View Full Version : Marriage as Bedrock of Soceity?
gimmethesimplelife
9-5-18, 10:21am
Just curious, do you see marriage as the bedrock of society? At the age of 51 it seems to me that in my youth marriage was considered this way. But today in this day and age I've really sensed a marked shift in this line of thinking...….what's your take on this? Rob
Teacher Terry
9-5-18, 10:24am
Yes things have changed. I find it interesting that young people think it’s a bigger commitment to get married than to have kids. They often have kids first and then decide if they want to marry. Something is seriously wrong with that line of thinking. Thankfully none of my kids or step kids have done that.
I'm not sure what "bedrock" constitutes, but in my opinion an involved citizenry is the basis of a healthy society. We're all in this together.
Teacher Terry
9-5-18, 10:28am
Rob, you misspelled society.
Yes things have changed. I find it interesting that young people think it’s a bigger commitment to get married than to have kids. They often have kids first and then decide if they want to marry. Something is seriously wrong with that line of thinking. Thankfully none of my kids or step kids have done that.
This trend has been going on for awhile in Scandinavia, and seems to work out OK there. https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide In other countries, not so much.
I think that healthy, functioning family units are the bedrock of society. Marriage is simply a commitment between two adults to support each other and their offspring, so it's an important element.
Unfortunately, commitment has become passé and the bedrock is crumbling, support has been transferred to the public sphere rather then the personal and society is worse for it.
There’s pros and cons to both marriages and bedrocks. Sometimes an earthquake is a good thing - relieves some pressure before it explodes.
I can think of a lot of factors that strengthen a country--a healthy, educated citizenry that works together for the common good, a clean environment...Strong marriages and partnerships certainly play a part, especially where children are involved, but I don't believe they necessarily constitute a foundation. (And Tammy has a point--rigidity tends to shatter when tested.)
I can think of a lot of factors that strengthen a country--I think there's a huge difference between a country and it's society, which I believe is personified by its prevailing culture. I think strong families are the bedrock of culture.
iris lilies
9-5-18, 11:54am
Yes things have changed. I find it interesting that young people think it’s a bigger commitment to get married than to have kids. They often have kids first and then decide if they want to marry. Something is seriously wrong with that line of thinking. Thankfully none of my kids or step kids have done that.
Agreed.
well, children are appendages to a lifestyle, women can have it all, dont need no steenkin’ man, etc.
Never mind what children need, it is about what the adults want.
If children come into the world with parents who are indifferent to their basic well being, they have a strike against them already. I remain convinced that the best parenting decision one will ever make is the choice of a partner with whom to reproduce.
ApatheticNoMore
9-5-18, 12:04pm
It's better to raise kids in a functional committed relationship, ok really even a somewhat bad relationship is frankly probably better for the kids than divorce (but not necessarily for the adults).
But it's not the only thing that can go wrong in a family/in childhood. And it's definitely not the only thing that can go wrong in society.
I've heard things like child abuse have gone down over time. If so, that is one thing getting better.
Teacher Terry
9-5-18, 12:36pm
I stayed in a bad marriage for my kids. Left a month after the youngest was 18 and out of high school. The kids as adults have thanked me for staying.
If you look at the people being accused of being "privileged" or "opportunity hoarders", you are generally looking at the elements of society where the old bourgeois values still prevail. Raising children in stable families is a big part of that. So is a certain respect for education and willingness to delay gratification for a longer term benefit.
I remember some professor saying that in an op-ed not too long ago and getting widely and viciously attacked by people who felt such ideas are somehow racist or elitist.
Yes things have changed. I find it interesting that young people think it’s a bigger commitment to get married than to have kids. They often have kids first and then decide if they want to marry. Something is seriously wrong with that line of thinking. Thankfully none of my kids or step kids have done that.
I find this way of thinking interesting as well. Probably 15 years ago, I worked with a 20-something gal who had been with her guy for a few years. She had just had their first child. I asked her if they were thinking about marriage. She replied that she didn’t know him well enough to get married. Or something along those lines. She didn’t have an answer when I commented that she knew him well enough to have a baby with him. They had been living together for much of their time as a couple.
I just don’t get it.
I find this way of thinking interesting as well. Probably 15 years ago, I worked with a 20-something gal who had been with her guy for a few years. She had just had their first child. I asked her if they were thinking about marriage. She replied that she didn’t know him well enough to get married. Or something along those lines. She didn’t have an answer when I commented that she knew him well enough to have a baby with him. They had been living together for much of their time as a couple.
