(07-26-2016 10:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  However, once again hyndsight is 20/20. Its easy to look at a problem after thefact and come up with a better solution.

Do you really, seriously, think that 20/20 hindsight would be required to see that this is a far better approach than the one Obama took? Seriously?

He was pandering to his base. He doesn't give a damn whether we solve the problem or not, he just wants to get votes for his team out of it.

You cannot actually believe that. You cannot believe that Obama doesnt care if people are killing eachother. It exactly the opposite. It is because he cares that he likely spoke with emotion and didnt carefully think things through.

(07-26-2016 10:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot actually believe that. You cannot believe that Obama doesnt care if people are killing each other.

I absolutely believe precisely that.

(07-26-2016 10:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair enough. Then you arent one of those crazies who blames Obama for cop killings.

Blame him? No.

Do I think his divisive words have contributed to the the divisions that have spawned killings of both police and blacks? Yes.

More particularly, do I think he has squandered a huge opportunity to bring the sides together? Absolutely.

What would I do? Good question. What about scheduling a summit at the white house for all stakeholders--police leaders, BLM leaders, political leaders, anybody else that seems appropriate? Announce that the purpose is to build some bridges and come up with some workable solutions to the problem. If you want to boycott, fine, that just means you are voluntarily and intentionally giving up a chance for your voice to be heard.

The root cause IMO is the high rate of violent crime in the black community (that, and similar rates in the hispanic community, are large reasons why our gun violence numbers are so high, so we could address that problem in the same summit). The percentage of black to white shootings by police is higher than the percentage of blacks to whites in the population as a whole, but the error in quoting that statistic is that is not the only variable. The percentage of black to white shootings by police is also lower than the percentage of black to white violent crimes. Coming up with an all hands on deck approach to reducing violent crimes in these areas is probably the single thing that will most benefit blacks, whites, hispanics, and the police. That high crime rate is a huge reason why blacks are nervous around police, and police are nervous around blacks, and that mutual tension almost certainly accounts for a lot of shootings and other alleged differential treatment. That IMO is where the focus should be. Whatever we come up with, then make it happen.

I agree with you 100 percent. Could the POTUS had done more. Yes. Would doing what you suggest been better. Yes.

I dont disagree. However, once again hyndsight is 20/20. Its easy to look at a problem after thefact and come up with a better solution.

It's the Family (or lack thereof). In those groups where you have high rates of broken families or no families you have high crime, high violence, lack of respect for eachother's lives, lack of respect for authority, low educational values, etc...

Now, we have lived in a society that for 40 years has promoted and encouraged and a government philosophy that has monetized the breaking up of that basic nuclear family unit that served mankind for thousands of years beyond any government or even specific religion.

All you hear about from the podiums of politicians is "single mothers--we've got to help the single mothers." BUT, if you really want to help single mothers out, don't incentivize out-of-wedlock births and abortions by having government give money to them. Don't incentivize poverty as a way of life by giving away 48 million EBT cards and more money for more and more kids. Don't incentivize a culture that makes fathers the enemy and discourages them from even trying to follow the rules by making them so oppressive and one-sided. Poor men know this in the black community. Coupled with lack of education, low job opportunities, and the presence of the only "family" units available, poor [people (black, white, hispanic, whatever) turn to gangs, and thus to crime, to get the permanent family life they are denied by the way our government has evolved the family by imploding it through legal gerrymandering and manipulation.

Take the government out of marriage and eliminate family law as a practice and you will see vast improvements. Incentivize marriage heavily with tax and financial benefits, especially for poor people, and you accomplish the liberal dream of wealth redistribution and equity. Get the governments to stop licensing marriages and instead Register all marriage contracts as enforceable contracts and have people sit down (with a lawyer if they wish) in advance and figure out exactly what they agree to and then enforce them all as contractual agreements. Then you can have your liberal "gay marriages" and all the rest and it will not infringe on anyone's religious rights as no one will be expecting the government to define what marriage is and isn't.

We say we are a nation of laws but that's complete bull$#!t and poor people know it. Prosecutors have immunity from their actions, so they become mini-dictators and bend and break the rules to over-prosecute unfavored classes and groups while coddling and protecting favored groups, with no accountability and no one watching. Governments make money and trap voters in their corners by shackling them to broken homes and social programs. Men gather in gangs to try to get ahead any way they can in a system rigged against them and are punished no matter what they do. It's a messed-up way to run a country.

Now, look at our enemies. They are strong because they do believe that blood is thicker than water. Intersectional hatred, yes, but within their sects, their families, they are as solid as the mafia. That tells you why they are able to rise up the way they have. They believe in their concept of family, wrong-headed as they may be, much more than we do. And it shows.

Here we go again with this load of bs. It amazes me how the same people can on one hand believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy but on the other hand,do such things as incentivize people to have children out of wedlock.

(07-26-2016 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here we go again with this load of bs. It amazes me how the same people can on one hand believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy but on the other hand,do such things as incentivize people to have children out of wedlock.

Giving them cash payments for having children, increasing the amount paid when they are born out of wedlock, and increasing the amount paid when the number of children increases are not things that incentivize people to have children out of wedlock?

And I don't believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy. I don't believe that the things the current crop of politicians are talking about will help the economy, but there are things that could be done. In the end, it is individuals and not politicians who make the economy happen, but politicians can do things to encourage or discourage those individuals to act.

(07-26-2016 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here we go again with this load of bs. It amazes me how the same people can on one hand believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy but on the other hand,do such things as incentivize people to have children out of wedlock.

Giving them cash payments for having children, increasing the amount paid when they are born out of wedlock, and increasing the amount paid when the number of children increases are not things that incentivize people to have children out of wedlock?

