Can I get a genuine citation for this? I see it claimed all the time but never where the data actually comes from.
Also I cannot really agree with any rationale for denying benefits to single-parent homes regardless. I mean what are you going to do, force the mother and father to have a stable relationship?
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I really don't think that I need to drag in a peer-reviewed journal study to prove that children do better growing up in a stable (key word there) two-parent household.
And as for denying benefits to single-parent homes, this is the first time I've ever heard of that.
I would certainly say you do. It's often claimed as a fact and if it's not one, that changes things entirely. If you're going to just claim it's common sense, I'd have to disagree.
I would honestly think the stable is way, way more important than the two-parent.
And as for denying benefits to single-parent homes, this is the first time I've ever heard of that.
It happens, or more accurately, it is made significantly harder to get said benefits.
edit: I should actually note that I'm speaking solely from personal experience there and thus do not know if that is still the case. It may well not be, but I'm quite aware of the runaround my mother had to go through to get me medical coverage when I was a child. Namely, the difficulty she had in proving that I was actually my father's child.
On a more general level, there's also a pretty frequent demonization of single mothers as inherently irresponsible parents. That is not necessarily Republican rhetoric, but it is certainly Moral Conservative rhetoric.
--- caution the following post begins with the words 'to be fair' ---
to be fair, the whole 'republicans are evil and democrats are good but they are just blocked from doing what they want by the evil republicans' thing is pretty bad and is as much of a misconception as the belief that republicans just want whats best for ARE COUNTRY and JOB CREATORS and whatnot. the vast vast majority of the american public is being misled on some level, and i hate to say it, but both sides are just about as bad as each other and there is no real lesser of two evils, for me, if i was an american voter.
then again i watched an American Green Party advert the other day and it was cheesy and contrived as fuck, like 'wow look at all these confident sounding people saying they will vote Green', 'wow listen to the candidate say the word "bullshit" in a way that does not at all sound like an uncomfortable and contrived publicity stunt attempt', so yeah w/e i dunno cant you guys just tear up the constitution and start again
--- caution the following post begins with the words 'to be fair' ---
to be fair, the whole 'republicans are evil and democrats are good but they are just blocked from doing what they want by the evil republicans' thing is pretty bad and is as much of a misconception as the belief that republicans just want whats best for ARE COUNTRY and JOB CREATORS and whatnot. the vast vast majority of the american public is being misled on some level, and i hate to say it, but both sides are just about as bad as each other and there is no real lesser of two evils, for me, if i was an american voter.
yeah. :/
Immana vote for Obama just because of LGBT stuffs.
Single parents get tax benefits, I believe. It does not change the fact that there seems to be this mindset among Republican dudes that single mothers are bad and it is their fault and stuff. The same kinds of guys who blame women for being raped and such. Perhaps I am seeing things from an extreme minority or something, and this is not representative of Republicans?
What you're saying is parroted bullshit.
Republicans don't have the mindset that single mothers are bad. They just think the traditional two-parent family is better.
Republicans don't blame women for being raped. Nobody in their right minds blame women for being raped. Because one person in a group might say something as mindless (or close to it) does not mean he speaks for the entire group.
What you are doing is making the same sweeping generalizations that everyone accuses the GOP of making.
Immana vote for Obama just because of LGBT stuffs.
i find this officially "fair enough"
if you can't vote for who is better, vote for where your interests lie; it's what everyone else is doing, anyway. (either that or giving money to/lobbying where their interests lie)
My understanding of the situation that affected me personally is that in order to get certain benefits (mostly relating to childcare payments and medical coverage) you have (or had, again I'm not sure if this is still the case) to be able to conclusively prove that you and your former partner were actually together for a period of time (though I don't think it required that you actually have been married).
Republicans don't have the mindset that single mothers are bad. They just think the traditional two-parent family is better.
Republicans don't blame women for being raped. Nobody in their right minds blame women for being raped. Because one person in a group might say something as mindless (or close to it) does not mean he speaks for the entire group.
i know i've seen republicans who have said those things
Remember: every stereotype garners a whole bunch of people who try to be that.
Republicans don't blame women for being raped. Nobody in their right minds blame women for being raped. Because one person in a group might say something as mindless (or close to it) does not mean he speaks for the entire group.
i just went and found this. it happened yesterday. what we have there is a judge - appointed by a republican governor - who is literally blaming a woman for being sexually assaulted
no, not all republicans blame women for being raped. but when you're willing to vote in someone who'll appoint people like this to run the justice system and real crucial parts of the country... i dont get it. i dont get why you would do that
Frankly (and I realize this is a controversial statement on this forum especially) I don't think there are really any positives to drinking that can't be replicated with other things. Unless you consider the act of getting drunk istelf a positive in which case....well, your liver, man.
He will not be required to register as a sex offender, according to the sentence.
wat
"If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you," Hatch said.
Hatch told the victim and the defendant that no one would be happy with the sentence she gave, but that finding an appropriate sentence was her duty.
