Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61
  1. #51  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    And I'm speaking specifically here, not a general "we". How should NJCardFan fix Camden or Trenton? How should I fix Compton?
    NJCardFan is doing the best he can. Trying to convince these shitbags he works around that there's nothing wrong with an honest living. But what happens when one of these scumbags leaves Lanie's corrective prison services? 3 months out, he stabs a puppy to death and shoots 2 cops. Another, breaks into a woman's house, beats her in front of her young daughter, and robs her. Another, gets high, jacks a car, gets into a shootout with police, and gets shot. Another gets out, waves a gun around outside of a bar, gets shot by police, dies. Another gets out, commits the same crimes he committed the first time. He's back at my jail. Shall I go on or is the point made?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,748
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    NJCardFan is doing the best he can. Trying to convince these shitbags he works around that there's nothing wrong with an honest living. But what happens when one of these scumbags leaves Lanie's corrective prison services? 3 months out, he stabs a puppy to death and shoots 2 cops. Another, breaks into a woman's house, beats her in front of her young daughter, and robs her. Another, gets high, jacks a car, gets into a shootout with police, and gets shot. Another gets out, waves a gun around outside of a bar, gets shot by police, dies. Another gets out, commits the same crimes he committed the first time. He's back at my jail. Shall I go on or is the point made?
    Well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    NJCardFan is doing the best he can. Trying to convince these shitbags he works around that there's nothing wrong with an honest living. But what happens when one of these scumbags leaves Lanie's corrective prison services? 3 months out, he stabs a puppy to death and shoots 2 cops. Another, breaks into a woman's house, beats her in front of her young daughter, and robs her. Another, gets high, jacks a car, gets into a shootout with police, and gets shot. Another gets out, waves a gun around outside of a bar, gets shot by police, dies. Another gets out, commits the same crimes he committed the first time. He's back at my jail. Shall I go on or is the point made?
    That's why I said that one of my first acts as Duke of Dunipace, Marquess of America, and abiding patriotic son of the forefathers would be to execute everyone currently in prison with a sentence of ten years or more and/or a remaining sentence of ten years or more. Get a nice fresh start. Worry not, you'll still have a job. You will just have a lot more time to spend rehabilitating the ones we actually have a chance of rehabilitating. Oh, and caning will be permitted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    That's why I said that one of my first acts as Duke of Dunipace, Marquess of America, and abiding patriotic son of the forefathers would be to execute everyone currently in prison with a sentence of ten years or more and/or a remaining sentence of ten years or more. Get a nice fresh start. Worry not, you'll still have a job. You will just have a lot more time to spend rehabilitating the ones we actually have a chance of rehabilitating. Oh, and caning will be permitted.
    Permitted? Some people pay quite a bit for it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Permitted? Some people pay quite a bit for it.
    ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Wow. Where to start?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I think welfare needs reforming. I think it should be about financial need, not about whether you're a single parent or not. I do think single parents should be given more consideration, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be considered.
    When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Subsidizing single parenthood has resulted in massive increases in illegitimacy since the first AFDC programs under Johnson's Great Society. The last welfare reform of the 90s significantly reduced both the number of people receiving welfare and the poverty rates. The more that you spend on poverty, the more of it you get.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Now, ask yourself why they're not considered? Is it not because conservatives are screaming that they're all lazy and shouldn't get help?

    Who is more likely to advocate that there be an expansion? Liberals.
    No, liberals expand welfare to everybody. Their goal is to create dependency and perpetuate it. Trayvon's girlfriend couldn't read, hold a job or raise responsible children, but she could sure vote, and that's the only thing that progressives expect from the underclass that they have created.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Who is more likely to advocate helping the single parent get job training so they can get off of welfare? More than likely liberals. Who will advocate cutting money to such programs? Probably conservatives. Who has pushed to make sure that non-custodial parents have to pay welfare? Who pushes for tougher penalties if they don't? Liberals. Actually, there's a judge in my county who is ALWAYS sympathetic toward a parent who won't pay child support or who in other ways mistreats their children or is a danger to them. Would you like to know what she is? A conservative. A conservative who claims God is why she's a judge. She really is sick in the head. To be fair, conservatives do speak out against her. It hasn't been enough to get her fired or voted out though.
    The federal government has literally hundreds of job training programs, with massive redundancies, and yet they never seem to produce qualified job applicants. And the reason that we need these programs is that they have become remedial education for people who have been failed by public schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Oh, and let's go further. Who fought for laws against abusing one's spouse and kids? Liberals. Who always speaks out against it when presented? Conervatives (because it will supposedly lead to a witch hunt). So, I guess since more people can leave their abusers, we can blame liberals. Good point.
    WTF are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    The problem with the good old days where things were supposedly more moral is that people could abuse at a whim and get away with it. There was no way of proving somebody was the father of a child if he knocked a girl up. He got away with calling the girl a slut and never taking responsibility. I consider a lot of that to be the fault of conservatives and their obsessive need to never have any type of change. It doesn't occur to them that some changes are for the better. Yeah, some people abused those changes. It doesn't mean those changes shouldn't have been made.
    The problem isn't that people abused the changes, it's that some of those changes shouldn't have been make because they were based on inherently false premises. Black poverty was lower prior to the Great Society than it is now. Thomas Sowell has written extensively on this, and you won't like the factual analysis, but here it is:

    War on Poverty Revisited
    THOMAS SOWELL (2004.08.17 )
    August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning points in American social history. That was the date on which President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his “War on Poverty” program in 1964.

    Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions.

    The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

    In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

    Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

    The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the “root causes” of crime and creating new “rights” for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

    The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

    Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.

    Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs.

    For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: “Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly.”

    That is completely false and misleading.

    The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not — repeat, did not — accelerate during the 1960s.

    The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

    In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

    While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s.

    But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal assumptions — “two Americas,” for example — are being recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade the “liberal” label.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,806
    Reading Sowell, you almost get the idea that the War on Poverty was a way to stop the black trajectory towards wealth and self-determination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Reading Sowell, you almost get the idea that the War on Poverty was a way to stop the black trajectory towards wealth and self-determination.
    It was. LBJ was a vicious racist. He found black self-empowerment incredibly threatening to the Democratic Party and its southern power base, and sought to corrupt and undermine it with programs that created dependency. It worked brilliantly, and the end result is an impoverished, ignorant underclass that votes in lockstep with Democrats and sees any attempts to liberate them as racism. Johnson created a system that not only re-enslaved black America, but made them welcome their chains.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    It was. LBJ was a vicious racist. He found black self-empowerment incredibly threatening to the Democratic Party and its southern power base, and sought to corrupt and undermine it with programs that created dependency. It worked brilliantly, and the end result is an impoverished, ignorant underclass that votes in lockstep with Democrats and sees any attempts to liberate them as racism. Johnson created a system that not only re-enslaved black America, but made them welcome their chains.
    Ody, Johnson had to get a whole Congress to agree with him. (And I know he was a big deal maker and intimidator, but nonetheless...) On top of that, he lost the Southern white Democrat support for himself and future Dems. This is why I don't think this was partisan.

    Let me put it this way: the power establishment in this country has the goal of creating dependency in everyone, insuring that they will not be able to create wealth. (One look at the laws strangling small business makes it clear that the establishment doesn't truly want independent wealth creation for Americans.) The War on Poverty seems to have been the beginning of a larger plan, one which is now culminating in Obamacare--that of creating such dependence on the government by law that there is no way out unless you already possess extraordinary wealth.

    Starting with blacks makes sense if you assume that the entire power structure is either racist or saw the black community as a chance to experiment with the idea of creating subservience (or both). They took the MLK 1963 speech and used it as a springboard for legislation that subsidized societal flaws, like fatherless families. It was hugely expensive, especially with the escalation of Vietnam--hence the "guns and butter" debates of the era. As the program actually creates poverty in the long term, the only excuse for the huge expense is the maintenance of power by a white elite, or the beginnings of a power grab by the elite that will eventually include all of us in the net. I tend toward the latter.

    Add to the War on Poverty the unleashing of prisoners (see Sowell above), making cities less safe, the urban "riots" accompanied usually by fire, and you have the flight of the middle class out of the cities into suburbia, which had only been invented after WWII and popularized in the 1950s. This was the beginnings of the urban hellscape. The transformation of urban gangs into "drug gangs" began in this era as well, but got a turbo boost in the late 70s/early 80s with the running of cocaine and crack cocaine through urban centers like LA.

    Yes, this guaranteed that 70% of black America would be living in hellish and dependent conditions, but remember the other "social programs" of the era, like student loans, which have become the #1 noose of debt around the necks of the college educated middle class. Now there is Obamacare, which is its own land of no-escape. I do not believe Harry Reid when he tells his base that Obamacare was about getting to "Single Payer"; they wouldn't have gutted Medicare if that were the case. I believe Reid is just trying to keep the lefties from jumping ship now that they are starting to see what a disaster lies in wait. I think Obamacare will stay as structured, with the individual mandate as its centerpiece. (Notice everything else has been delayed or modified except that.) The goal is to create one big Company Store, with the government as the Company, though specific things may be outsourced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #60  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,806
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ly-beaten.html
    Pictured: The teens who 'beat WWII vet, 88, to death with flashlights in random attack in parking lot

    • Delbert Belton, 88, was set upon in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge in Spokane, Washington on Wednesday night
    • He died on Thursday morning in hospital after being admitted with serious head injuries
    • His daughter-in-law says doctors said he was found bleeding from all parts of his face
    • Demetrius Glenn, 16, arrested and charged with first-degree murder
    • Police are searching for second suspect, Kenan Adams Kinard, 16
    • Glenn has long juvenile criminal history and will be tried as adult in Belton's slaying
    • Adams Kinard was convicted of theft and assault in June


    By James Nye

    A second teenager accused of taking part in the deadly beating of a World War II veteran in Washington state has been named following the arrest of his alleged accomplice.

    Thursday night, police arrested Demetrius Glenn, 16, in connection to the slaying of 88-year-old Delbert Belton, who was savagely beaten with flashlights in the parking lot of his regular bar in Spokane on Wednesday.

    Belton, who was shot in the leg during the pivotal battle of the Pacific campaign, passed away from serious head injuries Thursday at Sacred Heart Medical Center in the city.

    Friday afternoon, authorities named a second suspect in the killing, identified as 16-year-old Kenan Adams Kinard. He currently remains at large.

    Police told Belton's daughter-in-law, Bobby, that he was beaten with heavy flashlights in the assault which left him bleeding 'from every part of his face'.

    Witnesses to the attack said that Belton, who was going to play pool, was outside the Eagles Lodge at around 8pm when two male suspects set upon him.

    A friend said the veteran had just pulled up and was waiting for a female friend so she didn't have to walk in alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •