Staggering COVID-19 Statistic: 98% to 99% of Americans Dying are Unvaccinated

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Is teaching slavery as part of US history, “white discomfort”?"

Nope. As long as its taught accurately (which side fought for it, who fought against it), and as long as we don't tell white kids hundreds of years later, that they have any responsibility for it.

"Is being required to interview female and minority candidates “white discomfort”"

No. But it's stupid.

So you were taught in school about how after emancipation and reconstruction came the Jim Crow era and the reason why it happened and the effects on the black population, how black property ownership decreased over the past century and why?

For the past twenty years to bid on federally funded projects I’ve been required to prove that I’ve solicited quotes from women and minority owned firms, never has been a hard task and the numbers of such firms have grown.
Must be construction firms are stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That one line, MLK's most famous line, spits in the face of much of today's liberal agenda, which puts race above just about everything else.

Try another line

“Why is equality so assiduously avoided? Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?
The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So you were taught in school about how after emancipation and reconstruction came the Jim Crow era and the reason why it happened and the effects on the black population, how black property ownership decreased over the past century and why?

For the past twenty years to bid on federally funded projects I’ve been required to prove that I’ve solicited quotes from women and minority owned firms, never has been a hard task and the numbers of such firms have grown.
Must be construction firms are stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"came the Jim Crow era "

like slavery, Jim Crow was also supported by democrats, and opposed by Republicans.

"For the past twenty years to bid on federally funded projects I’ve been required to prove that I’ve solicited quotes from women and minority owned firms, never has been a hard task and the numbers of such firms have grown."

I never said it was hard. I said it was stupid.

When I interview for a spot, and a perfect candidate comes along, I snatch him up, I don't want to say "please wait by the phone, don't interview anywhere else, I just have to go through the motions of interviewing people who have specific skin color and genitalia."

Sane people, don't think that someone's skin color or gender say anything about who they are. Rational people know, that things which we have no control over, do not define us.

Liberals disagree, because race is everything. Dividing people into little boxes based on race and gender, is crucial to democrats. Republicans could care less.

Pete' everything you need to know is in that sentence from MLK that TDF quoted, and it shows how asinine liberalism is on the subject.

I can't help but notice that for all liberals claim to care about blacks, liberalism doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot of good in black urban areas. i lived outside of New Haven for 24 years, worked in downtown Hartford for 15 or so years. Those cities are declining rapidly. Liberalism has been a Holocaust for blacks, the only statistic you need to look at which explains everything, is rate of fatherlessness. Which conservatives want to address, liberals want to ignore.

I really, really can't wait to see what happens with Hispanics in November, and what the liberal reaction is. Let's see liberals celebrate open borders if Hispanics are no longer a reliable democrat voting block. That may be a pipe dream of mine, but the VA results and recent polling suggest a rightward shift among Hispanics.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

White Discomfort must be White Privilege Lite :rollseyes:

Pete must be looking for a way to fire up the "Way Back" machine so he can go back in time so he can talk MLK into losing this line, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." in his I Have A Dream speech, because it's making it real hard for him to sell his racism agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s a line for you

“I contend that the cry of “Black Power” is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"came the Jim Crow era "

like slavery, Jim Crow was also supported by democrats, and opposed by Republicans.

"For the past twenty years to bid on federally funded projects I’ve been required to prove that I’ve solicited quotes from women and minority owned firms, never has been a hard task and the numbers of such firms have grown."

I never said it was hard. I said it was stupid.

When I interview for a spot, and a perfect candidate comes along, I snatch him up, I don't want to say "please wait by the phone, don't interview anywhere else, I just have to go through the motions of interviewing people who have specific skin color and genitalia."

Sane people, don't think that someone's skin color or gender say anything about who they are. Rational people know, that things which we have no control over, do not define us.

Liberals disagree, because race is everything. Dividing people into little boxes based on race and gender, is crucial to democrats. Republicans could care less.

Pete' everything you need to know is in that sentence from MLK that TDF quoted, and it shows how asinine liberalism is on the subject.

