There is going to be a lot of wards of the state in the future. They'll get sick and be hospitalized for a while. Meantime, nobody will be there to pay their bills. Then they will lose their house and have to file bankruptcy. So, an otherwise fairly healthy person will be stuck in the worst nursing home in town being cared for by some illegal aliens who don't even speak english.

Seen it happen already.

Who cares?

I don't give a shit what other people do; except for whores with reproductive incontinence on my dime.
If they paid their own way, I couldn't be bothered to have an opinion.

- White, married, and indifferent to the self-inflicted suffering of others.

I was just working on my taxes today and I now understand why some people aren't married: a huge tax penalty.  

This is what happens when bad decisions and character flaws become institutionalized under the inviolate establishment of Culture.  

Some cultures are not worthy of respect, simply eradication.

Quoted: I was just working on my taxes today and I now understand why some people aren't married: a huge tax penalty.

I keep telling my wife we need o get a divorce for tax purposes....

As far as marriage and blacks...I think that the line has been wrongfully drawn at race here.  I see this crap among the undesirables of every nationality.  

As the uncle of over 10 illegitimate nieces and nephews (19 total I think) I have a pretty good idea that it isn't just blacks that have this problem.

That's just retarded.

I'll put money on it that she is a liberal.


Max

Quoted: There is going to be a lot of wards of the state in the future. They'll get sick and be hospitalized for a while. Meantime, nobody will be there to pay their bills. Then they will lose their house and have to file bankruptcy. So, an otherwise fairly healthy person will be stuck in the worst nursing home in town being cared for by some illegal aliens who don't even speak english. Seen it happen already.

Seen way to much of the nursing home crap. I'd seriously rather be dead. Hands down, no question about it. I'd go so far as to say that if I have any ability left I will crawl to my gunsafe and put one in my head before that happens.

And any idiot in America that thinks all these Mexicans are going to take care of us in our old age, either via taxes and SSI or in helathcare institutions, is out of their freakin mind. Morons.

TIME TO UN-PIMP ZE MARRIAGE

This article reminds me of Michael from LOST

all races and cultures are victims of modernity. the environment we all live in , white black, yellow, red, green makes it easy to walk away from responsibilities. old times, a married couple depended on each other. a win/win situation. divide the work load, increase effeciencies. kids come along and you have more free help. best examples are found in agrarian (farming) communites. more sons and daughters to help around the farm etc. a single man or woman was at a disadvantage.

modern culture is makes having a family and responsibility a disadvantage. heck.. the US taxcode actually penalizes marriage. kids costs tons to feed, cloth school.. and you better pray to god one doesn't come down with some expensive desease. your wife goes off to work here, you go off to work there. you both spend more time around your fellow workers than with yourselves. no wonder people have affairs and marriages fail.

everything around you screams sex. its what sells. so its what inundates you whever ever you go, work, tv, movies, music, radio. one can only take so much and then they are sold...

and its easy to get out of marriage, family responsibilites. you just divorce and move someplace else. if you are a guy, you trade up, especially if you are in middle age and make lots of money.

while european culture has had 2000 years of 'family life'. so whites seem to better tolerate modern culture maintain some structure. africans dont have this history of structure so its not suprising their family structure breaks down fast.

whats interesting is it seems to me that chinese and japanese and far eastern cultures seem to do the best in the current times.

in the end its our environment and our cultural background that is responsible for the breakdown of the family. and we are all on the same slippery slope, just some of us a little closer to the edge..

...and its easy to get out of marriage, family responsibilites. you just divorce and move someplace else. if you are a guy, you trade up, especially if you are in middle age and make lots of money...

You obviously haven't had your divorce yet.  


Your opinion might change one of these days...

Quoted: Isn't that amazing?  Marriage for blacks began to fall in the 60's, just when "The Great Society" welfare state replaced the black man as "Daddy", "Husband", and provider for the family. The welfare system rewards people for living the worst possible lifestyle, and for the man to not be part of the household.  If there is a man around, the woman and her family is penalized.