I just don’t get it.
I agree it's strange. Maybe it's because psychologically, without the constraints of society these days coupled with a profound naivete about how children change your life, maybe these "kids" feel that commitment with marriage is boxing them in, but having a kid is somehow different. I truly don't think people know HOW much children change your life, so they go into as if they're getting a puppy. I've seen it with my two children who now have children (they were conventionally married first--maybe Son #1 a little less conventionally, however..), and I remember how gobsmacked I was the first few months after giving birth with my first.
Isn't the idea to get young men married off to keep them sexually satisfied and out of trouble, and to get young women married off to give their families relief from supporting them? That was the "traditional" model anyway.
iris lilies
9-5-18, 2:43pm
Isn't the idea to get young men married off to keep them sexually satisfied and out of trouble, and to get young women married off to give their families relief from supporting them? That was the "traditional" model anyway.
I dont find this to be a very thoughtful or insightful post.
Despite the protests of women, they havent been chained to providers for at least least three generations (looking at my own family as example.) No one needs to have children if they dont wish it. Young women in cities are now making more money than young men, they can support themselves.
I continue to wonder why those in my gender continue to blame the patriarchy and society for choices they themselves have clearly made. Choosing to have children with no committed partner seems like another stupid self selection, poor struggling single mom.
Cannot agree that marriage is the bedrock of society. There are too many alternatives to the public declaration that is marriage which seem to work rather well. I think committed families are important, socially, economically, psychologically, etc. But that family can take many forms: married-in-church-babies-came-second; long-term partners raising kids (sometimes from previous relationships); "two dads" or "two moms"; or even single parents who have the deep and steady involvement of other (generations of) relatives or friends (the "village" that raises a child).
I'm hesitant, though, to just call this an issue of semantics between the word "marriage" and other descriptors. Because I really think the bedrock of society is justice along with a dedication to achieving that to the highest degree possible for everyone. Furthering the species and not soiling where you live are, to me, "just do it" behaviors, not chosen behaviors which form the foundation of a society.
I thought I was thinking, but perhaps you know better. :~)
I just noted the traditional underpinning of marriage, which has persisted for millennia. Clearly a standard I don't adhere to, as I've never married, had children, or required another's support as an adult. (Parenthetically, I know more financially dependent woman than not.) You can certainly avoid the patriarchy* in your personal life, if not in society in general.
*I worked with a woman who was told by a lender she would need her father's signature to buy a house in the mid-seventies, and I'm sure this kind of stricture persisted far longer in places like Louisiana, with their archaic traditions of governance, so I think your "three generations of independent women" history is a bit of an aberration. I'm the first generation in my family to support myself, for example.
I think the bedrock is a successfully functioning extended family. I'm thinking of the adults I've seen who are all doing well but can provide an occasional safety net to each other in the event of short-term job loss, or provide free/cheap babysitting, or trade larger household items with each other including hand-me-down objects that are still useful, or help get someone a job, or provide temporary housing, etc.
How many of the adults are in a traditional marriage doesn't seem as important as whether the members are each committed to the safety and well-being of the "tribe" so to speak. (of course, this includes healthy boundaries when there are members who are otherwise capable but unwilling to do their share and only want to be takers from the tribe.) Maybe this is a traditional large family, or tribe of friends, or neighbors. Maybe the tribe changes over time.
But I think the stress on a married couple, especially younger ones raising kids or older couples taking care of both elders and kids, can be greatly alleviated by extended family.
Miss Cellaneous
9-5-18, 4:37pm
While marriage has been held out as the ideal, especially for women, society also has benefited from single women--"spinsters" and widows. I'm not talking about the past 20 years or so, but historically through the ages.
Some families designated one daughter to remain single and care for the parents in their old age. Many "maiden aunts" lived with married siblings and provided childcare, extra help during harvest time, an extra pair of hands to cook and sew and clean in the times when all of that had to be done by hand.
Single women often were the bedrock of church volunteers, when the church was an integral part of the community.
Now, I'm not saying all these single women were happy about being single. And society certainly looked down on many of them for being single. But it is because they were single that they could provide the extra help that families needed to survive.
Children deserve stability, men and women and extended family committed to their well-being and to staying around. There is much more than that involved with the foundation/bedrock of society, IMO.