I can't help but notice that for all liberals claim to care about blacks, liberalism doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot of good in black urban areas. i lived outside of New Haven for 24 years, worked in downtown Hartford for 15 or so years. Those cities are declining rapidly. Liberalism has been a Holocaust for blacks, the only statistic you need to look at which explains everything, is rate of fatherlessness. Which conservatives want to address, liberals want to ignore.

I really, really can't wait to see what happens with Hispanics in November, and what the liberal reaction is. Let's see liberals celebrate open borders if Hispanics are no longer a reliable democrat voting block. That may be a pipe dream of mine, but the VA results and recent polling suggest a rightward shift among Hispanics.

Jim
Everything you need to know about systemic racism and that it exists is contained in how that quote from MLK is used.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Sorry Pete, I'll go by the quote I posted, that one speaks to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

MLK 3rd has explained it more than once, “Yes, we should judge people by the content of the character and not the color of their skin — but that is when we have a true, just, humane society where there are no biases, where there is no racism, where there is no discrimination,” Martin Luther King III said. “Unfortunately, all of these things still exist.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Nope, still didn't change my mind, sticking with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Sorry Pete, I'll go by the quote I posted, that one speaks to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. Ignoring race, is racist, that's what he's saying.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

MLK 3rd has explained it more than once, “Yes, we should judge people by the content of the character and not the color of their skin — but that is when we have a true, just, humane society where there are no biases, where there is no racism, where there is no discrimination,” Martin Luther King III said. “Unfortunately, all of these things still exist.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We were quoting MLK, not his son. MLK, who is a national hero, asked us to try and forget about race when judging people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim
Everything you need to know about systemic racism and that it exists is contained in how that quote from MLK is used.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By definition, it cannot be racist to ignore race and focus on a person's character.

Racism, by definition, involves treating people differently, according to race.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We were quoting MLK, not his son. MLK, who is a national hero, asked us to try and forget about race when judging people.

MLK is your hero?
Just how many of his beliefs do you support?

This one, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Or this one, “ Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.”
— The Three Evils of Society, 1967
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

MLK 3rd has explained it more than once, “Yes, we should judge people by the content of the character and not the color of their skin — but that is when we have a true, just, humane society where there are no biases, where there is no racism, where there is no discrimination,” Martin Luther King III said. “Unfortunately, all of these things still exist.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From this quote, the 3rd doesn't seem nearly as mentally sharp nor as linguistically competent as his forebear. I don't recall senior expressing a desire for utopia, except in his Christian heaven. Judging people by the content of their character is dependent on personal biases followed by a judgmental discrimination as a result of those biases.

I don't think MLK wanted us to wait for some perfection of man before "racial justice" could be achieved. I suppose that he knew there would always be evil expressing itself in the mass of humanity. I guess that, if he was not a hypocrite, something approaching that perfection would be required for entry into heaven (and that not many would get there), but not be necessary in a just, earthly, society.

I think the "justice" he sought was in the legal, cultural, and societal makeup of the nation in which he dreamed that his "four little children will one day live in." He did not expect everyone in that society to be righteous. I believe, contrary to the 3rd's desire, "all these [evil] things [will always] exist."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

MLK is your hero?
Just how many of his beliefs do you support?

This one, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Or this one, “ Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.”
— The Three Evils of Society, 1967
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

his work on civil
rights makes him a hero.

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

ming wanted us to ignore race. obviously you disagree. that’s your right. just be honest and i afraid and admit it, you want to focus intently on race.

economic status is more important. i don’t mind funding effective programs to help poor people. but not by race. a wealthy black family doesn’t need my help more than a poor white family. do you disagree with that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

his work on civil
rights makes him a hero.

