Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I certainly hope someone has a plan for these unborn. Republicans hate welfare. wonder if these same people are going to step up and help these mothers pay the bills. Kids aren’t cheap.
I am pro-life. I also support programs even beyond the ones we have to help those on the lower rungs.
Better access for further education. For child care. For better pay.
Really? Dependence on government is not slavery? When you are purposely kept dependent, that's not slavery?
When's the last time a mother bundled up her infants in the dead of night in the winter to "escape" the brutalities of section 8 housing, a medical card and SNAP benefits? No it's not slavery.
****TRUMP**** 2020
The more you do the stronger we get !
The Economy is set to *BOOM *
More than 70 stock records *SMASHED*
illegal immigration near historical* lows*
Obama *Snare* defunded , ...more
VOTE ROY MOORE.. GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY, **AMERICAN JOBS ****MADE IN U.S.A******
I don't understand why we even debate this anymore. Everybody except minorities loved the 50s. Why care about the plights of others if it benefits you. Right??? Roy Moore and Trump ARE the Republican party....
Agree it always seems to be a pragmatic starting point of inquiry to ask, 'Cui bono?' (literally "for whose benefit?")
Consider it pragmatic to also ask who were 'minorities' in the 50s? Hardly the statistical 'minority' both then & now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I also notice they never provide context for anything. They'll take some statement completely out of context and use it to serve their purpose.
The contextual clues, both then & now, are revealed when the de facto treatment of 'minorities' are not rationally considered but dismissed; it's ridiculous on a few different levels.
Well, Trump is, anyway. Moore has not yet gone to Washington.
And Trump's presidency is the reason Democrats will remain a minority for some years to come. Democrats pretend to be compassionate and tolerant, and to care deeply about social issues. But they don't really care, and they don't fool very many people.
This not the 50s. No one needs to be punished for it, anymore.
Apparently they still fool LOTS of people, Many folks on here actually believe 'their people' do not engage in the same type of behavior, or that they care one bit about a adult having sexual relationships with an underage girl...they could not care less about this when it involves a seat in Govt power.
I think if we knew the whole extent of how much they truly do not care about the public, most of us would probably band together and remove them ALL from power by force.
He was referring to a period in our history---not specifically about slavery. I missed the part where he was telling an African American about this.
Can't convince you, but most people don't wake up every morning and think about slavery. Growing up, I never had slaves, but it's still going on in East Africa and regions of the Middle East.
How about redirecting your anger toward something that's actually happening now, instead of harping about the White boogeyman.
He was referring to time in American history when women could not vote or own property, Blacks were slaves and often sold and sent away from their families, children were used as labor, and men had multiple mistresses.
However, I think this is the real reason Moore thought highly of this time period:
Quote:
Age of Consent
"During the 19th century, the age of consent in the United States varied between 10 and 16, depending on the state and year. The age of consent was the age when it was determined that a boy or girl -- but most often, a girl -- was capable of consenting to any sexual activity."
He was referring to time in American history when women could not vote or own property, Blacks were slaves and often sold and sent away from their families, children were used as labor, and men had multiple mistresses.
However, I think this is the real reason Moore thought highly of this time period:
It was also a time when the economy was partially dependent on child labor - not much quality family time when children were working 12 hours a day, six days a week:
Quote:
During the period of Industrialization child labor was the norm. Child labor made up 20% of the workforce. Their parents had no choice to send them to work as their meager wages helped to support the families. The working children had no time to play or go to school, and little time to rest. The prevalence of child labor in America meant that the poor could not receive an education to enable them to get better, skilled jobs. Children were deprived of a decent education and entered the spiral of poverty from which there was no escape for the growing number of unskilled and uneducated workers.
● How long did children work and what were they paid? The typical hours of work lasted from sunrise to sunset, 11 or 12 hours per day, six days a week. They had less than one hour break in their working day.
● How much did they earn? They earned an average weekly wage of one dollar.
● How old were the children? Some were employed in child labor as young as five years old and were paid low wages until they reached the age of sixteen
● According to the 1900 US Census, a total of 1,752,187 (about 1 in every 6) children between the ages of 5 and 10 were engaged in "gainful occupations" in the United States of America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.