It is?

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Your party being in bed with Hollywood poisoning our kids with violence that makes them desensitized to it, is solving the problem?

Put down the Kool Aid for a split second and be honest would it kill you?

The agency was "spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign", Mr Trump tweeted.
The White House has refused to release a photo of President Donald Trump signing a law making it easier for some people with mental illness to buy guns.

the president's own annual budget proposed this week would cuts hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for mental health programmes.


Look at what they do not what the say Trump is regurgitating what Fox news or should I say the Trump news network . Was saying after the shooting

Really Jim?

How vile this is is beyond words.

It's not so much what they did as what they didn't do. Terrible stain on this agency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Culture, morality, family values? Look at who the dems elected in 08 and 12 compared to who the republicans elected in 16.

You may think you are honest with yourself, but that doesn't mean what you say is factually correct. The same jack in the boxes that spew this crap to get elected are the ones cheating on their wives. The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia. By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership. The lowest rates by the way are all the NE states, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WI,MN, WA, UT, IA. See a trend?

God damn right, really. Read the report written by the late great liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who (when he was Secretary of Labor, I think??) predicted decades ago that liberal welfare would mean the end of the black nuclear family, which would be a catastrophe for poor blacks.

When he wrote that report, people like you said "really, Mr Moynihan?"

He was exactly, 100 percent correct. To this day, liberals refuse to concede that he was right. Despite everything happening right under your noses, you deny it. That's productive.

That's liberalism. You implement a liberal idea. if it works, you say "see, liberalism works". When it fails, you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la".

It's truly a vile thing to say.

It's vile to use that event as a club against those with whom you disagree. It's vile when Trump does it, and it's vile when Senator Chris Murphy does it.

Who was the democratic candidate in 2016? June Cleaver? Because I thought it was Hilary Clinton, one of the very few people in the country who cannot claim the moral high ground in a debate with Trump.

Trump is POTUS, the most powerful politician in the country, no question. He isn't the Republican party, all republicans are the republican party, and plenty of us despise Trump as a person.

"You may think you are honest with yourself"

Yes I do.

"The same jack in the boxes that spew this crap to get elected are the ones cheating on their wives"

I'm not responsible or accountable for anything a politician does. I never said Republican politicians are always role models of virtue. I am talking about what the parties stand for (not how their respective politicians behave). In terms of what each party stands for, there is big distinction in terms of healthy family values. Voting for a politician, is not an endorsement of everything that politician does. I would think Democrats learned lesson very well, when Bill Clinton was POTUS.

I believe infidelity is wrong. I also voted for Bill Clinton, and I also voted for Donald Trump. That doesn't mean I think infidelity is good, and it doesn't mean I lose the moral authority to say "infidelity is bad".

"The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia"

Tell me what mass shooting statistics were back then, or homicide rates in Chicago, or divorce rates, or drug use rates, or abortion rates, or rates of infidelity, or rates of fatherlessness, or rates of sexually transmitted disease, or how many latch key kids there were, or how many kids not cared for by a parent? Hmmm?

There were awful parts of the 1950s, particularly Democrat racism. But in terms of family values? I'd take that, over what I see around me today, every day and twice on Sunday. You are free to disagree and even to call it "B.S" But I see you provided zero evidence that it's BS.

"birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 "

If that's true, it's because liberalism is convincing blacks to abort themselves almost out of existence. Maybe democrats are trying to finish what they started in the 1950s?

"See a trend"

I do. The trend I see is that the GOP has the white house, both chambers of congress, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures. So I'm not sure the majority of the country thinks I am full of BS.

[QUOTE=zimmy;1137589]The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia.

Socialism and Communism (sort of the same thing) Are the only Utopian systems I'm aware of. 1950's culture in the U.S. then was family oriented. Blacks were mostly born into family structures which mostly stayed together. Most blacks are now born out of wedlock and don't have examples of family life to model themselves. That is also happening on a lesser scale to whites.

[QUOTE=zimmy]By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.[QUOTE]

Abortion.

I am not going to take the time to respond to everything you said as I would rather watch the olympics, but the Republican high ground on morality is one of the greatest perpetual falsehoods of the last 50 years. I didn't claim Hilary had moral high ground, just as you shouldn't claim Republicans have moral high ground. It is 100% bogus.
By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south. They are in the red states, the same states that take more in taxes than they pay in taxes, the states with the rates of highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of welfare and food stamp participation, the state with the lowest education levels, the lowest per capita income.