Louis Farrakan may be an asshole--but he has been saying the same thing for years.
Back in the 1980's he gave a speech where he said (something to the effect) that "twenty years of welfare had undone two thousand years of black family traditions".

Of course it is not so fair to single out blacks in this regard.
In the US and elsewhere, ethnic groups that have at large been forced onto welfare have typically suffered similar fates.
~

Quoted: This article is a must-read and provides more insight into the situation........ The very notion of black victimhood is idiotic By Walter Williams- Author Homepage www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/images/williams2.jpg If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope." As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, "Liberals, Race and History," if the Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it. Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth- grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation. Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands. What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of family structure in Philadelphia in 1880 shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery - a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs. Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, "That's unacceptable, but it's not their fault." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Walter E. Williams is professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. You may write to him at Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

Great article.  

Didn't he claim whites were from another planet or something like that?

Quoted: Quoted: Isn't that amazing?  Marriage for blacks began to fall in the 60's, just when "The Great Society" welfare state replaced the black man as "Daddy", "Husband", and provider for the family. The welfare system rewards people for living the worst possible lifestyle, and for the man to not be part of the household.  If there is a man around, the woman and her family is penalized. Louis Farrakan may be an asshole--but he has been saying the same thing for years. Back in the 1980's he gave a speech where he said (something to the effect) that "twenty years of welfare had undone two thousand years of black family traditions". Of course it is not so fair to single out blacks in this regard. In the US and elsewhere, ethnic groups that have at large been forced onto welfare have typically suffered similar fates. ~

Quoted: ...and its easy to get out of marriage, family responsibilites. you just divorce and move someplace else. if you are a guy, you trade up, especially if you are in middle age and make lots of money...

Precisely WHY I think the last few decades find the court system unfairly biased against men.

DISCLAIMER: ***I AM NOT ONE WHO THINKS THIS IS RIGHT!!!***

Just providing insight on why we are where we are: it's the 180 degree knee jerk reaction to bring "FAIRNESS"  from previos patterns in history.

I dunno...I don't think marriage is for any one color more than another. It's a contract. If you violate it, there are consequesces. More so for the men? In some cases yes, but not all.

With that movie "Something New" about a black woman that is dating a white man will open up many more dating possibilities, it is pretty common to see a black man and a white woman but not the other way around is making black women now rethink the white guy who they always said was cute but who would never date or marry him for racial reasons, the article implies that black women have few man choices, introducing white men into the equation will help black women JMHO

Quoted: Quoted: ...and its easy to get out of marriage, family responsibilites. you just divorce and move someplace else. if you are a guy, you trade up, especially if you are in middle age and make lots of money... Precisely WHY I think the last few decades find the court system unfairly biased against men. DISCLAIMER: ***I AM NOT ONE WHO THINKS THIS IS RIGHT!!!*** Just providing insight on why we are where we are: it's the 180 degree knee jerk reaction to bring "FAIRNESS"  from previos patterns in history. I dunno...I don't think marriage is for any one color more than another. It's a contract. If you violate it, there are consequesces. More so for the men? In some cases yes, but not all.

Moreso????

That's the understatement of the decade.
Not only vastly moreso numerically but much moreso with regards to degree. Only a hermit would think otherwise. That, or well, a woman...

Quoted: With that movie "Something New" about a black woman that is dating a white man will open up many more dating possibilities, it is pretty common to see a black man and a white woman but not the other way around is making black women now rethink the white guy who they always said was cute but who would never date or marry him for racial reasons, the article implies that black women have few man choices, introducing white men into the equation will help black women JMHO

I have actually dated a few and in talking with them about this subject, the consensus is that only "loser" black men intentionally go out and find white women because they know a black woman would not put up with his crap.  This does not disparage 2 folks of different races who meet and fall in love, some of those couples are pretty good examples of love triumphant, but covers the guys who purposefully look for weak women to victimize, which often times happen to be white.


p.s. I can handle black chicks.  The ones I dated were good cooks, among other attributes.