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

ming wanted us to ignore race. obviously you disagree. that’s your right. just be honest and i afraid and admit it, you want to focus intently on race.

economic status is more important. i don’t mind funding effective programs to help poor people. but not by race. a wealthy black family doesn’t need my help more than a poor white family. do you disagree with that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’ve obviously never read MLKs I had a dream speech or you wouldn’t quote just part of one sentence.

https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/12270...n-its-entirety
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s a good typo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Last night on the dishonest Tucker show went on and on how mask don’t work

Then showed clip after clip of medical professionals saying CLOTH mask don’t work then Moved to Seee they Lied to you since the beginning of the pandemic
And now Biden send a mask out that wont work anyway..

Feeding His gullible audiences with misinformation

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporar...ailure-report/


And from a different article.
Earlier this month, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) declared that the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Although it is premature to declare an outright and absolute victory, it’s great that policymakers at the highest level of government recognize that our social safety net programs are working.

But if we are to continue to reduce hardship and promote mobility from poverty through access to good jobs, work and other means, we have to understand the nature of poverty today. It's important that we draw the right lessons from the past so we don’t underestimate our current challenges and cede our hard-won progress in the War on Poverty.

Let’s start with the good news in the CEA report: material well-being in the United States has improved considerably. The poverty rate has also declined over the last few decades, although you wouldn’t know it if you looked just at the official poverty rate, which has not fluctuated greatly since the 1960s, ranging from 10 to 15 percent.

The official poverty rate draws a threshold based on food consumption patterns from the 1950s and considers only pretax cash income as available resources. Consequently, the official poverty rate understates both the needs of today’s families and the resources available to them. In fact, two of our largest sources of support to low-income families—the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—don’t count in our official poverty measure.

Recognizing the limitations of the official poverty measure, the Census Bureau developed a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) in 2009 that better captures needs and resources.

When researchers extended the SPM back in time, they found that the poverty rate dropped from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012 and to about 14 percent in 2016, more accurately capturing poverty’s downward trend than does the official poverty measure. In addition, without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.

Limitations of a consumption-based poverty rate
The “too good to be true” news from the CEA is that the poverty rate declined from 30 percent in 1960 to just 3 percent in 2016 when applying a “consumption-based” poverty measure, which measures what a family consumes instead of how much income it earns. A consumption-based poverty measure has some merit. After all, a family with no income but substantial assets would be considered “income poor” but could be consuming at comfortable levels.

Because there is no official measure of consumption-based poverty, the CEA relies on the work of economists Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan. To develop a consumption-based poverty rate, Meyer and Sullivan need accurate data on consumption and a meaningful standard for how much a family needs to consume to have a minimally adequate standard of living. Some scholars have expressed concerns about the data Meyer and Sullivan use to construct their consumption-based poverty rate.

Those concerns aside, the consumption-based poverty rate from Meyer and Sullivan that the CEA cites is indexed to 1980, an arbitrary threshold that might understate the hardship and need families experience today. Using this measure allows the CEA to suggest that poverty isn’t much a problem in the US today.

Drawing a meaningful threshold for consumption-based poverty is a challenge—for example, when the authors equate the consumption and official poverty rates in 2015 and then apply their techniques backward, they find that nearly 40 percent of Americans were poor in 1980, and nearly 60 percent were poor in 1960. Those levels are too high to be a meaningful indication of overall hardship in those years. Similarly, the 3 percent figure touted by the CEA for 2016 is too low.

Further, crossing a given consumption threshold does not mean you have the power and control over your resources and life to not be “poor.” Exposing yourself or your children to a potentially abusive situation just to have a roof over your head or trading sex for food or income might keep you out of consumption poverty, but you are still poor.

The role of antipoverty programs
Although it’s too soon to declare the War on Poverty over, it is important to recognize the progress we have made and the important role our antipoverty programs such as SNAP and EITC have played in that success. Use of a consumption-based poverty measure should neither lead to a misguided belief that the War on Poverty has been won nor justify making major changes—however well intentioned—to safety net programs that risk cutting people off from the very programs that have kept them out of poverty.

Well-designed reforms that help recipients overcome their barriers to work, supplement and support their efforts to work, and recognize that some recipients will be limited in the amount and type of work they can do can help us make even more progress against poverty.