My aunt who never married, but worked full time as a teacher and summer jobs too, was continually volunteered for everything at her church. Because she didn’t have children. But somehow those stay at home moms weren’t volunteered cause they were caring for a few kids all day. My aunt was caring for 30 kids all day.
The injustice of it annoys me to no end.
Teacher Terry
9-5-18, 8:05pm
Your aunt should have learned to say no.
iris lilies
9-5-18, 8:08pm
Your aunt should have learned to say no.
Gosh, that is what I thought of immediately. Grow some damn balls, women!
My aunt who never married, but worked full time as a teacher and summer jobs too, was continually volunteered for everything at her church. Because she didn’t have children. But somehow those stay at home moms weren’t volunteered cause they were caring for a few kids all day. My aunt was caring for 30 kids all day. The injustice of it annoys me to no end.
I hear ya! My first 2 years in the OR I got all the holiday call, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter....all of it! I complained to my boss and said "enough"! "But you don't have kids". "Well last I checked my parents did". I'm done covering every damn special day. I'll take 1 thank you. (I started days after my 20th birthday. It took awhile to find my voice in the club). oh, and we never had kids but were/are still after 30y committed to our marriage.
I think the overall lack of commitment is a real problem in this country. Marriage seems to be feared. I realize it is a piece of paper ultimately and meaningless without a commitment and that many people have no bother getting rid of it through divorce. And yes, I understand that it is best to leave a marriage when the partner isn't equally committed-no one needs to be a doormat and a batting practice.
The demise of marriage in this country makes me sad.
I agree with others that children need a village and the foundation of 2 involved parents.
I have no answers just sadness that marriage seems unimportant to so many. And at the same time has become hugely revered and desired by same gender couples :-)
Bedrock? I dunno. Family foundation? Yes.
Oh she said no a lot. And they kept asking her to do everything so she said yes sometimes. For 50 years. 🤪
While marriage has been held out as the ideal, especially for women, society also has benefited from single women--"spinsters" and widows. I'm not talking about the past 20 years or so, but historically through the ages.
...
Plus, they were handy targets for the Church to scapegoat at the popular witchcraft trials! :help: (I think occasionally how lucky I am to be living now...)
I agree with others that children need a village and the foundation of 2 involved parents.
I have no answers just sadness that marriage seems unimportant to so many. And at the same time has become hugely revered and desired by same gender couples :-)
Bedrock? I dunno. Family foundation? Yes.
Having seen "marriages" that essentially were house- and money-sharing arrangements and little comfort to those in the marriage, I'm not inclined to award marriage such a high status. DW and I married as a more-conventional public commitment to our bond and for the reasons so many same-sex couples want to marry: marriage in the United States automatically confers legal and economic privileges and protections which arrive pretty much as soon as you both say "I do"; couples (including hetero couples) who are committed to each other but not married have to arrange for those privileges as they can.
I think society is changing. At one time having a child out of wedlock was scandalous; single parenthood without divorce barely raises eyebrows now. I do believe kids do better with more than one parent but I don't think the parents need to be legally bound to each other or of different genders. The care and ability to nurture is more important, almost regardless of where they come from.
ETA: regarding work assumptions for people without kids, I saw that as a male, too. In my first career-type job, overtime was encouraged -- especially for me, the youngest of the crew and unmarried. The reason given for them wanting me to do more overtime was that my (almost exclusively male) coworkers had families. My response was that they did -- but I had to manage work and my life by myself, not with the help of a wife home to get and cook groceries or of kids to mow the lawn. I worked about as much overtime as they did. Their argument didn't sell me.
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 2:06pm
Nothing is more lonely than being in a bad marriage. People used to have short lives so until death do us part might have only been 10-20 years. Now it’s 50-70 years. Marriage definitely has financial benefits for us as we can have each other’s pensions when one of us dies.
Gardenarian
9-6-18, 5:35pm
I think the bedrock of a good society would be education, health care, and the encouragement for all to become autonomous, fully-functioning adults.
Our society infantilizes children and teenagers while at the same immersing them in violence, dysfunction, and instability. This is not a recipe for maturity.
More support for mothers, in the form of maternity/paternity leave, day care, and early education are desperately needed. The main reason that marriage is seen as so important in the U.S. is that it's horribly difficult for a woman (married or not) to simultaneously maintain a successful career and raise children well.
I think the bedrock of a good society would be education, health care, and the encouragement for all to become autonomous, fully-functioning adults.
Our society infantilizes children and teenagers while at the same immersing them in violence, dysfunction, and instability. This is not a recipe for maturity.
