poor behavior you described but encourages it. When a woman was dependent on her mate, and not the state, much of this did not occur.

That being said, please don't argue statistics. They are arbitrary at best and can be tweaked to give whatever result is desired. While a larger PERCENTAGE of blacks than whites receive public assistance, there are many more white than black recipients. How is this possible? Well, since there is a much larger Caucasian population than African you can have a greater number yet a lower percentage.

I read some years ago that if the entire welfare machine was dismantled the cost savings would allow the government to give EVERY US CITIZEN a check for $18,000! You know why they don't? Because who would work? An $8 per hour minimum wage job only pays $16,640 per year BEFORE taxation. I know some people are more ambitious but I would ask them, who is going to listen to your crap and serve your coffee at the fast food joint you stop at every morning?

Besides, socialism breeds contempt and revolution while capitalism does not work without "classes" of population. Everybody can't be wealthy, it is self defeating. So you have malingerers, the wage slaves, the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. All are necessary to keep the machine going. Stop beating up your fellow man for doing their part. Besides, if everyone was on par with you, you wouldn't have anyone to feel superior to.

yes, who would we feel superior to?


good point

I am of the belief that income level(the prerequisite for taxpayer status) does not dictate whether an individual is doing their part or not,,,,

I would never look down my nose on those in need or feel anything but blessed to have the INCOME to pay the taxes that may go to feeding or providing safe haven for them,,, or may go to any other number of things that maintain this as the type of society I wish to live,,,

if and when we ever decide we want to be that one western nation that leaves its poor to starve or die or be at the enslavement of the employers at whatever rates they set

We will be setting down the path of a karma that we well deserve as a nation,,,

but back on point

Dodo

I would like to see the black community start to support each other as much as we once did, starting with men stepping up to support their family and women stepping up to support and encourage the men that do so,,,

I think the move up and don't look back, crab culture, has hurt our families and our communities and would like us to be more united on both fronts,,

Hard to discern from my rhetoric but my comments were to illustrate just that. The government subsidies and family judicial system have men and women cast in adversarial roles. They have contrived to drive the man from the home and make it more beneficial to the woman to keep him away by granting her entitlements. It's like a serpent hissing from a tree, "You gonna take the guaranteed housing, food, and money or struggle to eke out a life with that man?" What needs to be asked is why? Why would it be desirable to produce an entire class of people completely dependent on government for their existence? Why is their parental influence being usurped?

All that I know for certain is that the lack of two parents in the home (married to each other or not) has been harmful to kids.

Now, is anti-black racism causing single-parent households?

Answer: No.

Are Republican policies causing single-parent households?

Answer: No.

Is a lack of marriage documents causing single-parent households?

Answer: No. A mother and father aren't required to be legally married to each other in order for them to live under the same roof.

Is the women's rights movement the cause of single-parent households?

Answer: No. It isn't preventing a father and a mother from living under the same roof.

Is a decline in black male employment preventing a father and a mother from living under the same roof?

Answer: No.

The primary cause of single-parent households is the refusal of fathers to reside with the mothers of their children. That phenomenon is the result of the choices that the fathers make. It isn't the result of racism or unemployment or women's equality or Republican policies or anything political.

A man can't screw a woman who closes her legs and says no.

Our Gub., as most everyone agrees, has created a class of welfare slaves. That will guarantee votes for liberal promises of mo free ****.

The fraud is rampant, as well. Big Daddy lives in the home, has a job or, sells drugs, Big Mama has income she doesn't report. She keeps grown kids at home. They have jobs, Granny has retirement and none of that is claimed.

How the hell can they claim they have nothing and outside their 2 story mansion sits an Escalade with 2,000.00 rims?

Sell your soul by signing on the dotted line.

I don't think it is, I think it is necessary to support those who are unable to support themselves, few who believe that the norm is for a grown woman of ANY race to live off of scraps or for those on welfare to live high lives with new escalades have spent no time in the welfare system but have instead choose to believe stereotypes and myths,,,


welfare benefitted many age groups and races for decades and still does, but the CULTURE which changed the role of women, impacted a lot of families by blurring the family roles and making women and men susceptible to the philosophy that it should be all about them, instead of about their family and community

such a philosophy was detrimental to the African American community, because we DEPENDED so much on each other in an environment where there weren't many others there for us or that we could trust,,,

to be convinced to stop trusting and being there for each other, which happened with cultural change more than because of safety nets, was a real death blow for our communities,,

that's like saying drunk driving death is the result of people choosing to drive,,,,

of course, it wouldn't happen if people didn't drive
and single parent homes wouldn't happen if one parent didn't leave

but its much more complex than just that

womens movement plays a role by creating a philosophy in women that we don't have a 'role' that we should do whatever men have done, including work in the workforce and earn our own money

and consequently, in men, that we should do it for ourselves instead of expect anything of them

once the significance of having a partner has been successfully downplayed, it is easier for women to make poor choices like bringing children into the world fatherless, and possibly better choices like leaving a man who is mentally, verbally, or physically abusive,,,

it gives us more courage to divorce, or separate from bad relationships
and it makes many shun the idea of cohabitating(getting the milk for free) or marriage

due to the knowledge of how EASILY seperations and divorces can happen


that separation between the men and women, when coupled with the already present obstacles for black men, the already present isolation through discrimination and consistently high unemployment,,etc,,,

all play significant roles in creating and maintaining the right environment for broken homes,,,,

Don't understand biology, true so let me give a lesson. Sex is for procreation, with little exception humans are the most dominant species that has sex for enjoyment. Now why would this be, intelligence, supposedly so, but that seems to be a fallacy and even more so with the advent of welfare.