Quoted: With that movie "Something New" about a black woman that is dating a white man will open up many more dating possibilities, it is pretty common to see a black man and a white woman but not the other way around is making black women now rethink the white guy who they always said was cute but who would never date or marry him for racial reasons, the article implies that black women have few man choices, introducing white men into the equation will help black women JMHO

Don't know about that movie, but "Napoleon Dynamite" has thoroughly covered the subject.  

Quoted: Quoted: With that movie "Something New" about a black woman that is dating a white man will open up many more dating possibilities, it is pretty common to see a black man and a white woman but not the other way around is making black women now rethink the white guy who they always said was cute but who would never date or marry him for racial reasons, the article implies that black women have few man choices, introducing white men into the equation will help black women JMHO Don't know about that movie, but "Napoleon Dynamite" has thoroughly covered the subject.

The funny part of all that was that in the movie Uncle Rico asked Kip what she looked like and Kip told him that she was a blonde I think but that he was frustrated because "he still hadn't gotten a full body shot of her yet."

Only someone from Preston I-da-ho could talk to a girl named LaFwanduh from Detroit on-line and think she was white!

Oh...well...it all worked out for them.  So happy when somebody finds their soul-mate (no pun intended)!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...and its easy to get out of marriage, family responsibilites. you just divorce and move someplace else. if you are a guy, you trade up, especially if you are in middle age and make lots of money... Precisely WHY I think the last few decades find the court system unfairly biased against men. DISCLAIMER: ***I AM NOT ONE WHO THINKS THIS IS RIGHT!!!*** Just providing insight on why we are where we are: it's the 180 degree knee jerk reaction to bring "FAIRNESS"  from previos patterns in history. I dunno...I don't think marriage is for any one color more than another. It's a contract. If you violate it, there are consequesces. More so for the men? In some cases yes, but not all. Moreso???? That's the understatement of the decade. Not only vastly moreso numerically but much moreso with regards to degree. Only a hermit would think otherwise. That, or well, a woman...

Maybe it is the understatement of the decade...but from a historian's point of view, I'd say that women have alot of catching up to do in this regard.

Hey, at least we're not creating governments based upon a religion we created to make marriage less binding.
yet.

Well, they obviously have all their ducks in a row.

Quoted: Well, I guess thats proof racism works both many ways.

+1

(fixed it by the way)

Quoted: Who cares?

Sociologically, it turns out that kids raised in two parent homes are the least likely to grow up killing people, stealing things, and generally making society a hellhole. Kids raised in two parent homes have the greatest chance of becoming productive members of society.

It turns out that the family unit is the central building block of society, and that if the family unit crumbles past a certain point, then society is doomed.

So if you like freedom and would like to keep your property, it would seem wise for you to begin caring.

Wake up white people.  


The opening statement says it all.  

Yes it is for white people because we are civilized and have evolved over hundreds of years.  Those which we yanked from Africa still have an obsession with shiny objects and loud music.

Harsh, think about it.  Give them oh, 1000 years they might catch up.  

Account locked for racist comments!  EdSr

Quoted: Wake up white people.   The opening statement says it all.   Yes it is for white people because we are civilized and have evolved over hundreds of years.  Those which we yanked from Africa still have an obsession with shiny objects and loud music. Harsh, think about it.  Give them oh, 1000 years they might catch up.

Please go away and take the racist remarks with you as you leave!
Rich V

The 88 has arrived!!!

dober1 --->  

Quoted: It turns out that the family unit is the central building block of society, and that if the family unit crumbles past a certain point, then society is doomed.

Say WHAT!?!  Do you mean to suggest that thousands of years of tradition, most major schools of philosophy, and almost every major religion were actually CORRECT, and that the 60s radicals were actually WRONG?  

Quoted: Quoted: It turns out that the family unit is the central building block of society, and that if the family unit crumbles past a certain point, then society is doomed. Say WHAT!?!  Do you mean to suggest that thousands of years of tradition, most major schools of philosophy, and almost every major religion were actually CORRECT, and that the 60s radicals were actually WRONG?