[wdmso]

Paul in Jims world view

If there is any poverty then any program which try’s to stop it has failed

It’s the same with Covid , cancer , education , mask , vaccines,

Unless these changes or ideas are made by the GOP then they are considered benevolent and worthily of the effort to irradicate them

Like voter integrity laws , Tax cuts , Jan 6th , Trump himself , Abortion

[wdmso]

The Florida Department of Health has placed a top official on administrative leave after he criticised staff over their vaccination rate.


In an email on 4 January, Dr Raul Pino called unvaccinated staff members "irresponsible" and wrote "we are not even at 50% - pathetic".
Legislation passed in Florida late last year prohibits employers, public and private, from mandating jabs.

Don’t see and mandating in that email

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporar...ailure-report/


And from a different article.
Earlier this month, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) declared that the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Although it is premature to declare an outright and absolute victory, it’s great that policymakers at the highest level of government recognize that our social safety net programs are working.

But if we are to continue to reduce hardship and promote mobility from poverty through access to good jobs, work and other means, we have to understand the nature of poverty today. It's important that we draw the right lessons from the past so we don’t underestimate our current challenges and cede our hard-won progress in the War on Poverty.

Let’s start with the good news in the CEA report: material well-being in the United States has improved considerably. The poverty rate has also declined over the last few decades, although you wouldn’t know it if you looked just at the official poverty rate, which has not fluctuated greatly since the 1960s, ranging from 10 to 15 percent.

The official poverty rate draws a threshold based on food consumption patterns from the 1950s and considers only pretax cash income as available resources. Consequently, the official poverty rate understates both the needs of today’s families and the resources available to them. In fact, two of our largest sources of support to low-income families—the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—don’t count in our official poverty measure.

Recognizing the limitations of the official poverty measure, the Census Bureau developed a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) in 2009 that better captures needs and resources.

When researchers extended the SPM back in time, they found that the poverty rate dropped from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012 and to about 14 percent in 2016, more accurately capturing poverty’s downward trend than does the official poverty measure. In addition, without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.

Limitations of a consumption-based poverty rate
The “too good to be true” news from the CEA is that the poverty rate declined from 30 percent in 1960 to just 3 percent in 2016 when applying a “consumption-based” poverty measure, which measures what a family consumes instead of how much income it earns. A consumption-based poverty measure has some merit. After all, a family with no income but substantial assets would be considered “income poor” but could be consuming at comfortable levels.

Because there is no official measure of consumption-based poverty, the CEA relies on the work of economists Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan. To develop a consumption-based poverty rate, Meyer and Sullivan need accurate data on consumption and a meaningful standard for how much a family needs to consume to have a minimally adequate standard of living. Some scholars have expressed concerns about the data Meyer and Sullivan use to construct their consumption-based poverty rate.

Those concerns aside, the consumption-based poverty rate from Meyer and Sullivan that the CEA cites is indexed to 1980, an arbitrary threshold that might understate the hardship and need families experience today. Using this measure allows the CEA to suggest that poverty isn’t much a problem in the US today.

Drawing a meaningful threshold for consumption-based poverty is a challenge—for example, when the authors equate the consumption and official poverty rates in 2015 and then apply their techniques backward, they find that nearly 40 percent of Americans were poor in 1980, and nearly 60 percent were poor in 1960. Those levels are too high to be a meaningful indication of overall hardship in those years. Similarly, the 3 percent figure touted by the CEA for 2016 is too low.

Further, crossing a given consumption threshold does not mean you have the power and control over your resources and life to not be “poor.” Exposing yourself or your children to a potentially abusive situation just to have a roof over your head or trading sex for food or income might keep you out of consumption poverty, but you are still poor.

The role of antipoverty programs
Although it’s too soon to declare the War on Poverty over, it is important to recognize the progress we have made and the important role our antipoverty programs such as SNAP and EITC have played in that success. Use of a consumption-based poverty measure should neither lead to a misguided belief that the War on Poverty has been won nor justify making major changes—however well intentioned—to safety net programs that risk cutting people off from the very programs that have kept them out of poverty.