More support for mothers, in the form of maternity/paternity leave, day care, and early education are desperately needed. The main reason that marriage is seen as so important in the U.S. is that it's horribly difficult for a woman (married or not) to simultaneously maintain a successful career and raise children well.
Similar to my view. A supportive framework of government/community, plus intact families of whatever composition, have my vote.
I third the value of "family" as the bedrock in whatever form that takes. Children need stability and positive role models and experiences. A loving mom and dad is ideal but as we know, that very often does not always play out well. I am happy that my new grand-twins will have two sets of grand-parents who have both been happily married to the same person for over 40 years. A large extended family and a mom and Dad that value education, fun and hard work. So many children have no anchors at all and they will grow up rootless and without direction.
ToomuchStuff
9-7-18, 4:26am
No. Marriage hasn't been a bedrock of society, since it isn't a church only thing, and that was weakened by divorce/anulment/paying the church off to get another wife. (long, long, long ago)
Heck, there is quite the variance of marriage. From traditional, till death due you part, old school ones, to marriages for fiscal benefits, where people keep money separately and have "open" marriages.
Just curious, do you see marriage as the bedrock of society?
No.
I would not advise my daughter to contemplate marriage. And I can't imagine the circumstances that would lead me to remarry.
In retrospect, I should not have married in the first place - my partner and I were handling everything just fine with contracts between ourselves and powers-of-attorney for dealing with outside agencies. Life would be far simpler now if we'd maintained that course.
ToomuchStuff
9-8-18, 2:32pm
No.
I would not advise my daughter to contemplate marriage. And I can't imagine the circumstances that would lead me to remarry.
In retrospect, I should not have married in the first place - my partner and I were handling everything just fine with contracts between ourselves and powers-of-attorney for dealing with outside agencies. Life would be far simpler now if we'd maintained that course.
Your partner, WAS your attorney if I remember correctly. Is she still in matters and how does that affect your divorce, if you choose to talk about it?
I have always wondered, if marriage is just a legal contract, why don't we have some that have an expiration date/renewall? (pre death)
iris lilies
9-8-18, 2:49pm
No.
I would not advise my daughter to contemplate marriage. And I can't imagine the circumstances that would lead me to remarry.
In retrospect, I should not have married in the first place - my partner and I were handling everything just fine with contracts between ourselves and powers-of-attorney for dealing with outside agencies. Life would be far simpler now if we'd maintained that course.
I see marriage, the piece of paper, as a legal shorthand to describe responsibilities, obligations, and rights. This piece of paper covers all kinds of legal situations.
I do not believe for a moment, based on couples I see, hear of, and read about, that committed couples draw up all of the paperwork to legally establish the same responsibilities, obligations, and rights. They just don’t. Frankly, I think they are ignorant and naïve, and somewhat lazy, to take their legal status so casually.
bae, you are likely an exception and I accept that. And I do think that there are reasons to NOT enter into those legal relationships that come with marriage. I just think the average non-married but coupled person is extremely naïve about his rights and responsibilities, especially when children are in the picture.
I also don’t understand why, if marriage the paper is so unimportant, we are supposed to give a f..k about gay people who wish to gain that legal status. It seems illogical to me. As it was explained very carefully by a spokesman for Gay marriage rights, the thousands of laws at local state and federal level that treat marriage as a legal status cannot be replaced with contracts.
And then there is Canada where in (all? Some?) provinces If you cohabitate you are treated as married, like it or not.
Teacher Terry
9-8-18, 3:02pm
Marriage is important if people are going to have children. I wouldn’t remarry again at my age and would probably just live with someone if something happened to my husband.
Two of my friends who were in their late 50s married their long term partners due to health insurance. Only cost $50 for the license, no wait, no tests at their age.
When I got married, military personnel only got off base housing allowance if married. Car insurance cost a huge amount less (we were 19/20) because we were married.
ApatheticNoMore
9-8-18, 4:03pm
I kind of took it as a thought experiment: what if everyone grew up with loving parents (and ideally a loving extended family), without painful divorces, without abuse of any form (sexual, physical, verbal), without neglect etc.. Then society would probably function better. But what if it was still messed up, no jobs or none paying enough to live off, abusive authoritarian structures etc. etc.. Then maybe such people would try harder to change their society for the better.