Shocking isn’t it. Who would have thunk it!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It turns out that the family unit is the central building block of society, and that if the family unit crumbles past a certain point, then society is doomed. Say WHAT!?!  Do you mean to suggest that thousands of years of tradition, most major schools of philosophy, and almost every major religion were actually CORRECT, and that the 60s radicals were actually WRONG?   Shocking isn’t it. Who would have thunk it!

Apparently my parents, grandparent, great grandparents, etc. were right after all!

Quoted: Say WHAT!?!  Do you mean to suggest that thousands of years of tradition, most major schools of philosophy, and almost every major religion were actually CORRECT, and that the 60s radicals were actually WRONG?

Hard to believe, isn't it?

But it seems that the ideas championed by a bunch of protesting idiots snarfing down drugs and screwing like pigs in heat actually don't turn out to be the best principles for society.

Go figure.

Quoted: Wake up white people.   The opening statement says it all.   Yes it is for white people because we are civilized and have evolved over hundreds of years.  Those which we yanked from Africa still have an obsession with shiny objects and loud music. Harsh, think about it.  Give them oh, 1000 years they might catch up.   Account locked for racist comments!  EdSr

Poor dumb bastard didn't even make it to 59 posts....

well, I guess there has to be at least one race that tries uphold some sort of moral in society.

Quoted: well, I guess there has to be at least one race that tries uphold some sort of moral in society.

I believe that there have been several races fighting to uphold morality in society.  Some have been significantly more successful than others.  No, I don't want to elaborate because I value my membership at AR15.com.

I get the impression, from all the divorce stories that I have been hearing, that marriage is for suckers! Who wants to get married, have their wife find a new boyfriend, file for divorce, then you get stuck with all the bills, while the ex, her new man, and your kids, get everything that you have worked for, up to this point. I still wonder why some of my friends who have gotten married, actually did it, since most of them talk about killing themselves and wishing they were single again...

Quoted: Quoted: Who cares? Sociologically, it turns out that kids raised in two parent homes are the least likely to grow up killing people, stealing things, and generally making society a hellhole. Kids raised in two parent homes have the greatest chance of becoming productive members of society. It turns out that the family unit is the central building block of society, and that if the family unit crumbles past a certain point, then society is doomed. So if you like freedom and would like to keep your property, it would seem wise for you to begin caring.

Not that I in any way disagree with the fact that good family units are in our best interest... but:

Is that the CAUSE or the RESULT?

Is it the irresponsible parents, regardless of marital status, who raise their kids badly that (generally) cause kids to grow up "bad"... or is it the fact that there is no dad & mom?

I would argue that at least 80% of the issue is the fact that dad/mom/both being bad parents influences kids to grow up bad. I'd say about 20% of the issue could be contributed to single parent families.

I just so happen to think that more often than not, problem children (with one, two or no parents) are the result of (in order):
1) Bad parenting
2) Child's personality
3) Other (including having no father figure)

Now, people who tend to make bad parents to begin with are more likely to be found unmarried, which may skew the statistics in favor of "single parents = bad kids", but I see that as a result, not the cause.

Just like I see "drugs = bad people" as a result of the irresponsible idiots being the type to flock to and abuse drugs, not drugs being the cause.

Lets face it, smarter, more responsible people will in general tend to NOT do things like become alcohol/drug addicts, be irresponsible/bad parents, etc.

Saying the family unit is the foundation is misleading... If we forced everyone to create "families", that would not solve the problem, because the stupid/irresponsible people will still be stupid and irresponsible single or married.

JMHO, of course.

Quoted: Saying the family unit is the foundation is misleading... If we forced everyone to create "families", that would not solve the problem, because the stupid/irresponsible people will still be stupid and irresponsible single or married. JMHO, of course.

The family unit IS the foundation of society. The family unit is where kids get their primary training. It is the basis of all society.

Quoted: Quoted: Saying the family unit is the foundation is misleading... If we forced everyone to create "families", that would not solve the problem, because the stupid/irresponsible people will still be stupid and irresponsible single or married. JMHO, of course. The family unit IS the foundation of society. The family unit is where kids get their primary training. It is the basis of all society.

