bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2014 08:48 am
@McGentrix,
You don't get it, do you. You put the topic up and we get to discuss it. You get to choose the topic, you don't get to kick us out because the narrative went a direction you don't like. You're concerned in what appears to be a racist cant the wastes taxpayer are burdened with. If you are truly interested in huge amounts of wasted welfare - leave the peanuts of welfare to the poor behind and look at the billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of your tax dollars spent on corporate welfare shoveled into the maw of defense industry, big oil, big corn. Off topic? Hardly. If your argument isn't cogent or on point - that's your fault, not mine.

If you don't like the way the everyone here refuses to echo-chamber back to your at best sophomoric blame the victims mythology - feel free to go somewhere else and start a thread about how misunderstood you are and whine about the mythology of how black women with black children are ruining your life. And I'll be there to point-out again how blind you are to the real problems.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2014 10:13 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
No, but you sure seemed to be. I never once mentioned race, yet you did. You want this and any story like it to be about race when it isn't.

Ah, yes, it's about "some people." Some people who just happen to be black. I'll keep that in mind.

McGentrix wrote:
That's because it is impossible to discuss these issues without people like you making it about race. It's about personal responsibility and how the progressive movement doesn't see why anyone needs it. Redistribute wealth, generational welfare, Obama phones, the list goes on and on and this one lady is a prime example of the state of mind that people in the progressive movement sympathize with.

When you post videos of Jamie Dimon explaining why Chase shouldn't be punished for its actions during and after the financial crisis and start criticizing him and the rest of the Wall Street thieves for having "no idea of personal responsibility," I'll start believing that this isn't all about race.

McGentrix wrote:
Where did you see that she has a job or works? That's what I meant when I said you read into stuff.

It was in one of the links from your Google search, which I then linked in my post. Evidently you know how to do the search, but you don't actually look at the results. And since I can't expect you do that now, I'll post an excerpt:

Quote:
After the online comments were posted, Adams became defensive in a later interview saying "Well, I tell those people, I do pay for them, I have been paying for them and that's why I'm where I'm at today." Adams claimed she and Gary Brown Sr. were working to pay for the children's care until Brown was arrested. Adams told WFLA, "I worked at numerous jobs. I worked at National Linen Company and I worked at daycares and I worked at different places so I work just like anybody else."

So no, I'm not reading that into anything. I'm reading that. Try it some time. It can prove to be very informative.

McGentrix wrote:
I've not seen any evidence of her working anywhere beyond being a walking womb. Yet you sympathize with her for whatever reason it is and feel that because she pumps out another broodling every year someone should take care of her. That she is entitled to it. Why is she entitled to anything Joe? Because she can't keep her legs closed?

I don't know what her situation is, apart from the fact that she has a large family. There's nothing wrong with that - you even acknowledge that white people can have large families, and you agree there's nothing wrong with them even if they take government assistance. So what's the problem with Angel Adams taking government assistance if she's eligible for it?

McGentrix wrote:
Google you mean? Why don't you look at the websites you frequent and find some then? I say they aren't there, prove me wrong and I can bitch about them as well.

Find them yourself. I'm not the one trying to prove he's not a bigot or a hypocrite.

McGentrix wrote:
I find it discouraging that something wasn't done when she couldn't afford the first kid, much less the 16th. She obviously needs education and that was not given to her. She obviously needs guidance in life and that was not given to her, all that was given her was free **** and money. Then she is allowed to just keep on pumping out the kids. That's what I want. I want people to get an education and a job and learn what personal responsibility is. I don't think being a broodmare is much of a profession.

You object to the fact that she was allowed to have more kids? I didn't know there was a limit. Whose job was it to make sure that she didn't have more kids?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2014 01:33 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
All you guys have done is attack the messenger and have refused to discuss the subject of the video. Typical "progressive" reaction to an obvious problem in society, especially in the poor communities.

Yet the same progressives have refused to engage the poor communities and have consistently let the poor down. This family in the video is an extreme case but representative of a bigger problem that Progressive refuse to acknowledge.

I read today that ANOTHER Rep in NY City Council member, Willis, stole 30k in public money earmarked for the poor to lavish his own lifestyle. This is but another in a long line of politicians, both Democrat and Republican, who abuse their power then say the support the poor.

I was hoping for a day when Progressive would admit their own failures and stop blaming the messengers.

Apparently that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, especially in this forum.
Thomas
 
  6  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2014 08:47 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I find it discouraging that something wasn't done when she couldn't afford the first kid, much less the 16th. She obviously needs education and that was not given to her.