And I don't believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy. I don't believe that the things the current crop of politicians are talking about will help the economy, but there are things that could be done. In the end, it is individuals and not politicians who make the economy happen, but politicians can do things to encourage or discourage those individuals to act.

NO. No one gets into a relationship or has sex and a baby thinking Gee, if I cut this guy loose and have the baby on my own, I can get a few more bucks.

People dont think that way. Women dont think that way. Women want a father to raise their kids, they want a family. Being a single mother is hard work. I know plenty of women who would give a limb just to have a reliable guy to help raise their kids.Im not even talking about somene handsome or someone to love. Im talking about just someone they can count on to help out around the house.

Come on man. You know better than that.

(07-26-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  NO. No one gets into a relationship or has sex and a baby thinking Gee, if I cut this guy loose and have the baby on my own, I can get a few more bucks.

When they have sex, no. When the baby comes, absolutely yes.

(07-26-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here we go again with this load of bs. It amazes me how the same people can on one hand believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy but on the other hand,do such things as incentivize people to have children out of wedlock.

Giving them cash payments for having children, increasing the amount paid when they are born out of wedlock, and increasing the amount paid when the number of children increases are not things that incentivize people to have children out of wedlock?

And I don't believe that politicians can do almost nothing for the economy. I don't believe that the things the current crop of politicians are talking about will help the economy, but there are things that could be done. In the end, it is individuals and not politicians who make the economy happen, but politicians can do things to encourage or discourage those individuals to act.

NO. No one gets into a relationship or has sex and a baby thinking Gee, if I cut this guy loose and have the baby on my own, I can get a few more bucks.

People dont think that way. Women dont think that way. Women want a father to raise their kids, they want a family. Being a single mother is hard work. I know plenty of women who would give a limb just to have a reliable guy to help raise their kids.Im not even talking about somene handsome or someone to love. Im talking about just someone they can count on to help out around the house.

Come on man. You know better than that.

Sorry, Fit, you're just wrong on this one.

My mother taught in inner-city schools. She regularly had kids brag about how many kids they were having as ways of getting checks form the gub'ment. The girls saw it as a way to secure their future, by getting checks from one or better many different men, plus the SSI, WIC, Foodstamps, etc... To get into the system they had to have kids. Marriage, love family don't matter to this mindset.

The boys expected to collect a tribute check from the baby mamas for each kid from their welfare payments, so they'd want to have as many kids with many different women as possible. And so they could be "moral" about it, they wouldn't want to get married to more than one because that would be "wrong."

Where did they learn this? from their own single mother families, of course, created by and supported by the gub'ment (thanks LBJ).

They are actually acting in a somewhat economically rational way, because the system is set up to incentivize this "quick buck" approach instead of the long-term, much harder approach which would be: don't have kids until economically self-sufficient (without govt), and work hard for several years to get your education wherever school you're in and be able to self-determine your own future independent of any government intervention or any forced payments from a man.

Absent the gub'ment welfare system, coupled with Social Security Title IV Part D which enforces slavery and debtors' prison (unconstitutional, but hey, who cares about that in the Dem party (or even the rep party either?)) people would have to be more responsible for themselves and their own lives. And, as Hilliary famously said in the past "we can't have people controlling the use of their own money."

This goes directly against what MLK, Jr. promoted: Keep your families together and get your own education so no one can take that away from you. debt and financing are prisons with chains stronger than slavery. But you want your cable tv, new car and fancy shoes, don't you? Sucka.

Further, Fit, it is well-documented that many on EBT sell their benefits at a discount to gangs for cash to get around the system even more. The gangs are heavily into welfare and EBT fraud, it helps fuel their own "economy." paid for by the gub-ment. But who cares because that money is "free" right?

(07-26-2016 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  NO. No one gets into a relationship or has sex and a baby thinking Gee, if I cut this guy loose and have the baby on my own, I can get a few more bucks.

When they have sex, no. When the baby comes, absolutely yes.

I disagree. Once agian, women want nothing more than to have a family. I realize that it is difficult for Conservatives to understand this but there are things more important to people than money.

(07-25-2016 08:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Precious Bernie's Special Advance Preview:





Go Hilliary! Suckerrrrrrrrrs!!!!!!

+2
I used to watch that.

(07-26-2016 11:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  NO. No one gets into a relationship or has sex and a baby thinking Gee, if I cut this guy loose and have the baby on my own, I can get a few more bucks.

When they have sex, no. When the baby comes, absolutely yes.

I disagree. Once agian, women want nothing more than to have a family. I realize that it is difficult for Conservatives to understand this but there are things more important to people than money.

Poor women with seemingly few easy options trade the sex for an opportunity to buy into the gubment system and secure free payments for themsleves for life. It's not until they are older and mired in the dysfunctional system that they suspect they might have made a mistake, but by then it's too late to get out (actually not, but it means they'll have to work much harder than iof they never got it in the first place.)

It's the lie of "somethin' fer nothin'" Nothing can be created from nothing--there's always a cost.

But if you're an atheist, then you believe nothing CAN come from nothing. So religion MUST therefore be the real "problem" and there you go off to the races.

Tell me, Fit, why does it rain?

Glenn Beck said that both Sanders and warren have integrity and moral values against the corruption. They had to get in line to support Hillary, or they would disappeared and not be able to pass laws and all that. Now, since the DNC and GOP were exposed for how corrupt they are? There is anger now in the USA, and everybody is now noticing it. If more emails come out in the next batch that shows Hillary was also involved with the DNC to buried Sanders? All hell will break loose, and Hillary would have no choice but to drop out. Many of the Democrats might be brought up on charges for fixing the Primaries. Same thing with the Republicans if they tried to fixed it against Trump.