The Goat Pen

yeah, I'm pretty black and white on this. no compromise

negative trillion dollars a year in government spending means the way the government is doing it, it ALL must be ended

innocentbystander wrote:yeah, I'm pretty black and white on this. no compromise

negative trillion dollars a year in government spending means the way the government is doing it, it ALL must be ended

Romney ain't ending shit concerning bloated government.

My concern is not that you're black and white on issues, its that you think your beliefs are conservative. Alas, they are just modern era Republican .

eCat wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:yeah, I'm pretty black and white on this. no compromise

negative trillion dollars a year in government spending means the way the government is doing it, it ALL must be ended

Romney ain't ending shit concerning bloated government.

My concern is not that you're black and white on issues, its that you think your beliefs are conservative. Alas, they are just modern era Republican

whatever my beliefs are, they are NOT Goldwater, NOR are they Bob Dole, John McCain, or Reagan.

they are Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Willard Mitt Romney. and you bet your ass Romney is ending bloated government

If a single woman is in a family way and she has no money and the man who knocked her up abandoned her, she goes away to a home for wayward girls (provided by a charity, not government) and she gives the baby up for adoption.

That was me. Born in Kathern Booth Hospital for Women in 1968. Her folks sent her down here from Celina. She cared for me every day until I was adopted 2 months later. What are you actually saying IB? My father was an Army man for 15 years. I grew up knowing how to make a bed.

innocentbystander wrote:

eCat wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:yeah, I'm pretty black and white on this. no compromise

negative trillion dollars a year in government spending means the way the government is doing it, it ALL must be ended

Romney ain't ending shit concerning bloated government.

My concern is not that you're black and white on issues, its that you think your beliefs are conservative. Alas, they are just modern era Republican

whatever my beliefs are, they are NOT Goldwater, NOR are they Bob Dole, John McCain, or Reagan.

they are Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Willard Mitt Romney. and you bet your ass Romney is ending bloated government

Romney is a liberal from Massachusetts. Read that like 6 times and go back and read the last part of your sentence above.

Jungle Rat wrote:
If a single woman is in a family way and she has no money and the man who knocked her up abandoned her, she goes away to a home for wayward girls (provided by a charity, not government) and she gives the baby up for adoption.

That was me. Born in Kathern Booth Hospital for Women in 1968. Her folks sent her down here from Celina. She cared for me every day until I was adopted 2 months later. What are you actually saying IB? My father was an Army man for 15 years. I grew up knowing how to make a bed.

I'm saying Rat, that you are the very good man you are today BECAUSE your unmarried birth mother gave you up for adoption. Steve Jobs was not an aberation.

eCat wrote: wow

ok I'm done

I've learned over the years that some learn, some don't, never will and don't ever want to. I'll pick my battles with those who'll benefit.

Maybe I'm the one who doesn't learn, because here I go again...


You realize Steve Jobs' sister (who was not given up for adoption) is a very accomplished writer? Stop dumbing things down. Steve Jobs was an aberration because he was a college drop out who created a huge global corporation. That simply doesn't happen often and it was due to a lot of fortuitous breaks, help from outside forces and his own internal drive (and a bit of self-absorption and anti-social emotional psychosis). I don't know where the adoption played into that, but it can not be boiled down to just that fact of his life.

Bklyn wrote:Maybe I'm the one who doesn't learn, because here I go again...


You realize Steve Jobs' sister (who was not given up for adoption) is a very accomplished writer? Stop dumbing things down. Steve Jobs was an aberration because he was a college drop out who created a huge global corporation. That simply doesn't happen often and it was due to a lot of fortuitous breaks, help from outside forces and his own internal drive (and a bit of self-absorption and anti-social emotional psychosis). I don't know where the adoption played into that, but it can not be boiled down to just that fact of his life.

And I'm saying he would not have had that internal drive had he not been put up for adoption. You can think whatever you want.

So, how does that explain the drive of those raised in single family homes? How does that explain the drive of Jobs' sister? Are you saying that she could've had her own global business if her mother was only wise enough to give the daughter up like she did the boy that was born?

Bklyn wrote:So, how does that explain the drive of those raised in single family homes? How does that explain the drive of Jobs' sister? Are you saying that she could've had her own global business if her mother was only wise enough to give the daughter up like she did the boy that was born?

I'm saying that single mom's raising their own children is entirely selfish because it puts their children at a decided disadvantage. That disadvantage could range from NO disadvantage at all (possibly Steve Jobs' sister), to drastic/life-damning to the point of incarceration. If you look at our prison population and see the alarmingly high percentage of those convicts who were raised by single moms, you would know what I mean.

The evidence is there. The data is in, we have almost 50 years of it. There is no benefit (absolutely none) to single moms raising their own children as opposed to putting them up for adoption. In some cases, the adoption may not have had any positive overall affect on a child's future, but it can't hurt. Being raised by a single mom could (and often does) hurt a child's future.

The reasons why so many single mom's are choosing to raise their own children (as opposed to doing what they should be doing) is motivated by money. They are paid by government to do so. Take that financial incentive away, and it would be an overall positive affect for those children born illegitimately as there would be millions of adoptions within our own country (instead of forcing those unfortunate married couples who can't conceieve to import their children from China, Russia, or Guatamalla at a great cost.)