But it's kind of a moot point as we actually have to live in a world where people grow up in boatloads of way unideal situations and then enter a plenty dysfunctional world after that.
iris lilies
9-8-18, 4:47pm
Two of my friends who were in their late 50s married their long term partners due to health insurance. Only cost $50 for the license, no wait, no tests at their age.
When I got married, military personnel only got off base housing allowance if married. Car insurance cost a huge amount less (we were 19/20) because we were married.
Oh right, we know of a recent death bed nuptial that was about
Social Security benefits.
I also don’t understand why, if marriage the paper is so unimportant, we are supposed to give a f..k about gay people who wish to gain that legal status. It seems illogical to me.
Good point. The piece of paper is a powerful symbol that many don't take that seriously.
I had to be schooled in how powerful a document a marriage certificate is; I thought a domestic partnership would be good enough. Not at all true.
My daughter is still recovering from a bad breakup, 6 years together starting when she was 21. She says it feels like a divorce but there is the benefit of not having financial and legal entanglements. Still the emotional impact is no different than a divorce for her.
I was married, before that living together. As the lower earning/non earning spouse it did benefit me. What would have benefited me more would have been a relationship where I was able to keep working and developing a career while he also did. To be fair the structures were not set up to support that, with kids who had some medical issues it was very difficult to work and his employers were not supportive of a fully involved dad 20 years ago. I would have preferred to be able to earn a decent living when we split up rather than all the alimony and child support I did get (thank goodness for that ) however we have lived close, not bashed the other to the kids, and are both pretty decent people (okay he got a lot better with the kids when they became adults). I would say my extended family is the stability for me, my kids, everyone. My sister is my close friend, I get along with my brother okay now, so I would say larger family relationships, and friends who become family, are the foundation for me.
Oh right, we know of a recent death bed nuptial that was about
Social Security benefits.
I hope it was a long slow death. If I recall correctly you have to be married for a period of time (not a long time, maybe a year?) in order to qualify for spousal SS benefits.
iris lilies
9-9-18, 1:31pm
I hope it was a long slow death. If I recall correctly you have to be married for a period of time (not a long time, maybe a year?) in order to qualify for spousal SS benefits.
I dont know, now that you bring this up. i googled it and it seems that one must be married for 9 months to draw Social Security benefits from a deceased partner.
In the case I know, I dont think he lasted that long. Could be wrong, though.
And sadly it WAS a long drawn out death, tragically so. He was ready to die, but his idiot sister and mother stood wailing at his bedside to “fight fight fight” when he was obviously terminal with lung cancer. So he reluctantly agreed to insertion of tubes that prolonged it all for weeks, and he was allergic to Morphine so there was that added bonus of hell.
iris lilies
9-9-18, 10:26pm
I am watching our close friends navigate the rocky waters of their daughter’s mental illness and her bouncing around with her young son. The baby daddy, also mentally ill, is out of the picture and that is a good thing. She nearly died from a spider bite and they had to rush around getting custody documents set up to keep the kid out of the hands of baby daddy who hasnt seen him for 5 years.
The mental illness has not subsided despite treatment and of course she will not sign over custody to our friends, the grandparents (well, the baby daddy would have to be brought into that process and keeping that sleeping mad dog away is part of the challange, so it isnt really feasible.) Meanwhile the crazy mom’s super responsible boyfriend shares care of the young child who considers him Daddy. But of course the super responsible boyfriend has no legal rights whatsoever because—that would be too damned good for that little boy! Crazy people have all of the rights.
And when she ran off with another man last year, child in tow, he was shit out of luck in ever seeing his not-legal son.
But crazy mom had a change of heart and came bouncing back to super responsible boyfriend and little kid is back with his “Daddy” while grandma does a ton of child care as well, and crazy mom just works a lot because she likes to impress people with her knowledge and skills, she has a great facade. Until the next man comes along, then it will be crazy town again.
But really, I suppose no amount of legal marrying, or not marrying, or whatever would address these issues. And I do agree with whoever said that if your family junk ends up in the hands of the justice system, you have already lost.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 10:40pm
That is so sad IL. As much as I would have liked to have grandchildren I certainly don’t want to raise them. We met a couple in Yellowstone that were early 70’s raising a 14yo and 2yo. Parents had drug problems.
That is so sad IL. As much as I would have liked to have grandchildren I certainly don’t want to raise them. We met a couple in Yellowstone that were early 70’s raising a 14yo and 2yo. Parents had drug problems.
