• 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!

SCOTUS decisions

jhmd2000 said:
But, but, but I thought you guys were in favor of marriage....

Perhaps it is just the trendy type of marriage. Wanna see my surprised face?
Click to expand...
I fully support the legality of poors and minorities getting marrying! Yay!
 
jhmd - Are two married women (or men) going to make better parents than a single unmarried person?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
jhmd2000 said:
Do two people have more capacity to help a younger person than one? Yes, yes they do.
Click to expand...

So you are in support of 2 married women or two married men being the bedrock of that all important family structure?
 
ONW said:
so 2 > 1, excellent insight....
Click to expand...

Only if you believe the data and empirical evidence. Now please feel free to apply it to the people who need it most as a matter of policy. Like annnnnytime you're ready.
 
I deleted that, but what policy are you suggesting? If you go to Stanford, you're more likely to be rich. That's not a policy.
 
792664101.jpg
 
TownieDeac said:
Let's not pretend like it has anything to do with family structure. It's about money.

Two parents who can't afford to raise a kid are going to provide no better life than one parent who can't. Similarly, a single mom who can give her kid the best schools and home life is going to be a better parent than an abusive or neglectful or absentee two parent household.

It's such a dumb symbol, and a misdirection from the issues at hand (failed drug war, failed education system). It's also a misdirection because jhmd wants to take away the safety net that's already thinner than most of the developed world. Most single parents earn poverty wages in the US, which oddly enough doesn't hold in most developed countries. In spite of holding higher employment rates, they are paid worse and given worse UI, medical, and other benefits.

Not to mention (From the latest Congressional report on poverty):



What I meant by offensive earlier was that jh feels the need to always bring the discussion back to the asinine "two parent" canard.
Click to expand...

Bold #1: To the people who doubt that their are posters concerned about single parent rates, I give you Townie.

Bold #2: I can't believe I failed to control for the presence of physical abuse in an intact family in my calculations. Imagine the egg on my face. Let me save you the trouble....#notALLsinglemoms

Bold #3: Well, move dafuq over cold fusion in a jar; there's a new Sheriff in town. Ya boy jhmd has figured out how to offend a millennial with a dissenting opinion posted on the internet. Leader in the lifetime clubhouse is here, Ladies and Gents. You'll be able to say you almost knew him when...
 
one for the history books, there. wonder how they'll portray it in the biopic.
 
Milhouse said:
who gets to decide which churches are imposters and which ones are not?
Click to expand...

Review it just like you review non profits. The tax deduction is for religious purposes it is for serving the community. If the church isn't a river and instead is a pond for its resources then it's certification gets pulled.

I am sure that they already have some kind of reviews for non profits.
 
Wrangor said:
Review it just like you review non profits. The tax deduction is for religious purposes it is for serving the community. If the church isn't a river and instead is a pond for its resources then it's certification gets pulled.

I am sure that they already have some kind of reviews for non profits.
Click to expand...

Especially if it says "tea party" in the name.
 
ONW said:
I deleted that, but what policy are you suggesting? If you go to Stanford, you're more likely to be rich. That's not a policy.
Click to expand...

Our assistance programs actively subsidized irresponsible decisions on the margin. The more dependent you promise to be, the more "assistance" you receive. If your biggest goal in life was to keep poor people down, you couldn't concoct a more effective tool. Funny looking assistance.

You don't have to be a cold-hearted, puppy kicking conservative to see that our policies effectively punt on entire swaths of our population. For all of the money we spend on "disability" programs, we could train people to do the jobs we're exporting. That is, if we wanted to.

To save my good friend W&B the trouble (and so that he may rededicate his time to searching the internet for emaciated women covered in prison tattoos to post in threads were other people post pictures of attractive women), I don't believe for one second that somebody milking the disability system with claims of fibromyalgia and ambiguous soft tissue injuries wants to have to do that. Ask yourself: have you ever met a business owner with fibromyalgia? Our system makes it much easier for them to get a government benefit than to get a job. That's the system's fault, and we could fix it. That is, if we wanted to.

Since dat dude numbers has gobbled up all of the compassion and empathy and there is none left for anyone else, let's just assume I'm against failed subsistence programs strictly out of my zeal to see other people work rather than not work. Let's say I don't care at all about their manifest failures to achieve their stated objective, the displacement of providers and resulting injuries to family structure and the multigenerational suffering they perpetuate. Let's just take numbers at his word and assume that like he, I will completely ignore all of that (like we ignore how would the BOIA has "helped" Native Americans). For the same money we pay out in no-expectations entitlement programs we could pay people to work no skill labor jobs like urban agriculture (food deserts must be something that me and my fellow neocon MO made up), youth mentorship programs where children could get healthy role models again and New Deal era style public works projections. Maybe we could all ignore the human costs the failures of our current system and just be better investors. Even if I'm wrong on the (self-evident) damage to families our programs are creating, shouldn't we at least ask for a public return on our public investment?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top