TexasCHLforum.com

Slowplay wrote:

rwg3 wrote:Your posts are vociferous and dogmatic but they are consistent and seem to express your beliefs. It is obvious you are not a troll and Bless your Heart, you go right on espousing your views of what is the way to run the country. Not everyone will agree with you but some will read your thoughts. In attempt to gain a balanced perspective some will also read other sources. Doesn't make either side wrong, just different. It would be a pretty boring place if they throttled all differences.

rwg3, well, Bless your Heart but Heartland Patriot never suggested Huffington Post should be "throttled," only made note of the OP's cited article.

This thread seems to be an extremely weak attempt at setting a trap. The OP suggests that 'conservatives wanting to punish single & divorced parents' might "bring back family values." How anyone could believe the OP is legit is beyond me...

Thank you.

bayouhazard wrote:I say get rid of subsdies. Income tax should be based on you income, not whether you're a single mom.

If people can't afford kids without subsidies (welfare by another name) then they shouldn't have ANY.

There, I fixed that for MY reading enjoyment.

For the record, I never even said I supported that bill...I merely pointed out that by posting it, in my opinion, the OP did so only to cause exactly what ensued...and, when I pointed that out, I got jumped.

Fine, no problem...I admit that I am just a dirty grease-monkey mechanic, a dogmatic, teabilly peasant (bless my heart) clinging to my guns and religion in flyover country, and not a wise, learned, erudite scholar of the finest mind who cares only about guiding the ignorant masses to the light of mighty Karl's utopia, where all will be covered by his blessed beard of forced sharing...I humbly bow before all those who, with their mastery of debate and sophistry, are above us mere peasants ...now, if you'll deign to pardon me, I'll go back to busting my knuckles turning wrenches as befits my lowly station in life, I beg a thousand pardons for intruding upon so high-minded a discussion...allow me to back out, tugging my fetlock as I go...all praise the Glorious Leader, may his evil increase!

Heartland Patriot wrote:For the record, I never even said I supported that bill...I merely pointed out that by posting it, in my opinion, the OP did so only to cause exactly what ensued...and, when I pointed that out, I got jumped.

Fine, no problem...I admit that I am just a dirty grease-monkey mechanic, a dogmatic, teabilly peasant (bless my heart) clinging to my guns and religion in flyover country, and not a wise, learned, erudite scholar of the finest mind who cares only about guiding the ignorant masses to the light of mighty Karl's utopia, where all will be covered by his blessed beard of forced sharing...I humbly bow before all those who, with their mastery of debate and sophistry, are above us mere peasants ...now, if you'll deign to pardon me, I'll go back to busting my knuckles turning wrenches as befits my lowly station in life, I beg a thousand pardons for intruding upon so high-minded a discussion...allow me to back out, tugging my fetlock as I go...all praise the Glorious Leader, may his evil increase!

Wow. What's with the 'woe is me' pity party? I don't see how you got "jumped". I just called you out on the massive stretch in your interpretation of my comment earlier. If you want to get all up in arms over it, so be it. But I don't see any reason for your response.

stroo wrote:Kudos to the single mothers out there who have raised successful kids. You have probably done one of the most difficult thing possible.

However you are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. Studies have demonstrated that the fastest way to poverty is either to be a single mother or to be born to single a single mother. Studies have also demonstrated that children of single mothers tend to have more problems than children in two parent families. Those really aren't opinions, they are fairly well proven.

Studies demonstrate a lot of things that time proves untrue. While there is little doubt that a functional two parent home is the best thing for a child, if you have two parents who are at each others throats all the time, that is extremely damaging. I'd also say that in my experience I've met just as many defective people from two parent homes as I have single parent homes.

stroo wrote:Having said that, government, and certainly not the kind of law cited above, is not the answer. Nor do I know what the answer is anymore. Community and shame used to limit the numbers of single parents. Neither works any more. Perhaps preaching is all we have left.

This statement bothers me the most. Can you explain to me why "shame" should work anymore? Or maybe what place it might be of yours to "preach" at anyone? It's one thing to say that you don't think single parenting is good, or that you think it's bad for the kids. It's another to think that shaming people is an effective answer. The reality of how and why shame "used to work" probably led to more abuse in households than we have today. But because there was that shame people didn't talk about it. You didn't escape your abusive spouse you simply accepted it and then in a lot of cases passed it down the line to the kids or drank yourself into a stupor to the point that you might as well be absentee. Our society is rife with these stories. Our most basic freedoms are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Shaming people into sticking around in broken or abusive relationships short circuits all three.