Yes, I agree that it is important.

But if you take the same deadbeat "parents" who are irresponsible and overall "bad" parents and force them to marry and create a "family unit", you won't make much, if any, improvements.

The reason being, they're still deadbeats, still irresponsible, still "bad" parents...

I argue that the "single parent family" is not the CAUSE of bad kids, but is just as much a RESULT as the bad kids are. They result from deadbeat/irresponsible/bad/whatever-you-want-to-call-it adults having children in the first place.

If everyone in the country had more responsibility, respect and a good set of standards/morals, we would have the RESULT of less single parent families, and we would also have the RESULT of less "bad kids".

But the "fewer bad kids" would be a direct result of parents doing their job better, NOT a result of parents getting/staying married or not. Both are results, symptoms if you would rather call it... The cause or disease is NOT the single/married parent(s), but the lack of responsibility (among other things lacking).

To make an (totally irrelevant but shows the concept) analogy:
We have many drunk driving accidents in our country.
The accidents are a RESULT... but not a result of Alcohol.
Drinking and driving is a RESULT, NOT a cause.
Drinking and driving is CAUSED by people not being responsible, and making poor/stupid decisions.

Looking at things this way, we see that the problem is only indirectly related to drunken driving. But the actual relation is people's decisions and (lack of) responsibility. The people who are responsible DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE, thus there is no issue of drunk driving, and no possibility of causing a DUI related accident.

The same can be said of almost ANY situation, including the correlation between bad parents and single parents. Altho in this case it is only a generalization.

And once again, I agree that it is in our best interest to have stable and functional family structures as a society, but I DON'T think that "2 parents = good kid" any more than I think "Guns = murderer" or "Drugs = addict".

While there ARE drawbacks to having single-parent families, they are not (IMO) the actual cause of kids turning out bad. It may be tougher to be a single parent and raise children right, but it is entirely possible... and EVERY case has to factor in the personality of the child. There are plenty of obvious exceptions to the rule that good parenting=good kid and vice versa... but the odds are substantially improved when we provide GOOD parenting, and marginally improved when we provide BOTH parents parenting.

Quoted: Quoted: Saying the family unit is the foundation is misleading... If we forced everyone to create "families", that would not solve the problem, because the stupid/irresponsible people will still be stupid and irresponsible single or married. JMHO, of course. The family unit IS the foundation of society. The family unit is where kids get their primary training. It is the basis of all society.

Behold, here is wisdom.

steenkybastage,

There are certainly parents who have failed in their responsibility to provide for, nourish, nurture, and teach their children correctly.  That is the fault of those parents.

However, none of that negates the family as the foundation of society.  Fractured/failed families represent the cracks in the foundation of our society.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who cares? Sociologically, it turns out that kids raised in two parent homes are the least likely to grow up killing people, stealing things, and generally making society a hellhole. Kids raised in two parent homes have the greatest chance of becoming productive members of society. It turns out that the family unit is the central building block of society, and that if the family unit crumbles past a certain point, then society is doomed. So if you like freedom and would like to keep your property, it would seem wise for you to begin caring. Not that I in any way disagree with the fact that good family units are in our best interest... but: Is that the CAUSE or the RESULT? Is it the irresponsible parents, regardless of marital status, who raise their kids badly that (generally) cause kids to grow up "bad"... or is it the fact that there is no dad & mom? I would argue that at least 80% of the issue is the fact that dad/mom/both being bad parents influences kids to grow up bad. I'd say about 20% of the issue could be contributed to single parent families. I just so happen to think that more often than not, problem children (with one, two or no parents) are the result of (in order): 1) Bad parenting 2) Child's personality 3) Other (including having no father figure) Now, people who tend to make bad parents to begin with are more likely to be found unmarried, which may skew the statistics in favor of "single parents = bad kids", but I see that as a result, not the cause. Just like I see "drugs = bad people" as a result of the irresponsible idiots being the type to flock to and abuse drugs, not drugs being the cause. Lets face it, smarter, more responsible people will in general tend to NOT do things like become alcohol/drug addicts, be irresponsible/bad parents, etc. Saying the family unit is the foundation is misleading... If we forced everyone to create "families", that would not solve the problem, because the stupid/irresponsible people will still be stupid and irresponsible single or married. JMHO, of course.

