• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Islamic Dilemma

Deacfreak07 said:
I look forward to the rational discourse that rebuts these posts.
Click to expand...

3526638.jpg
 
Strickland33 said:
I know that you're trolling, but I legitimately want to know what you mean by the bold.

When conservatives make a scene and, ultimately, convince the government to conduct natural experiments to test their hypotheses, research reveals over and over again that the millions (if not tens of millions of dollars) spent to test these hypotheses were spent to uncover very few incidences of the phenomena in question. And this happens across the board, no matter the issue and no matter the organization conducting the research.

From the perspective of a party that is at least putatively against bureaucratic bloat and reckless government spending, how does make any sense?
Click to expand...

You don't believe the research that says if you grow up in a two parent household, your chances of staying out of poverty are demonstrably better than the alternative? Mean old JHMD has duped the conservative rag THE BOSTON GLOBE into believing it?

Go back to your Safe Space. Then you won't have to read this. If you did, you'd have to have an answer for this:

The advantages of growing up in an intact family and being married extend across the population. They apply about as much to blacks and Hispanics as they do to whites. For instance, black men enjoy a marriage premium of at least $12,500 in their individual income compared to their single peers. The advantages also apply, for the most part, to men and women who are less educated. For instance, men with a high-school degree or less enjoy a marriage premium of at least $17,000 compared to their single peers.

You guys are all-in on this victim-privilege canard. I understand there is no talking you off of the persecution ledge. It's actually sad, because being somebody else's victim isn't a plan for anything worth having.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
You don't believe the research that says if you grow up in a two parent household, your chances of staying out of poverty are demonstrably better than the alternative? Mean old JHMD has duped the conservative rag THE BOSTON GLOBE into believing it?

Go back to your Safe Space. Then you won't have to read this. If you did, you'd have to have an answer for this:

The advantages of growing up in an intact family and being married extend across the population. They apply about as much to blacks and Hispanics as they do to whites. For instance, black men enjoy a marriage premium of at least $12,500 in their individual income compared to their single peers. The advantages also apply, for the most part, to men and women who are less educated. For instance, men with a high-school degree or less enjoy a marriage premium of at least $17,000 compared to their single peers.
Click to expand...

df07 unsurprisingly called that one.

Your post is fine and good and has nothing to do with the question that I asked you. I know you're a smart guy, jhmd, and pretty much everyone on this board agrees with your basic premise that intact families are likely better indicators of success down the road. What is the relevance of your response to my post?

ETA: Most of the research that I cited agrees with your basic premise, as well, and cites a lot of research that supports it, so it's not like we can't have a conversation about this stuff.
 
But that has nothing to do with whether or not welfare programs are full of gamers or not. It's a different point altogether.

Your next post will be that the existence of welfare programs causes single parent families. Another non data-based theory.

But by all means, go right ahead.
 
Strickland33 said:
df07 unsurprisingly called that one.

Your post is fine and good and has nothing to do with the question that I asked you. I know you're a smart guy, jhmd, and pretty much everyone on this board agrees with your basic premise that intact families are likely better indicators of success down the road. What is the relevance of your response to my post?

ETA: Most of the research that I cited agrees with your basic premise, as well, and cites a lot of research that supports it, so it's not like we can't have a conversation about this stuff.
Click to expand...
'
You asked for the stats, presumably because you doubted them. Now you claim you agree with them. Which is it?

Explain to me how chain dependency is a sustainable plan capable of showing gains.

ETA re your rep: The fact (which we apparently now agree with) that family structure provides benefits across race/class lines is a self-evident starting point. Which Dem policies are premised on leveraging this manifest building point (Hell, I can think of a couple, including better family leave). We can prove family structure has a track record. Why not make the foundation? Why is that issue the one that dare not speak its name on the Dem Debate stage?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
'
You asked for the stats, presumably because you doubted them. Now you claim you agree with them. Which is it?

Explain to me how chain dependency is a sustainable plan capable of showing gains.
Click to expand...

I was trolling you, homie. Let's try to stay on topic, please.

You responded to this post:

Strickland33 said:
One would think that if it was as widespread as pubs claim that it is (see also: voter fraud), then it would manifest itself in a way that could be statistically measurable. After all, these agencies -govt, NPO, and private - collect tons of data. If economists can figure out the dynamics of drug and prostitution markets (see Levitt's work), I find it hard to believe that there's no way to investigate this.