My position = little to no government intervention. That is a conservative position.

That is actually a liberal position, or at least it was until the modern political parties managed to co-opt it and apply it to the spectrum only as it pertains to personal liberties and certain moral stances.

See, I am with you on the disadvantage of being raised in a single family home. It is a HUGE determinant on so many factors, from income level, educational accomplishment and overall health. No dispute there.

However, if we go back to your original statement about women and divorcing mates (not women having children out of wedlock), you were terribly wrong. Most of them (by a wide margin) are not relying on government assistance. I think the number is roughly over 85% of single mothers via divorce are working, without subsidized housing or other government entitlements (MedicAid, food stamps, etc). I would argue that we spend more on agri-subsidies and corporate welfare than on govt assistance to the impoverished.

You somehow went from originally railing on easy divorce into the issue of single mothers not giving their child up for adoption (which you somehow believe will lead to immediate and easy adoption...ignoring the state of the foster system and wards of the state not matched with a permanent home). Those are totally different things. You slide between points, ignoring some of the more sticky realities...or (worse) being 100% wrong on those realities. Anyway, your original point (I'm actually guessing, because you have moved the goals a lot), that the ease of divorce is somehow a noticeable factor in our government budget woes is not accurate. Your assertion that a single parent household is not the optimal environment to raise a family is accurate. It's not a death knell (just like being raised in a two parent house means you'll grow up to be stable and productive), but it isn't the best route in a perfect world.

I just think you are taking the easier route, ignoring the complexity of these things.

The historical origin of modern government is despotism, absolutism, tyranny, more government power if not necessarily centralized. Ergo more conservative, meaning wanting less change, should by default be a position that fights against a move away from government power and control.

Liberalism is advocating change in government and should be about less government power, less government interference, more personal freedoms based on where we bagan.

innocentbystander wrote:

Jungle Rat wrote:
If a single woman is in a family way and she has no money and the man who knocked her up abandoned her, she goes away to a home for wayward girls (provided by a charity, not government) and she gives the baby up for adoption.

That was me. Born in Kathern Booth Hospital for Women in 1968. Her folks sent her down here from Celina. She cared for me every day until I was adopted 2 months later. What are you actually saying IB? My father was an Army man for 15 years. I grew up knowing how to make a bed.

I'm saying Rat, that you are the very good man you are today BECAUSE your unmarried birth mother gave you up for adoption. Steve Jobs was not an aberation.

Honestly you are making not a lick of sense.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.

I am a liberal.

Bklyn wrote:See, I am with you on the disadvantage of being raised in a single family home. It is a HUGE determinant on so many factors, from income level, educational accomplishment and overall health. No dispute there.

However, if we go back to your original statement about women and divorcing mates (not women having children out of wedlock), you were terribly wrong. Most of them (by a wide margin) are not relying on government assistance. I think the number is roughly over 85% of single mothers via divorce are working, without subsidized housing or other government entitlements (MedicAid, food stamps, etc). I would argue that we spend more on agri-subsidies and corporate welfare than on govt assistance to the impoverished.

You somehow went from originally railing on easy divorce into the issue of single mothers not giving their child up for adoption (which you somehow believe will lead to immediate and easy adoption...ignoring the state of the foster system and wards of the state not matched with a permanent home). Those are totally different things. You slide between points, ignoring some of the more sticky realities...or (worse) being 100% wrong on those realities. Anyway, your original point (I'm actually guessing, because you have moved the goals a lot), that the ease of divorce is somehow a noticeable factor in our government budget woes is not accurate. Your assertion that a single parent household is not the optimal environment to raise a family is accurate. It's not a death knell (just like being raised in a two parent house means you'll grow up to be stable and productive), but it isn't the best route in a perfect world.

I just think you are taking the easier route, ignoring the complexity of these things.

I admit I was jumping all over the place, moved the goal posts.

When I get home tonight from work and I can concentrate on point, I will try and tie all this together.

Please don't.

Jungle Rat wrote:Please don't.

No I will because his response was so thoughtful and patient. He's trying to be patient with me so the least I can do is try and tie things up a little better. It makes for a good board and a good discussion.

See Hedge, this is how conversations are supposed to go. I don't need your malignant narcisism.

Yes, this is exactly how "conversations" always go when you're involved, you fucking idiot. In case you didn't notice (and clearly, you didn't, in typically hilarious yet pathetic fashion, which is, again, the norm whenever you are involved), this is not a conversation, it's everyone (and I do mean everyone) shaking their heads at your dumb ass. You are literally one of the top 3 (or rather, bottom 3) fucknuts that I and everyone else has EVER encountered on the internet. klaatu was another one, and that jackass from south Florida who posted pictures of his garage and kidney-shaped swimming pool with handmade posters directed at Rat was the other. But you are solidly in their sorry class. You are truly a clueless asshole jackass whose skull I would LOVE to stomp into the sidewalk. I swear to god, I would love to murder your sorry ass. Seriously, I would love to torture you, slowly, and then kill you. I really do hate the cancer on the face of humanity that you represent and are even proud of being. You are truly a bloat on the face of this earth. Please die....