Well-designed reforms that help recipients overcome their barriers to work, supplement and support their efforts to work, and recognize that some recipients will be limited in the amount and type of work they can do can help us make even more progress against poverty.

“the war on poverty is over and a success.”

Paul, i can find someone who will
write that i am the spitting image of Brad Pitt and post it. That doesn’t make it so.

You’re waaay too smart to believe that. Take a drive through bridgeport or hartford, tell
me we successfully won the war on poverty. Ask any public schoolteacher in any urban school if poverty has been defeated.

I’ve lived in CT my whole life. The cities are far worse today, then when i was a kid. And they keep getting worse. They keep getting worse, because of fatherlessness and culture. Lack of money has almost nothing to do with it. You don't fix a broken culture by mailing out bigger and bigger welfare checks.

If I post an article from someone saying that Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg was a success, that doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Paul in Jims world view

If there is any poverty then any program which try’s to stop it has failed

It’s the same with Covid , cancer , education , mask , vaccines,

Unless these changes or ideas are made by the GOP then they are considered benevolent and worthily of the effort to irradicate them

Like voter integrity laws , Tax cuts , Jan 6th , Trump himself , Abortion

my worldview…

the poorest sections of our big cities, are way worse today than 25 years ago. No comparison. there’s literally no comparison. Fatherlessness and drugs.

what’s my view on cancer wayne?

all i’ve ever said about cancer, is that biden explicitly promised we’d cure it, on the condition that he got elected. Well, he won. He’s got three years to make good.

What did i say in that paragraph, that you could say is incorrect?

Covid? Probably chinas fault, not anything that any president could have done much differently. it’s not trumps fault, it’s not biden’s fault. But Again, biden promised to beat the disease, but the numbers are worse than last year. And that’s not biden’s fault, it’s the pandemic. As TDF said, blame mother nature. But Biden promised to beat it, and it’s fair to hold him accountable for that promise.

Trump promised to build the wall and he didn’t, and i have criticized him here many times for failing to deliver on that promise. He gets a big, fat, F on that. Similarly, i criticize biden for promising to cure cancer and promising to beat covid.

Tell me, where is the hypocrisy, when i consistently and accurately criticize both presidents for failing to deliver on promises?

Biden’s promise to cure cancer, is exploiting people who are at the most desperate and vulnerarable situation that a human being can be in. it’s reptilian to try and exploit that desperation for personal gain. And that’s exactly, precisely what biden did. It does t matter if that hurts your political narrative, what matters is that’s what happened.

i can criticize republicans and democrats. you can only criticize republicans, you can only praise democrats.

Wayne, you keep defending democrats from every single criticism. Why does every poll, as well as the election results in VA and NJ, clearly suggest that America doesn't like what liberals are doing? Are the polls wrong in your opinion? If the midterms were held today, what do you really, honestly think would happen?

The polls are miserable for democrats. How does that happen, especially when every single TV station except foxnews, and all of academia, constantly pushes the notion that liberals are good and conservatives are evil?

Biden said yesterday he couldn't name one single thing that conservatives stand for. Seriously? Well he's on the path to learning a very very stark lesson in November. A lot can and likely will happen between now and then, if covid peters out and they can et a grip on inflation without causing a recession, that will be a real feather in his cap. But if the midterms were today, the democrats would get annihilated. They almost lost NJ, and NO ONE was talking about that.
There's a reason for that. I'm very curious to know what you think the reason is. Racism?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1220972]

“the war on poverty is over and a success.”


without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.....



if solving poverty is measured by the making people more and more reliant on government handouts and services in order to escape poverty and less reliant on themselves....

then I guess you could consider the left's war on poverty a success....great job!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Florida Department of Health has placed a top official on administrative leave after he criticised staff over their vaccination rate.


In an email on 4 January, Dr Raul Pino called unvaccinated staff members "irresponsible" and wrote "we are not even at 50% - pathetic".
Legislation passed in Florida late last year prohibits employers, public and private, from mandating jabs.