"I hope you look at what you've been through and try to take something positive out of it," Hatch said to the victim in court. "You learned a lesson about friendship and you learned a lesson about vulnerability."
i just went and found this. it happened yesterday. what we have there is a judge - appointed by a republican governor - who is literally blaming a woman for being sexually assaulted
no, not all republicans blame women for being raped. but when you're willing to vote in someone who'll appoint people like this to run the justice system and real crucial parts of the country... i dont get it. i dont get why you would do that
I can't tell you what Arizona voters were thinking when they elected the guy. In fact, I can't tell you exactly what the hell is going on in that state right now. Arizona has been the most volatile state these past four years.
Frankly (and I realize this is a controversial statement on this forum especially) I don't think there are really any positives to drinking that can't be replicated with other things. Unless you consider the act of getting drunk istelf a positive in which case....well, your liver, man.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
It's weird to me that Texas remains the go-to "lol look at them backwards conservatives" state when Arizona seems so much worse...
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
That's AriZona, silly.
I always wondered why they capitalize the brand name that way.
why are there so many terrible female republicans in arizona
They serve their purpose
If you ever want to run interference against a bunch of liberals, just say "Palin" and they'll lose their fucking minds right on the spot
And the thing is I'm not even joking on this. A while back Reddit set up a month-long policy that you simply couldn't mention "Palin" because that was figuratively the same as yelling "fire" in a theater.
From what I understand, Thatcher draws a similar reaction over in your area of the world. I blame misogyny, pure and simple (see, we can play these underhanded cards too.)
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
The only thing I honestly know about Palin in regards to politics is she was the Governor of Alaska at one point and she's a female Republican. I don't even know how well she did at the job. I've never heard anyone actually discuss how effective she is as a politician. All I know is the left treats her with an unparalleled disdain because she's horrible. Just look at her! Can't you see the horribleness too?
Frosty: I think what Forsythe is saying is that people are more likely to pick on Palin just because she's a woman, and the conservative agenda is at least stereotypically considered very male-centric.
Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and it was illegalized in the first place due mostly to racist sentiment about a "foreign" substance that black people were smoking.
I would genuinely like to see a source for that second part. I've heard the whole "Hearst illegalized it because hemp was gonna kill teh paper industriez!!1" before, but that's a new one to me.
As for "less harmful than alcohol". That is a completely meaningless statement. Perhaps, on a strictly chemical level, yes. Maybe. Maybe. But when you're claiming that it's "less dangerous", that does not account for the bevy of stupid things people under the influence of marijuana do. For that matter, statistics about alcohol rarely account for things done under the influence of that. Saying any one drug is "less dangerous" than any other is just sort of pointless unless you have somehow measured every possible minutiae, and no one ever has. Furthermore, that's just a bad argument. I could pretty easily claim cocaine is less dangerous than heroin (and hell, maybe it is). Does that make doing cocaine somehow a smart thing to do? The point is not "pot is less bad than alcohol so pot should be legal". That just doesn't make sense.
Also for the record, depending on where you're getting your pot from it can be, chemically, way, way worse for you than alcohol. If anything, the only reason marijuana should be legalized is so that it can at least be regulated effectively. Because it is very much not, right now.
[furthermore, I honestly think that quite a lot of people only support legalization because they feel they're expected to as a liberal]
People can only have sex after they are married! You can pray the gay away! Yes Palin is awful, sorry.
If you think that a person's opinion on personal matters such as this gives you license to to judge them as awful, you're going to walk a very lonely road through life. If she was pushing this as legislation, that's different. If you can show me where she was pushing either of these as actual legislation (rather than holding a personal opinion) then I'll agree with your assessment.
Much as I like to push nonjudgmentalism, it would admittedly be quite hard for me to get along with someone who I knew thought homosexuality was a curable condition. Curable via praying no less.
Could I tolerate them in the sense that I could not be a dick to them? Absolutely. I doubt I'd ever be anything resembling their friend, though.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Well, what about the conflicted people who, for instance, want to live a puritanical Christian/Muslim/Etc lifestyle but are troubled by their sexual orientation? Are they bad for this? If they go seeking the guidance of a pastor who instructs them how to settle this in a spiritual matter, is said pastor bad too?
Really, what is anyone supposed to do in this situation?
We Catholics believe homosexuality is a sign from God that you should be celibate, which doesn't seem too bad to me.
I never believed that even when I was Catholic. Furthermore, if that's official dogma that's some news to me, because I was certainly never taught that (of course, if you're an Old Catholic, than official dogma doesn't matter anyway. Aren't religious sects fun?).
Consider who you're claiming to speak for before you say things like "we Catholics". Also celibacy sucks, but that's another matter entirely.
People can come to their own conclusions regarding their orientations, I got no problem with that. That said, I haven't heard of anyone attempting to become anything other than what they started out with orientation-wise successfully, so if I were to talk to such a person I'd advise them to come to terms with it rather than attempting to suppress it.
Now, Mrs. Palin talking about her gay friend's "Choice" on national television?
Not a lot of things get me angry, but that does it.