Regardless how you look at all of that, it is foolish to reward or encourage such behavior. Better yet, penalize them.

Quoted: steenkybastage, There are certainly parents who have failed in their responsibility to provide for, nourish, nurture, and teach their children correctly.  That is the fault of those parents. However, none of that negates the family as the foundation of society.  Fractured/failed families represent the cracks in the foundation of our society.

So you're saying we're better off with more families, whether they are GOOD families/parents or not?

That is is better to have more families, because families are what actually creates responsibility, good parenting, etc?

Well... if you answer yes to those, you would agree with the original statement.

If you believe so, well... I disagree, but can understand where you're coming from.

Like I said, I see good solid families (or lack of) being a result, not a cause. If we try to "fix" the result without fixing the cause, I do not believe it will make much of any improvement.

Quoted: Regardless how you look at all of that, it is foolish to reward or encourage such behavior. Better yet, penalize them.

I completely agree.

I am only disagreeing with a result being a cause, not trying to support, reward or encourage bad behavior (which in this case is bad parenting AND/OR single parent families)

Vote me in as king of America for a few years to straighten 'er out, and we'd do away with all the rewards/penalties, most of the govt, most of the laws, and then turn it back over (with much clearer rules) to the elected as a much smaller, fairer, and MYOB organization. Hey, at least we'd have a few hundred more years before the socialists could nibble away our rights/common sense.

Ahhh, but I can only dream something would ever happen to give us a chance to "fix" our country up a bit.

Quoted: Quoted: Say WHAT!?!  Do you mean to suggest that thousands of years of tradition, most major schools of philosophy, and almost every major religion were actually CORRECT, and that the 60s radicals were actually WRONG?   Hard to believe, isn't it? But it seems that the ideas championed by a bunch of protesting idiots snarfing down drugs and screwing like pigs in heat actually don't turn out to be the best principles for society. Go figure.

ask yourself this... who let all the protesting idiots snarf down drugs and screw like pigs? are all the old hippies to blame for current breakdowns? or their parents? and if its their parents, many of whom went off to fight wwII or stayed at home and kept the fires banked (and truly were 'the greatest generation in that sense) what happened? where did we all slip? what got loose?

I don't want to take time away from drugs and screwing right now to post a reply, but if this thread is still active tomorrow I'll try to get around to it.

It's all about the 'Bling'!

Gettin' hitched puts the bling at risk!

Quoted: Quoted: steenkybastage, There are certainly parents who have failed in their responsibility to provide for, nourish, nurture, and teach their children correctly.  That is the fault of those parents. However, none of that negates the family as the foundation of society.  Fractured/failed families represent the cracks in the foundation of our society. So you're saying we're better off with more families, whether they are GOOD families/parents or not? That is is better to have more families, because families are what actually creates responsibility, good parenting, etc? Well... if you answer yes to those, you would agree with the original statement. If you believe so, well... I disagree, but can understand where you're coming from. Like I said, I see good solid families (or lack of) being a result, not a cause. If we try to "fix" the result without fixing the cause, I do not believe it will make much of any improvement.

I've said, and I'll say again, that the family is the basic unit of society.

Nothing in that statement justifies bad families.  In fact, it implies the importance of creating good, healthy families.  It strongly implies a duty to strengthen the family.  After all, since it is the basic unit of society, as the family goes so goes....

Quoted: Having said that, I also see many minorities trap themselves by rejecting oportunities to succeed.  In the end, success or failure is primarily the responsibility of the individual.

Problem here is that .gov makes it easy to fail if not profitable and that the PC movement has removed any/all stigma.  Oh, yea...it's always someone else's fault...

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie ...married, and indifferent to the self-inflicted suffering of others.

+1

Randall