Don’t see and mandating in that email

I agree with you on vaccines, I think people are being dumb. But if you're a state official, and you cross the governor (even if the governor is wrong, as I believe Desantis is getting it wrong on vaccine, which is a big thing to be wrong on), you're going to get booted.

Maybe the state of FL could learn how to tolerate dissenting opinions from democrats, who are being so very tolerant of Manchin and Sinema right now. Right?

Maxine Waters went on TV, and said Manchin and Sinema don't care about black people. You don't have chit to say about that, that's fine with you.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“the war on poverty is over and a success.”

Paul, i can find someone who will
write that i am the spitting image of Brad Pitt and post it. That doesn’t make it so.

You’re waaay too smart to believe that. Take a drive through bridgeport or hartford, tell
me we successfully won the war on poverty. Ask any public schoolteacher in any urban school if poverty has been defeated.No One said it was "defeated". You said a "reduction".


I’ve lived in CT my whole life. The cities are far worse today, then when i was a kid. And they keep getting worse. They keep getting worse, because of fatherlessness and culture. Lack of money has almost nothing to do with it. You don't fix a broken culture by mailing out bigger and bigger welfare checks.

If I post an article from someone saying that Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg was a success, that doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better.

"No One said it was "defeated"

You quoted this..."the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Maybe I misinterpreted that, fair enough.

"Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better."

Not a chance. Sure, you can play with what defines "poverty" and come up with a statistic that shows that fewer people are below it, and maybe (hopefully) things like life expectancy are better for poor people today than they were 50 years ago. And maybe "poor people" today are more likely to have air conditioning, cell phones, material things I guess. And hopefully more have access to healthcare.

But again, I lived just outside of New Haven for decades, and worked in downtown Hartford for almost 15 years. Today, those places look like they can't be in America, you'd swear you were in Haiti or Somalia.

I don't think you'd find a single public schoolteacjher who has spent decades in a big city, who'd say that the socioeconomics of their students is better today than 35 years ago.

The quality of life enjoyed by our poorest children, will move in almost exact correlation with the rates of fatherlessness in those communities. As fatherlessness has exploded, so has the socioeconomic quality of life deteriorated.

Id actually love to see a poll done by all the teachers in the biggest cities who have bene there for decades, to comment on whether they see improvements or deterioration.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better.

this is correct, we have color tv instead of black and white

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1220981]

The quality of life enjoyed by our poorest children

/QUOTE]

parents won't feed them... poverty is so good these days that schools must feed them breakfast and lunch every day including summer or they would starve to death

did poor parents feed their kids back in the 60's or did they just starve to death on the street?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"No One said it was "defeated"

You quoted this..."the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Maybe I misinterpreted that, fair enough.

"Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better."

Not a chance. Sure, you can play with what defines "poverty" and come up with a statistic that shows that fewer people are below it, and maybe (hopefully) things like life expectancy are better for poor people today than they were 50 years ago. And maybe "poor people" today are more likely to have air conditioning, cell phones, material things I guess. And hopefully more have access to healthcare.

But again, I lived just outside of New Haven for decades, and worked in downtown Hartford for almost 15 years. Today, those places look like they can't be in America, you'd swear you were in Haiti or Somalia.

I don't think you'd find a single public schoolteacjher who has spent decades in a big city, who'd say that the socioeconomics of their students is better today than 35 years ago.

The quality of life enjoyed by our poorest children, will move in almost exact correlation with the rates of fatherlessness in those communities. As fatherlessness has exploded, so has the socioeconomic quality of life deteriorated.

Id actually love to see a poll done by all the teachers in the biggest cities who have bene there for decades, to comment on whether they see improvements or deterioration.

You said a reduction in poverty and I showed you there has been a reduction in poverty.

N.H. is far better than it was in the past (and I lived in the NH area for years). Hartford too (I worked there 20 years). Parts of America (Kent, WV, Appalachia, Miss. etc) had no sewers, running water, electricity and people lived in tin huts. Schools are better for those people. Food security is better.