I work with so many people who are raising grandchildren, it's so sad and I just don't get it. 1 is a current employee. The Mom sent her the kids last spring to live with her. Son is in the service wanting full custody. Grandma is driving 2 grandchildren 8h every other Saturday to spend 2w with their Mom. Then she drives up 2w later to pick them up to stay with her for 2w. So besides working full time she spends 16h in a car every other weekend plus an overnight hotel. This is happening for 3 months. Neither are school age yet. And this Grandma is not in a high paying job.
I won't even start on the other stories....suffice to say that a Mom got busted doing heroin in front of her 11 and 13yo girls. And she's been in/out of custody for 9y already...................
Sad doesn't begin to cover the situation these kids are in.
Teacher Terry
9-10-18, 10:45am
When my 3 boys were older teens I warned them that if they created kids they would not be living with me or I wouldn’t be raising them. My one son who could be trouble said “You would if it was a girl.” I said remember those foster kids without homes-that’s where the kids will be. Luckily no one had any kids they couldn’t take care of. I love my kids but no way am I spending my golden years raising kids again.
iris lilies
9-10-18, 11:08am
I really hate saying this out loud, but our friends who are essentially raising their grandson never drew clear boundaries and I am not surprised that their daughter thinks dumping her child off on them is an ok thing, with the daughter retaining all rights but none of the responsibities. Granted, the daughter-mom does have serious life challenges with her mental illness.
Terry, like you, my parents made it clear that they would not be raising any Hrandchildren should
I choose to have them in unstable conditions. I also know that they would have swooped in to scoop up grandchildren in a sudden unexpected tragic situation.
Teacher Terry
9-10-18, 11:38am
Sure if the parents died or were too disabled that would be totally different. I just wasn’t going to enable irresponsible behavior.
iris lilies
9-10-18, 10:13pm
If you look at the people being accused of being "privileged" or "opportunity hoarders", you are generally looking at the elements of society where the old bourgeois values still prevail. Raising children in stable families is a big part of that. So is a certain respect for education and willingness to delay gratification for a longer term benefit.
I remember some professor saying that in an op-ed not too long ago and getting widely and viciously attacked by people who felt such ideas are somehow racist or elitist.
These same ideals are held in many third world countrie, the importance of married parents with children, so immigrants from those places are super important in carrying on our old bourgeois values! Haha, kinda ironic.
Teacher Terry
9-10-18, 11:02pm
My DIL’s parents were in a serious car accident and hospitalized for a year with rehab. The grandparents raised the kids until they recovered. I would do the same. When my oldest was 7 we bought the house next door to my parents. My mom helped with the kids so I could go to college and I helped take care of my dad who had a massive stroke. We were great support for one another. My dad died about the time I was done with graduate school and couldn’t find a job in our small town. My mom told me not to worry about her and go where I could get a good job. I was blessed with awesome parents!
Teacher Terry
9-10-18, 11:17pm
This got me thinking of in s town of 80k people how much we helped one another. I babysat for friends and them for me. My mom’s friend watched mine when she was on vacation. We watched a neighbors child for 2 years for a hour in the morning so she could attend college before the head start bus came. They didn’t allow us to drop her off at the school. The last year they slashed her food stamps and she thought she was going to have to quit college. We weren’t well to do but between her dad and us helped with food. Because her financial aid increased which went to tuition they cut the food stamps. We cut down our kids Xmas to help even though we were never extravagant. We were committed to helping her because that’ was her family’s only chance to escape poverty. It was a real sacrifice but I would do it again.
These same ideals are held in many third world countrie, the importance of married parents with children, so immigrants from those places are super important in carrying on our old bourgeois values! Haha, kinda ironic.
Sadly, I have fo agree.
I work with a nonprofit that builds houses for low income people, to whom we provide zero interest mortgages. This requires us to find families with decent credit and work histories. We need evidence that they will be able to pay a small mortgage and property taxes on the housing we provide. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find native born families who meet our criteria, but there seems to be no shortage of hard/working immigrant families that can.
In general, immigrants embody all those lofty ideals that we, as a nation, like to tout as "American." I imagine Canada will welcome many of those this xenophobic administration is turning away, much to their advantage.
In general, immigrants embody all those lofty ideals that we, as a nation, like to tout as "American." I imagine Canada will welcome many of those this xenophobic administration is turning away, much to their advantage.
I’m not sure I see bourgeois values as particularly lofty or American. They are the mundane, even boring values of thrift, accountability, family, hard work, paying one’s debts, etc. I would not object to the US adopting a more practical, Canadian-style immigration policy As opposed to the open-borders nonsense currently being bruited about.
