Why Is Mommy A Democrat?

[Nathan]

Wait... since when do Democrats have children?

[XIX]

Was the squirrel pro-animal rights?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1436867' date='Dec 20 2007, 11:36 PM']Did you want me to read something by Charles Murray to educate myself? Would that be this Charles Murray or another one? Please, I would like to know.
[b]Murray, Charles[/b]
4 [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=3#roles"]institutional roles[/url] for $564,431

Charles Murray, one of the chief ideologues of the right, is a Bradley Fellow at the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=19"]American Enterprise Institute[/url], and has close connections to the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=198"]Manhattan Institute[/url], where he was a Bradley Fellow from 1981 to 1990. He has received more than [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/grantsearchresults.php?searchString=Charles+Murray"]$1 million[/url] from the [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1"]Bradley foundation[/url] over the past decade, enabling him to write two important conservative books, [i]Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980[/i] (1984), in which he argued that social programs designed to help the poor actually hurt them, and [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=8"]The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life[/url] (1994), in which he argued that Black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. Both books were roundly criticized by reviewers and social scientists, but had broad impacts in the popular press and, in the 1980s, in the Reagan and Bush administrations.

One good critique of Murray is[url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=8"]The Bell Curve: Roadmap to the "Ideal" Society[/url], a full chapter from [url="http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=6"]The Feeding Trough[/url], and is available on this web site in its entirety.

A full debunking of [i]The Bell Curve[/i] by Nicolas Lemann is available at [i]Slate.com[/i], or by clicking [url="http://slate.com/?id=2416"][b]here[/b][/url]. It reveals mathematical errors, logical errors, and the misuse of statistics (i.e. the purported "IQ" test actually has questions on subjects as involved as Trigonometry, thus measuring educational attainment, not innate intelligence).

Stephen Jay Gould, author of the 1981 bestseller "The Mismeasure of Man," added a chapter in the 1996 reprinting of his book, specifically dedicated to critiquing [i]The Bell Curve[/i]. Anyone seriously interested in Murray should read this book. To get a flavor of what Gould has to say, take a look at the outline of his critique:

<H2 style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.8em; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">THE BELL CURVE</H2>[list]
[*]Disingenuousness of content
[*]Disingenuousness of argument
[*]Disingenuousness of program
[*]GHOSTS OF BELL CURVES PAST
[/list]This critique puts [i]The Bell Curve[/i] in its proper perspective as one in a long line of attempts by whites of European descent trying to find a genetic basis for their supposed superiority over other races and peoples.

In 2007 he said that Jews have many more members who have higher I.Q.'s genetically speaking compared to others. Hmmmm Still on that I.Q. by race. Doesn't say much for the 60% of welfare recipients. Oh, those would be the white ones.

I think I would prefer to get my statistics from someone other than an employee of a right wing think tank. Might just be a tad bit of bias in their writing.

His book on poverty covered a period up until 1980 so would be a bit out of date. Might try something a little more contemporary than 27 years ago. The welfare system now does not even resemble what was around then. I know. I started in welfare in 1981.

I certainly did not take pot shots at your mommy. I am sorry if you thought I did. My mom grew up dirt poor in Wisconsin as a child in a family of ten. The silver spoon reference was directed to people who maybe are your age or mine?

What this whole debate has drawn from is your comment, may I remind you:

..."Because "Mommy"'s a lazy welfare-dependent bisexual crack-addict silly sally who aborted all her other kids, and wants Uncle Sam to subsidize all her various vices?"

That comment was definitely not in keeping with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the teachings of Jesus Christ, Democrats and would be most likely found coming out of the mouth of some stereotypical white trash red-neck who hasn't spent more than one day out of the mountains but, who may or may not be a crack addict.

That's all folks![/quote]
Red Herring and muddying the water.

I was not discussing the book, [i]The Bell Curve [/i](I haven't read it, and somehow I doubt you have, but I've heard it's often misrepresented). In anycase, it has nothing whatever to do with my points about the wastefulness of welfare spending. If you want to discuss the claims of [i]The Bell Curve[/i], please kindly start another thread to do so.
If you can provide some counter-statistics to prove the claims about welfare false, feel free to do so.
However, providing someone else's attacks on another book on an unrelated topic is irrelevent.
And, using your own methods, I could just as easily dismiss Dr. Gould's attacks on Dr. Murray, as Dr. Gould was known as a rather virulent anti-Christian atheist.
(However, Gould's atheism would be just as irrelevent to this debate as are his attacks regarding [i]The Bell Curve[/i].)