Comments
quoting this for sweet and hilarious truth
I think the logic is "2 parent homes are more likely to be stable, and thus should be encouraged"
I would certainly say you do. It's often claimed as a fact and if it's not one, that changes things entirely. If you're going to just claim it's common sense, I'd have to disagree.
I would honestly think the stable is way, way more important than the two-parent.
It happens, or more accurately, it is made significantly harder to get said benefits.
edit: I should actually note that I'm speaking solely from personal experience there and thus do not know if that is still the case. It may well not be, but I'm quite aware of the runaround my mother had to go through to get me medical coverage when I was a child. Namely, the difficulty she had in proving that I was actually my father's child.
On a more general level, there's also a pretty frequent demonization of single mothers as inherently irresponsible parents. That is not necessarily Republican rhetoric, but it is certainly Moral Conservative rhetoric.
--- caution the following post begins with the words 'to be fair' ---
to be fair, the whole 'republicans are evil and democrats are good but they are just blocked from doing what they want by the evil republicans' thing is pretty bad and is as much of a misconception as the belief that republicans just want whats best for ARE COUNTRY and JOB CREATORS and whatnot. the vast vast majority of the american public is being misled on some level, and i hate to say it, but both sides are just about as bad as each other and there is no real lesser of two evils, for me, if i was an american voter.
then again i watched an American Green Party advert the other day and it was cheesy and contrived as fuck, like 'wow look at all these confident sounding people saying they will vote Green', 'wow listen to the candidate say the word "bullshit" in a way that does not at all sound like an uncomfortable and contrived publicity stunt attempt', so yeah w/e i dunno cant you guys just tear up the constitution and start again
yeah. :/
Immana vote for Obama just because of LGBT stuffs.
i find this officially "fair enough"
if you can't vote for who is better, vote for where your interests lie; it's what everyone else is doing, anyway. (either that or giving money to/lobbying where their interests lie)
My understanding of the situation that affected me personally is that in order to get certain benefits (mostly relating to childcare payments and medical coverage) you have (or had, again I'm not sure if this is still the case) to be able to conclusively prove that you and your former partner were actually together for a period of time (though I don't think it required that you actually have been married).
or
http://www.last.fm/group/G-A-Y
heres an example of something
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_0aa8be56-f7a3-11e1-b804-0019bb2963f4.html
i just went and found this. it happened yesterday. what we have there is a judge - appointed by a republican governor - who is literally blaming a woman for being sexually assaulted
no, not all republicans blame women for being raped. but when you're willing to vote in someone who'll appoint people like this to run the justice system and real crucial parts of the country... i dont get it. i dont get why you would do that
Frankly (and I realize this is a controversial statement on this forum especially) I don't think there are really any positives to drinking that can't be replicated with other things. Unless you consider the act of getting drunk istelf a positive in which case....well, your liver, man.
@SunshineWerewolf wow this woman is an ass.
wat
I am officially disgusted.
you know what the real kicker is? it's not even a guy
the judge who said those things is a woman
Arizona seems to be kind of a shitty place to live right now.
Especially if you're an immigrant. Legal or otherwise.
the governor is also a woman
why are there so many terrible female republicans in arizona
Bitch please.
I would genuinely like to see a source for that second part. I've heard the whole "Hearst illegalized it because hemp was gonna kill teh paper industriez!!1" before, but that's a new one to me.
As for "less harmful than alcohol". That is a completely meaningless statement. Perhaps, on a strictly chemical level, yes. Maybe. Maybe. But when you're claiming that it's "less dangerous", that does not account for the bevy of stupid things people under the influence of marijuana do. For that matter, statistics about alcohol rarely account for things done under the influence of that. Saying any one drug is "less dangerous" than any other is just sort of pointless unless you have somehow measured every possible minutiae, and no one ever has. Furthermore, that's just a bad argument. I could pretty easily claim cocaine is less dangerous than heroin (and hell, maybe it is). Does that make doing cocaine somehow a smart thing to do? The point is not "pot is less bad than alcohol so pot should be legal". That just doesn't make sense.
Also for the record, depending on where you're getting your pot from it can be, chemically, way, way worse for you than alcohol. If anything, the only reason marijuana should be legalized is so that it can at least be regulated effectively. Because it is very much not, right now.
[furthermore, I honestly think that quite a lot of people only support legalization because they feel they're expected to as a liberal]
Much as I like to push nonjudgmentalism, it would admittedly be quite hard for me to get along with someone who I knew thought homosexuality was a curable condition. Curable via praying no less.
Could I tolerate them in the sense that I could not be a dick to them? Absolutely. I doubt I'd ever be anything resembling their friend, though.
I never believed that even when I was Catholic. Furthermore, if that's official dogma that's some news to me, because I was certainly never taught that (of course, if you're an Old Catholic, than official dogma doesn't matter anyway. Aren't religious sects fun?).
Consider who you're claiming to speak for before you say things like "we Catholics". Also celibacy sucks, but that's another matter entirely.
Now, Mrs. Palin talking about her gay friend's "Choice" on national television?
Not a lot of things get me angry, but that does it.