In that case, welcome to liberalism! We agree with you that everyone, including Angel Adams, deserves to be educated about sex and contraception. I've been following this issue for over 25 years. Throughout this period, American conservatives have been agitating against comprehensive sex education in schools and sabotaging reproductive-health institutions like Planned Parenthood. If there are liberal initiatives against any of these, I'm unaware of them. So if you're discouraged because nobody educated Mrs Adams about contraception in middle school, nor counselled her at Planned Parenthood about family-planning, I share your frustration. But what makes you think this failure to educate embarrasses liberals rather than conservatives?
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2014 11:07 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I gather that her biggest problem is the perception among many that she ... has a "sense of entitlement" to government benefits.

http://i.imgur.com/1hQyqdS.gif
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2014 11:13 pm
Society should never let anyone starve, and some people simply have bad luck and are very deserving of a societal helping hand, but society is not responsible for paying for this woman's poor life choices.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 05:00 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I find it discouraging that something wasn't done when she couldn't afford the first kid, much less the 16th. She obviously needs education and that was not given to her.

In that case, welcome to liberalism! We agree with you that everyone, including Angel Adams, deserves to be educated about sex and contraception. I've been following this issue for over 25 years. Throughout this period, American conservatives have been agitating against comprehensive sex education in schools and sabotaging reproductive-health institutions like Planned Parenthood.
FOR THE RECORD:
I 'm one conservative who NEVER advocated against sex education in schools
nor sabotaged reproductive-health institutions like Planned Parenthood; I DONATED to it.
I challenge the putative conservatism (on that particular point) of people who did so.

Tom, please note that I am not part of the world of liberalism.
Accuracy in the interpretation of the Constitution does NOT lead
to advocacy against sexual education in the schools.





David
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 07:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'm one conservative who NEVER advocated against sex education in schools nor sabotaged reproductive-health institutions like Planned Parenthood; I DONATED to it. I challenge the putative conservatism (on that particular point) of people who did so.

David, can you do me a big favor? Please go to a meeting of local Republicans near where you live now, speak out in favor of Planned Parenthood and middle-school sex education, challenge the conservatism of the opposition you'll encounter, and then report back here on A2K. If you survive long enough to tell me what happens next, I'm dying to hear about it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 07:32 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
I gather that her biggest problem is the perception among many that she ... has a "sense of entitlement" to government benefits.

http://i.imgur.com/1hQyqdS.gif

Well, if she's entitled to those benefits, why is that a problem?
Buttermilk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 07:42 am
@joefromchicago,
Because she is black and black utilize government programs too much as is (of course its not my view but the view of what many people think).
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 07:59 am
@woiyo,
Actually if you have read through the pages you will find the person in the video was discussed by the posters on this thread. Edgar pointed out where she has worked and I think still works but still receives government assistance. If I understand it right where she talks about who is going to pay for her children is because the father (not sure of how many he is the father of but is irrelevant to the point)is now in jail and how can he pay child support while in jail? At least that is what I get out of her comment, it makes sense to me.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 09:01 am
@Brandon9000,
We should help all the hungry except her kids? What did they ever do to you?
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 May, 2014 11:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
As i pointed out earlier, once their born screw them. Conservative mantra.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 10:35 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

We should help all the hungry except her kids? What did they ever do to you?

You're misquoting me. I said first that no one should ever be allowed to starve.

I also said that some people merely have bad luck and deserve help. What you seem to object to is that I also said that society isn't, beyond the previously mentioned, responsible for bailing people out of their poor life decisions.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 10:39 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

As i pointed out earlier, once their born screw them. Conservative mantra.

It's sad that the only way you can win an argument is to put words in peoples' mouths that they never said. A minimum requirement for informed debate is to be able to correctly state your opponent's position.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 10:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

We should help all the hungry except her kids? What did they ever do to you?

You're misquoting me. I said first that no one should ever be allowed to starve.

I also said that some people merely have bad luck and deserve help.
What you seem to object to is that I also said that society isn't,
beyond the previously mentioned, responsible for bailing people out of their poor life decisions.
FOR THE RECORD: I wish to join in the sentiments hereinabove expressed by Brandon,
tho I don t adopt the language: "allowed to starve", in contemplation of those who choose
to curtail eating (e.g., Ivy, anorexic ex-girlfriend of mine) as a personal life-style option.

I do not advocate jurisdiction in government to force-feed.





David
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 11:43 am
@Brandon9000,
So does that mean feed her kids or starve them?
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 12:29 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

So does that mean feed her kids or starve them?

I answered that precise question twice now. You're either being cute or obtuse. I said in two posts that no one should be allowed to starve. If you're just going to misrepresent what I say, then you're not worth responding to. It's a pity that you need that crutch to win a debate.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 12:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
How do you help the kids without helping the mother?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 May, 2014 05:15 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

How do you help the kids without helping the mother?

I never said any such thing. I said that society should keep people from starving. I never excluded the mother from that. My comments were on the topic of help beyond eating. If I gambled until I owed a hundred thousand dollars, I wouldn't expect society to pay for my bad choices. Why should they? It would be my dumb behavior. Why did she have so many children without anything close to the means to support them, and why did she marry a drug dealer or the sort of person who would become a drug dealer? We owe every member of society the means to survive, and I would be happy to give people who just had bad luck a bit more than that, but I have no responsibility to bail people out of the consequences of their poor life choices.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 10:42:34