Thus the quotes.
We need a robust guest-worker program, and a humane stance on refugees. As far as the canard about Mexicans flooding the border, the incidence of undocumented immigrants has been in decline for years. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html
I think it is a good thing that we are getting better at keeping people from infiltrating our country illegally.
I think it is a good thing that we are getting better at keeping people from infiltrating our country illegally.
I thought it was because there were more jobs in Mexico now, but have it your way. I don't think of desperate, hard-working people as being "infiltrators."
I don't think of desperate, hard-working people as being "infiltrators."
It's all part of their secret plan to come into America and engage in difficult, painful, unwanted jobs for low pay and no benefits, while being exposed to danger and abuse at every turn.
Sneaky devils!
Teacher Terry
9-11-18, 1:28pm
My mom’s grandpa came illegally from Germany in the 1800’s because he was starving in the German army, had no shoes even though it was winter, etc. People get desperate. For once I totally agree with Bae!
Breaking the law because you’re desperate is still breaking the law, and should attract the attention of law enforcement.
Even if you feel really really bad about it.
Teacher Terry
9-11-18, 2:44pm
L: totally disagree.
Breaking the law because you’re desperate is still breaking the law, and should attract the attention of law enforcement.
Even if you feel really really bad about it.
People living under threats to life and limb, imminent starvation, oppression, etc. need to weigh the rewards against the risks, of course.
Funny how many Americans pick and choose which laws to obey--railing against unlawful immigration (a federal misdemeanor) while looking the other way when people commit tax fraud, flaut environmental and labor laws...It's almost like there's a tacit double standard.
L: totally disagree.
You totally disagree that the law should be enforced equally for everybody?
People living under threats to life and limb, imminent starvation, oppression, etc. need to weigh the rewards against the risks, of course.
Funny how many Americans pick and choose which laws to obey--railing against unlawful immigration (a federal misdemeanor) while looking the other way when people commit tax fraud, flaut environmental and labor laws...It's almost like there's a tacit double standard.
Forgery and fraud aren’t misdemeanors. Living and working illegally in this country for extended periods would usually require some of both.
I don’t remember railing against illegal immigration. I’m against a lot of things I don’t rail about. Nor can I recall approving the other crimes you mention. For the record, I’m against breaking those laws too.
Teacher Terry
9-11-18, 4:12pm
I totally disagree that law enforcement needs to be involved for someone here illegally. I would not turn someone in.
I totally disagree that law enforcement needs to be involved for someone here illegally. I would not turn someone in.
For anyone here illegally, or just the ones you sympathize with?
Forgery and fraud aren’t misdemeanors. Living and working illegally in this country for extended periods would usually require some of both.
I don’t remember railing against illegal immigration. I’m against a lot of things I don’t rail about. Nor can I recall approving the other crimes you mention. For the record, I’m against breaking those laws too.
A robust guest-worker plan would take care of all those things. Someone is hiring these workers, we are benefiting from their labor. They should be fairly compensated and pay any taxes that accrue, and be able to live freely and openly.
iris lilies
9-11-18, 4:54pm
A robust guest-worker plan would take care of all those things. Someone is hiring these workers, we are benefiting from their labor. They should be fairly compensated and pay any taxes that accrue, and be able to live freely and openly.
What kimds of welfare programs should they and their kin be eligible for?
Teacher Terry
9-11-18, 4:58pm
IL, illegals do not qualify for any welfare programs and never have. L, I wouldn’t turn in anyone here illegally period. I don’t need to know their story or approve of them.
iris lilies
9-11-18, 5:15pm
IL, illegals do not qualify for any welfare programs and never have. L, I wouldn’t turn in anyone here illegally period. I don’t need to know their story or approve of them.
Jane is talking about expanding guest workers.
My question was to her. Guest workers are not illegals.
To your point, you know that education dollars, health care dollars, and other dollars go to illegals. You dont wish to call those “welfare” programs and I would agree that those dollars are not normally considered part of the welfare pie when we talk about it. But. They are taxpayer dollars supporting the illegal and his kin.
If we had a robust guest worker program where the workers could easily travel back and forth from their home country we’d probably have less undocumented kids here.
SteveinMN
9-11-18, 10:19pm
To your point, you know that education dollars, health care dollars, and other dollars go to illegals. You dont wish to call those “welfare” programs and I would agree that those dollars are not normally considered part of the welfare pie when we talk about it. But. They are taxpayer dollars supporting the illegal and his kin.