Personally, I think that instead of browbeating people who live a lifestyle that we don't like we ought to be "preaching" the benefits of a functional relationship. If you want to stem the tide of single parents try educating people about the difference between love and lust.

I don't mean this as an attack, I simply have very strong feelings about this. I grew up in a single parent home, and while we certainly had our share of dysfunction my father did the best job he knew how to do, and when that seems to be questioned (even indirectly) it raises my ire.

I personally believe we need far less government in our personal lives not more...

That about sums it up.

"Nanny" government programs, such as this, makes my blood boil.

Here is the proposed bill, to put the level of insignificance in perspective:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/r ... sals/sb507

Huffington post and democraticunderground shining a national spotlight on this insignificant proposed Wisconsin bill is just another diversionary tactic. However, some people seem to be going after it just like a pet chasing a laser pointer.

Kabong30: Your post pretty much demonstrates why shame doesn't work anymore. No one is ashamed of anything they do anymore. That's primarily because we have separated shame from wrongdoing. That is one of our society's failures.

While it is great that you, I and others have turned out great with single parents, you agree that "there is little doubt that a functional two parent home is the best thing for a child". If that's the case, why wouldn't we as a society want to do whatever would work to encourage that. The fact is that today we have an epidemic of single parents mostly single mothers. In the black community it is over 50% and in the white community it is about 30% and rising. And it is caused primarily by premarital or extramarital sex. I don't think ultimately you stop that until people, both men and women, believe it is wrong and are ashamed of engaging in the behavior.

Kudos to your dad for raising you. He did a good job. After my Dad died when I was 12, I was raised by my then single Mom as well. She did the best she could but I know there are things I missed because my Dad was gone. A single mother or a single father just can't, no matter how hard they try, be both a mother and a father.

I have not been preaching here but why can't I preach outside this forum. Has the 1st Amendment been repealed? My right to Free Speech is as important to me as my right to Bear Arms. I have every right to preach if I want to. And frankly traditional morality, social studies, and the Bible give me plenty of reason to preach on this issue.

Heartland Patriot wrote:For the record, I never even said I supported that bill...I merely pointed out that by posting it, in my opinion, the OP did so only to cause exactly what ensued...and, when I pointed that out, I got jumped...

HP, for the record I agree and agreed with you.

Oldgringo wrote:

If people can't afford kids without subsidies (welfare by another name) then they shouldn't have ANY.

There, I fixed that for MY reading enjoyment.

Having kids when you know you can't afford to feed them? That sounds like abuse right there.

I just want to point out that my original post is sarcasm. But the fact is this is the kind of thing the GOP has come to stand for. I would love it if they made this a national issue. As far as what they want to regulate from sex to marriage to healthcare, this is just as valid as their other points. The problem is they are basing their beliefs off some bronze age book and it is only serving to further the Democratic party.

Slowplay wrote:Here is the proposed bill, to put the level of insignificance in perspective:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/r ... sals/sb507

Huffington post and democraticunderground shining a national spotlight on this insignificant proposed Wisconsin bill is just another diversionary tactic. However, some people seem to be going after it just like a pet chasing a laser pointer.

Why? This is what the GOP wants to pass into a law in some states. They say that Wisconsin and the Mdwest are trial states for Conservative legislation they wish to take nationwide, just as California and New York are for liberal legislation.

Only someone who is afraid to talk about it would suggest that proposed laws are diversionary tactics. Similar to the DADT policy being repealed and this whole contraception issue.

For those caught in the trappings of this world, I will share a portion of a message I sent to a good man:

Some would say that it is important that one is a Democrat. Others would say that no, he should be a Republican. Still others would plead that men and women should be a member of this group, or that religion, or an upper economic station, but the real truth is this: The measure of a man is his service to his fellow man, his ability to make society and a little bit of the world a better place just by his existence.

For those who have not yet realized this, I hope for your arrival to this thought. For once there you will see the world in a truly different light and will know a peace and contentment within yourself.

sugar land dave wrote:For those caught in the trappings of this world, I will share a portion of a message I sent to a good man:

Some would say that it is important that one is a Democrat. Others would say that no, he should be a Republican. Still others would plead that men and women should be a member of this group, or that religion, or an upper economic station, but the real truth is this: The measure of a man is his service to his fellow man, his ability to make society and a little bit of the world a better place just by his existence.

For those who have not yet realized this, I hope for your arrival to this thought. For once there you will see the world in a truly different light and will know a peace and contentment within yourself.

I'm working on it.

Oldgringo wrote:I'm working on it.

Indeed!