Murder rate per capita 1950- 4.6 per 100000.
Murder rate 2013 2014- 4.5. Bumped to 5.2 in 2016.
It is way more 1950's now than during the reign of Ronnie when it was 7.9-10.2.

Divorce rates changed when laws changed (1967). Thank God. An aunt of a high school friend was disowned by her father, a devout Catholic, for getting a divorce, even though her husband beat her repeatedly. Dad was a man of the 50's when America was "great. Thankful the law supporter her choice.

STD rates? I took a quick look: gonorrhea and syphilis lower now than 1950's. Chlamydia and HIV don't show up in the statistics until the 1980's so who knows. You literally make up things off the top of your head based on your perceptions rather than real data.

GOP in the white house- doesn't represent the will of the majority of voters. GOP in state legislatures- many places it gets 40% of the votes and ends up with 70% of the seats. The real voter fraud.

[QUOTE=detbuch;1137597][QUOTE=zimmy;1137589]The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia.

Socialism and Communism (sort of the same thing) Are the only Utopian systems I'm aware of (you should tell Jim the 50's weren't Utopia. He thinks it was.) 1950's culture in the U.S. then was family oriented.
Meaning women knew their place?

[QUOTE=zimmy]By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.Abortion rate is half now what it was in 1980 and about 60% of what it was in 1990. You, like Jim, should try facts rather than what you "feel" is true.

[QUOTE=zimmy;1137632][QUOTE=detbuch;1137597][QUOTE=zimmy;1137589]The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia.

Socialism and Communism (sort of the same thing) Are the only Utopian systems I'm aware of (you should tell Jim the 50's weren't Utopia. He thinks it was.) 1950's culture in the U.S. then was family oriented.
Meaning women knew their place?

I have not heard Jim refer to the 1950's as utopia. You're putting that word in his mouth. That is not an honest way to have a discussion.

Your remark that 1950's family oriented culture meant that women knew their place was more snotty than useful as a point of comparison between then and now. Especially as relating to black women. The point being that black women of child bearing age don't have, now, in contrast to the 1950's, an intact family with a father in the home. So then neither do their children. Ergo the culture, for them, is not family oriented in a traditional sense, but a fatherless culture, and for many, a government dependent culture as a model for their children.

The time in question was the 1950's. You jumped it to 1990 and to today. Again, not an honest comparison of values of the 1950's to today.

You originally brought up birth rates of blacks and Hispanics. Was the abortion rate you later spoke of as dramatically dropping also pertaining to blacks and Hispanics, or overall including all races? There's this excerpt from an article on the subject:

"In 2014, a total of 303,844 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, an estimated 954,000 abortions took place in the United States. If 36% were performed on black women, that means 343,440 black babies were aborted. In other words, more blacks are killed by abortion each year in the United States than by all other causes combined.

"In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million. The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's. That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black.

"Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country." CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group." Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women account for approximately 19% of U.S. abortions whereas African-American women account for up to 36%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of."

In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites.

That is total BS. The racist Democrat politicians did not switch parties. With the exception of a very few, they all remained in the Democrat party. The racist culture of the South changed and voters began voting Republican. Since the South became Republican, it has become far less racist than it was when the South was solid racist Democrat.

You are saying that std rates are lower now than they were in the 1980s. You somehow thinknthatvrejects my premise that stdbrates were lower in the 1950s. I have shocking news for you. The 1980s were not part of the 1950s.

I have more news for you. You cannot judge the morality of a large party’s agenda, by looking at the moral lapses in the personal life of that party’s president. I agree with democrats on gay marriage and the death penalty. The fact that the clintons are scumbags, doesn’t mean that democrats cannot have the right idea in some important issues.

You’re being so simpleminded thatbyoy cant concwdenthenother side has a point. You’ll point to anything to make conservatism look bad.

You can’t orive conservatism wrong, by pointing to personal lapses of conservatives.

And you were correct that trump lost the popular vote. What about the other 1,000 state and federal elections that the incumbent democrats list to republicans since obama was potus? That tells us nothing about the pulse of the country? Al that matters is that Hilary won, therefore the country is more liberal than conservative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is a puzzle of missing pieces from how the FBI didnt follow up, local agency Failure to report and why Federal law allows people 18 and over to legally purchase long guns. but cant drink until 21

but some how Trump has made this Tragedy about him :btu:

some of the current 3000 young adults who were at school that day are seeing the world thru different eyes

Better look back in History
When the United States first became independent, most states applied English common law to abortion. This meant it was not permitted after quickening, or the start of fetal movements, usually felt 15–20 weeks after conception.[6]