Or, you could simply refer to the mountains of scholarship across disciplines that show that these phenomena are nowhere near as prevalent as the talking points suggest.

shrug
Click to expand...

with this post

jhmd2000 said:
Let's not pretend that would matter. SJWs have a pretty good answer for widespread, statically measurable social problems they'd rather not confront. Blame that ish on privilege and move on.
Click to expand...

Or, you could just blame it on single-parent households and move on...
 
It has nothing to do with gaming the welfare system. It's two completely separate discussions. You aren't stupid so we know you can grasp that. You're shucking and jiving.
 
Please make your point that the existence of the welfare state is the cause of American poverty
 
WakeandBake said:
It has nothing to do with gaming the welfare system. It's two completely separate discussions. You aren't stupid so we know you can grasp that. You're shucking and jiving.
Click to expand...

Your transparent, if ill-fated, attempt to wash your unclean hands by pretending not to hear my oft-repeated response that the number of people gaming the system is dwarfed by the number of people being gamed by the system, is tiresome and unconvincing. Your favorite saying in these here parts is "Follow the money." You're (deliberately) missing my point: nobody could game your awful, broken system. It's a loser's bet on its best day. But you won't admit that.

I'll kindly ask you to "Follow the power" of America's failed welfare state. Will you?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Your transparent, if ill-fated, attempt to wash your unclean hands by pretending not to hear my oft-repeated response that the number of people gaming the system is dwarfed by the number of people being gamed by the system, is tiresome and unconvincing. Your favorite saying in these here parts is "Follow the money." You're (deliberately) missing my point: nobody could game your awful, broken system. It's a loser's bet on its best day. But you won't admit that.

I'll kindly ask you to "Follow the power" of America's failed welfare state. Will you?
Click to expand...

Finally we are getting somewhere. That post is the best you can do, since you never had any data about gamers, to admit that there just isn't the welfare fraud that is oft repeated by the anti-entitlement gang you slurp. So thanks I guess for finally giving us that.

The system gaming the people? You're goddamned right it is. Thank you for supporting my point.

Id be happy to hold hands with you and follow the power and the money. But ill humor you, are you doing what I knew you would and blaming the existence of entitlements for the existence of American poverty?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
If it was a solution, wouldn't we know it by now?
Click to expand...

It's not the solution at all. It keeps people fed and sheltered while the system games them.

Here is where you suggest that the removal of the programs will cause the poor in America to look at one another and shake hands and say "well the jig is up guys, we had a good run but now it's time to go create wealth for ourselves" and get a pickup and some ladders and build a painting company like the Mexican guy you read about that time.
 
WakeandBake said:
It has nothing to do with gaming the welfare system. It's two completely separate discussions. You aren't stupid so we know you can grasp that. You're shucking and jiving.
Click to expand...

haven't we determined this is racist ?
 
WakeandBake said:
But that has nothing to do with whether or not welfare programs are full of gamers or not. It's a different point altogether.

Your next post will be that the existence of welfare programs causes single parent families. Another non data-based theory.

But by all means, go right ahead.
Click to expand...

In my best 30-for-30, what if I told you there was empirical evidence that a certain behavior, entirely within the control of the effected individual, that significantly improved one's chances of sustainable, economic self-sufficiency out of poverty, and did so across racial lines, wouldn't you want to make that behavior the baseline of social change? Why would that behavior be the problem that dare not speak its name, to the party who pretends to care about such things?
 
jhmd2000 said:
In my best 30-for-30, what if I told you there was empirical evidence that a certain behavior, entirely within the control of the effected individual, that significantly improved one's chances of sustainable, economic self-sufficiency out of poverty, and did so across racial lines, wouldn't you want to make that behavior the baseline of social change? Why would that behavior be the problem that dare not speak its name, to the party who pretends to care about such things?
Click to expand...

Personal behavior has nothing to do with this. Systemic Racism is the problem. Haven't you been paying attention to the millennial scholars on these boards?
 
More proof that bkf didn't really fight for civil rights in the 60s. He was the angry young white dude shouting "you all need to be marching about personal responsibility."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top