In the meantime, it seems my original remarks are being taken out of context, and getting blown out out of proportion. It was intended as a facetious and sarcastic remark regarding a book pushing left-wing Democrat ideology on young children, and concerned at a fictional character in said book. As Norseman pointed out, it was intended to embody some of the despicable policies of the Democratic Party, not attack the character of any real person.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1437016' date='Dec 21 2007, 10:52 AM']The point isn't about having been a victim of a crime. The point is that the odds of being a victim of one is very slight and living your life in a state of paranoia isn't really living your life. You perceive things based on what you see on the news and see crime everywhere.

The point is that if you have never even known someone who was gay, you can invent them into your mind as some horrible demon.

The point is that if you don't have any interaction with the poor or know anything about the details of their life or growing up, you don't see them as people, you see them as abortion having, crack addicts sucking off the system.

The point is that if you grow up in a nice house with all your needs met and a good school and money for college, you do not always see that someone who was born into nothing, with uneducated parents, moving every four months, no stable schooling etc., may just need a little help from society.

My brothers would never be with me to stop a mugging. They don't go to clubs downtown or there to eat, camping in the wilderness or anyplace where it might be dangerous. I don't really need a man or a gun to protect myself. I work downtown and I know how to talk to people who approach me on the street. Be not afraid actually is very sound advice.[/quote]
I rarely watch the news. However, I personally have been the victim of multiple crimes - car burglarly and several petty thefts, as well as almost losing all my earthly goods (or even killed had the cops not woken me up and evacuated me in time) in an apartment fire that was the result of arson (though I was not the direct target). And I personally know plenty others who have been victims of various crimes of varying degrees of seriousness. Unfortunately, it's hardly a rare thing.
And, while obviously I do not know your brothers, I do not personally live my life in fear and paranoia. However, I do (as do most people) take basic cautions like keeping my car and home locked up, and keeping a weapon handy. It's not paranoia, it's basic common sense - better safe than sorry. And if anything, I think I tend to error on the careless side.

And, while I don't personally, I know someone who regularly carries a pistol in public, and people routinely actually thank him for it, saying it's good to know that there's a good guy around who's armed, just in case something happens.

Exactly what all this has to do with caring for the poor, though, is beyond me.

While you're quite fortunate to never have been a victim of crime, and I pray this continues to be the case, I have a feeling that if you ever happened to be the victim of crime you'd change your tune pretty fast.
And you speak almost as though you think people only are crime victims by their own fault (if you just know how to talk to people on the street, you'll be ok). That, of course, is not the truth.

There's no need to live one's life in fear, but there's nothing wrong with taking basic precautions to protect oneself and goods, and there's no need whatever to look down on those who do as being somehow cowardly or morally inferior.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1436873' date='Dec 20 2007, 09:45 PM']I'm honestly not sure what the point of all this is.
If you had happened to be the victim of a crime, would you see things differently?

I don't consider myself to have lived an excessively "tough" life, yet I've been the victim of crime several times (mostly petty thefts, though once someone broke into my parked car and stole a couple thousand bucks worth of stuff, apparently after burglarizing a nearby house).
And once while living in the left-wing wonderland of downtown D.C., all those sharing an apartment I was renting were burglarized but me (not having the small electronics they were stealing).
I keep my 12 gauge on hand at night, just in case.

Crime happens, of course, and is not just some right-wing paranoid fantasy.
Maybe if someone did try to mug you, and one of your gun-toting brothers happened to be on hand to save you, you might thank and appreciate them, rather than dismissing their crazy "paranoia."

Afterall, they say a "neoconservative" is a "liberal who got mugged."[/quote]
Jesus was unarmed and look what happened to him! Imagine if he had only had a 12 gauge...

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1438777' date='Dec 27 2007, 02:05 AM']Jesus was unarmed and look what happened to him! Imagine if he had only had a 12 gauge...[/quote]
And Jesus told His Apostles to buy swords. (Luke 22:36)

Your point being?

[Didacus]

It is your moral duty to defend yourself and preserve your own life.

[Deb]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1439170' date='Dec 28 2007, 02:12 PM']It is your moral duty to defend yourself and preserve your own life.[/quote]


Defend your life? Maybe I can see that. Defend your stereo? I think not.