Abortions became illegal by statute in Britain in 1803, and various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the United States in the 1820s that codified or expanded common law. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829. Some argue that the early American abortion laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by concern about the procedure's safety. However, some legal theorists point out that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman and the fact that many of the early laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist, but also the woman who hired them.[7]

A number of other factors likely played a role in the rise of anti-abortion laws in the United States. Physicians, who were the leading advocates of abortion criminalization laws, appear to have been motivated at least in part by advances in medical knowledge. Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted. Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. On a logical basis, many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.[8] Ideologically, the Hippocratic Oath and the medical mentality of that age to defend the value of human life as an absolute also played a significant role in molding opinions about abortion.[8] Doctors were also influenced by practical reasons to impose anti-abortion laws. For one, abortion providers tended to be untrained and not members of medical societies. In an age where the leading doctors in the nation were attempting to standardize the medical profession, these "irregulars" were considered a nuisance to public health.[9] The more formalized medical profession disliked the "irregulars" because they were competition, often at a cheaper cost.

Despite campaigns to end the practice of abortion, abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20-25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion.[10] This era saw a marked shift in those who were obtaining abortions. Before the start of the 19th century, most abortions were sought by unmarried women who had become pregnant out of wedlock. Out of 54 abortion cases published in American medical journals between 1839 and 1880, over half were sought by married women, and well over 60% of the married women already had at least one child.[11] The sense that married women were now frequently obtaining abortions worried many conservative physicians, who were almost exclusively men. In the post-Civil War era, much of the blame was placed on the burgeoning women's rights movement.

Though the medical profession expressed hostility toward feminism, many feminists of the era were opposed to abortion.[12][13] In The Revolution, operated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, an anonymous contributor signing "A" wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, the writer stated, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. [...] No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."[13][14][15][16] To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men.[17] Even the "free love" wing of the feminist movement refused to advocate for abortion and treated the practice as an example of the hideous extremes to which modern marriage was driving women.[18] Marital rape and the seduction of unmarried women were societal ills which feminists believed caused the need to abort, as men did not respect women's right to abstinence.[18]

However, physicians remained the loudest voice in the anti-abortion debate, and they carried their anti-feminist agenda to state legislatures around the country, advocating not only anti-abortion laws, but also laws against birth control. This movement presaged the modern debate over women's body rights.[19] A campaign was launched against the movement and the use and availability of contraceptives.

Criminalization of abortion accelerated from the late 1860s, through the efforts of concerned legislators, doctors, and the American Medical Association.[20] In 1873, Anthony Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made it illegal to deliver through the U.S. mail any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material. It also prohibited producing or publishing information pertaining to the procurement of abortion or the prevention of conception or venereal disease, even to medical students.[21] The production, publication, importation, and distribution of such materials was suppressed under the Comstock Law as being obscene, and similar prohibitions were passed by 24 of the 37 states.[22]

In 1900, abortion was a felony in every state. Some states included provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or to terminate pregnancies arising from rape or incest.[23] Abortions continued to occur, however, and became increasingly available. The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921 to promote the founding of birth control clinics and enable women to control their own fertility.[24]

By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.[25]

2014 President Barack Obama took heavy criticism when he went golfing last month during his vacation just minutes after denouncing the militants who had beheaded an American journalist.

So would the president want a second chance and do things differently?

Obama tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that there always will be tough news somewhere, but that he "should've anticipated the optics" of immediately going to play golf.

Trump Joins Mar-a-Lago Disco Party After Visiting Survivors Of School Shooting

crickets

Actually he was advocating for stronger welfare to support the lack of employment for black men. You do realize he was a liberal in a liberal administration writing to support a liberal policy don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Democrats and Republicans flipping parties (exactly as zimmy asserted) had less to do with racism and more to do with the expansion of Federal power. Republicans in the northern states wanted to invest and expand into the west. Democrats in the southern states opposed it just as they feared the erosion of states rights over slavery.

The flip happened a few decades later as some Democrats started pushing for Government expansion to attract voters as the western states became more populated. Naturally this created opposition up until the New Deal when the reverse in polarity was complete.

Most ironic statement I have seen from you. Especially the simple minded part. You put out a bunch of points that are factually incorrect. Then when I give you actual available data,you say I will point out anything to make conservatism look bad. So are you saying conservatism is based on misinformation and inaccuracies? We could agree on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not following your timeline, but yes, there was a flip by the VOTERS, not by the parties. Many of the younger voters in the South by then had already begun to join the rest of the country in disavowing racism and they joined the existing older voters who were not racist to bring about the flip. So race did have an affect on the switch, but the opposite effect than we are led to believe by Democrat spinners. And the South, as it became more Republican, became less racist.

And yes, there was a strong states rights sentiment in the South. And that was not just about race, and less about it by the time of the "switch." As long as the South remained majority racist, that was enough reason to continue to vote for the racist Democrat politicians who also claimed to be states rights advocates (even though they mostly voted with Progressive big government Democrat policies at the national level). The Republicans in the South were always the anti-slavery, anti-racist, and less government party. As sentiments changed, due mostly to Republican efforts nationally, the Southern population, especially the younger segment, the overwhelming racist character of the South changed, but the desire not to be ruled by the federal government remained. So the natural party left for the majority of Southern voters would be the one which was not racist and which espoused less federal power and the maintenance of state and local power.

Your data was selective and misleading.

As I noted above, this simply isn't supported by history.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

I had no idea that the republicans were the party of Lincoln...:)...making a note of that...

I think Spence need to be sent to concussion protocol...starting to think he hit his head....

LBJ was an ego-centric racist. That "quote" you post, if he actually said it, is racist. He supposedly also said that if he could get the civil rights act passed, the Dems would have the n***ers for two hundred years.

Your timeline was unclear and your post here is not connected to mine.

You literally just make stuff up? Complete fabrication?

He was calling for programs that did what he thought was vital - restore the black nuclear family. He predicted, correctly, that welfare as we know it, would cause continued deterioration of the black nuclear family, and that would be a catastrophe.

He was right. 100% right. You disagree?

Yes he was a liberal, a heroic liberal who, unlike you, was able to speak the truth, even when said truth didn't necessarily support liberalism.

Posting data comparing the 1980s to today, has nothing to do with my beliefs about the 1950s. The 1980s happened a long time after the 1950s. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I also never said the 1950s were utopia. You put stupid words in my mouth, which is what simpletons do when the other guy has a point, but you won't admit it.

In the 1950s, American culture had a view of what a "family" was, and how it was supposed to function, that I believe is far superior to the current view of what a family is. Two parents committed to the family and the kids, one parent staying home during the early years, not leaving 3 year-olds in daycare for 10 hours a day being raised by God knows who. Parents sticking together even when it's brutally hard. Eating dinner together and talking and listening, instead of everyone watching TV or on their phones.

Kooky ideas, I know. Those zany olden times!! Hell, I'm so old I remember when it wasn't considered controversial to suggest that if you have a wee wee, you go to the mens room. I know, I'm a dinosaur.

I think you are all set Jim, here you go. From an op-ed by Bret Stephens and it does go on and on making many of your points quite well.
"In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.

They need to return whence they came.

I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning.

On point after point, America’s nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that nonimmigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.

Educational achievement? Just 17 percent of the finalists in the 2016 Intel Science Talent Search — often called the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of United States-born parents. At the Rochester Institute of Technology, just 9.5 percent of graduate students in electrical engineering were nonimmigrants.

Jim, family structure was seen as critical, but his thesis said that Civil Rights legislation alone wouldn't be enough to lift African Americans from poverty and that welfare was needed especially to support unemployed black men. Not that welfare would erode the family structure.

Moynihan concluded, "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."

Stop taking things out of context like that.

I am not sure if Stephens realizes that the "nonimmigrants" to whom he refers, being citizens, have no place to where they can be deported, that they came from here in the U.S., not some other place. I suppose it would be nice if they could be sent somewhere else, if anyone would take them. But there is no legal way to do that, nor should there be.

The nonimmigrant criminals are, I assume, are being dealt with, like, as he says, being prosecuted and imprisoned. Maybe that is not harsh enough for Stephens. Oh well . . . maybe Stephens might want them to have harsher punishments even than that given to illegal immigrants. Maybe torture or cruel and unusual punishment?

The lazy, complacent, ignorant ones, which it seems cannot be avoided no matter what system of government you create, are obviously much more dangerous to our national prospects, whatever his idea of a national prospect is, than illegal immigration. Obviously, since, like all societies, we will have retrograde nonimmigrants, then that surely is a valid reason to also have illegal immigration.

Sorry, but I just don't see why, because we have problematic citizens, we should also have illegal occupants. Maybe, rather than posting a kooky, sarcastic, opinion piece, you could, in your own words, explain why we should welcome illegal immigrants because we have citizens that some might call "deplorables."

Just to let you know, you quoted a hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."

The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/d...oynihan_182349


https://www.amazon.com/steady-expans.../dp/B01LWYKN5W

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/M...o%20Family.pdf

heh..heh...heh.....didn't know he was a an opinion writing hardcore conservative