Even rabbits seem to have better control than most entitlement women. If food becomes scarce, then offspring diminish until again the good times return and their offspring have a chance of survival.

And then we have the entitlement crowd where the times are always good. And no matter how many times you try to proclaim otherwise, the government will not let children starve and thus the mother either, too bad, nature was never that generous.

So if you refuse to take responsibility and pop out kids with no means of support, then that is promiscuous. I don't care if it's sex once an hour or once a month, having kids with no means of support is promiscuous.

In the past, to have kids outside a committed relationship was considered immoral and the woman was the bane of society. That was an era of a moral society. Now morality has gone out the window and entitlements have taken it's place.

That is an incorrect analogy.
A correct analogy is "Drunk driving death is the result of people choosing to drive while drunk."

If you want to blame the women's movement for an increase in single-parent households, then go for it. I won't object, because a choice on the part of women is still involved.

Anyway, what Dr. Williams says at the end of his commentary is still true.


What I find happening all over the political spectrum is people assigning a false simple cause to a complex problem.

For example, it is easier for people to cry "Racism!" in an attempt to solve a problem than it is for them to admit that a problem is the result of a combination of factors, with racism playing little, if any, role in those factors.

Likewise, it is easier for people to cry "The politicians are all ruled by banks!" than it is for them to admit that they are in the minority when it comes to what people want from their elected public officials.

Likewise, it is easier for people to cry "They took God out of schools!" than it is for them to admit that a child's religious training is supposed to come from that child's family and the religious organization of that family's choice.

Humans have a bad habit of trying to shift the blame away from themselves whenever their choices have unwanted consequences.

I agree

I think people have a bad habit of simplifying things with 'blame' instead of looking at the broad picture of 'responsibility' , for which there is usually plenty to go around in the form of several people, or issues,,,



it is no less unreasonable to consider the role the womens movement plays in broken homes than it is to consider the role of welfare

they are both issues that can be argued to correlate ,, although I do believe that the steepest and fastest Decline happened well after 'welfare' was initialized and much closer to the period that the womens civil rights was legislated

instead of appreciating who we are as women, or what we did as women already, and fighting for it to be more valued, we decided to show how much like men we could be

instead of who appreciating who we are as African americans, or what we had as an African American community , and fighting for that to be more valued, we decided to show how much like the majority we could be

both approaches, in my opinion, were huge mistakes and a big part of our downfall as families and communities

leading to the higher need for safety nets,,, not the other way around

What I find happening all over the political spectrum are people that take a simple problem with a simple solution and build it to such portions that it can only be resolved by taking the liberties of those that don't agree and proclaim it for the benefit of society. If those people were ever to use that thing sitting atop their shoulder for other than a "hat rack", would be able to determine that it really is simple. Let's take for example, entitlements, just eliminate them and the problem becomes very simple and resolved at the same time. But then events will resolve this issue in the very near future.



Ah, the battle-cry of the current liberal ideology, "if they don't agree with me then it must be racist". Another ploy of the "entitlement" mentality so promoted by the current administration. But how can it be "racist" when it has suckered the whole entitlement class into one sordid mass.



So now we have reached the crux of the matter, denial of the obvious and mob rule.

"The folks over at MapLight recently used Federal Elections Commission data on the 2012 elections to work out just how much it costs to win a seat in Congress:

House members, on average, each raised $1,689,580, an average of $2,315 every day during the 2012 cycle.

Senators, on average, each raised $10,476,451, an average of $14,351 every day during the 2012 cycle."

First, how can anyone actually believe these fabulous politicians really give a good rat's butt about the voter, what they see as "suckers". No it comes down to money, those that give have full representation.

And so where does all that money come from? Well to those that understand the concept of the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking understands the answer to that question.

Second, if I don't vote for a representative, they don't represent me. Representation is part of that entitlement thing, lack of responsibility so another must represent you. And as you can see by the above, they don't really represent you anyway, just another illusion for the entitlement class.

But the worse comment is to think this country is governed by mob rule. This is not a democracy, it is a republic which means a minority of even one does not have to follow the majority, and personally I have no problem being a minority of one.



Oh, if that was all they took out of the schools then things would be different, but it isn't. They removed education, a very serious crime.



And finally, while your conclusion has merit, the premises leading up to it do not support that conclusion, just the opposite.