To your point, at least in this sometimes-frozen burg, undocumented people are not given health care dollars or other forms of "welfare" by county or state entities. If they are found receiving such funds, they are committing fraud and are treated accordingly in the legal system. Like poor U.S citizens, when undocumented residents get medical treatment or schooling but cannot pay for it or when they patronize food shelves, they do incur costs which all of us pay for. But let's get rid of the false right-wing talking point that "illlegals are getting all kinds of welfare". I don't know what they do in Missouri, but here in Minnesota they do not.
To your point, at least in this sometimes-frozen burg, undocumented people are not given health care dollars or other forms of "welfare" by county or state entities. If they are found receiving such funds, they are committing fraud and are treated accordingly in the legal system. Like poor U.S citizens, when undocumented residents get medical treatment or schooling but cannot pay for it or when they patronize food shelves, they do incur costs which all of us pay for. But let's get rid of the false right-wing talking point that "illlegals are getting all kinds of welfare". I don't know what they do in Missouri, but here in Minnesota they do not.
From the National Immigration Law Center https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/
The law includes important exceptions for certain types of services. Regardless of their status, not-qualified immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid if they are otherwise eligible for their state’s Medicaid program. The law does not restrict access to public health programs that provide immunizations and/or treatment of communicable disease symptoms (whether or not those symptoms are caused by such a disease). School breakfast and lunch programs remain open to all children regardless of immigration status, and every state has opted to provide access to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).Short-term noncash emergency disaster assistance remains available without regard to immigration status. Also exempted from the restrictions are other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety, as long as no individual or household income qualification is required. In 2001, the U.S. attorney general published a final order specifying the types of benefits that meet these criteria. The attorney general’s list includes child and adult protective services; programs addressing weather emergencies and homelessness; shelters, soup kitchens, and meals-on-wheels; medical, public health, and mental health services necessary to protect life or safety; disability or substance abuse services necessary to protect life or safety; and programs to protect the life or safety of workers, children and youths, or community residents.
happystuff
9-12-18, 7:51am
Marriage is important if people are going to have children.
I respectfully disagree with this. The fact is, it simply takes an egg and sperm to "have children" - no marriage, documentation or committment needed. A woman AND a man having sex risk creating a child regardless of any other circumstances. Marriage, on the other hand, is a commitment between TWO people - children have nothing to do with it. If two individuals are committed to each other and move forward in a life together (for however long!) - well, good for them. Whether they get a document/contract/piece of paper to confirm that commitment or not is up to them, but I believe it is the commitment itself that is what is needed. Children may be the result of marriage or a committed relationship, but I don't believe they should be the basis of either - the foundation should begin with the two individuals.
What kimds of welfare programs should they and their kin be eligible for?
I imagine that would be worked out along the lines of how we provide (or don't) services for workers with H1B visas.
From the National Immigration Law Center https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/
The law includes important exceptions for certain types of services. Regardless of their status, not-qualified immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid if they are otherwise eligible for their state’s Medicaid program. The law does not restrict access to public health programs that provide immunizations and/or treatment of communicable disease symptoms (whether or not those symptoms are caused by such a disease). School breakfast and lunch programs remain open to all children regardless of immigration status, and every state has opted to provide access to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).Short-term noncash emergency disaster assistance remains available without regard to immigration status. Also exempted from the restrictions are other in-kind services necessary to protect life or safety, as long as no individual or household income qualification is required. In 2001, the U.S. attorney general published a final order specifying the types of benefits that meet these criteria. The attorney general’s list includes child and adult protective services; programs addressing weather emergencies and homelessness; shelters, soup kitchens, and meals-on-wheels; medical, public health, and mental health services necessary to protect life or safety; disability or substance abuse services necessary to protect life or safety; and programs to protect the life or safety of workers, children and youths, or community residents.
So we've legislated acting like decent human beings. Good.
I still find IL's statement a sloppy interpretation of how non-emergency services are provided to people who are not U.S. citizens. DW works in a position where she has to tell people like that 'no', sometimes to their faces.
In the statement Alan quoted, poor USians are eligible for the same emergency spending, so if someone wants to be pissed about how (or that) social-services money is spent, they can b!tch about American citizens just as much as "illegals".
It's not 'just ask and get gubmint money thrown at you you'll be so tired of the winning'. It's sad that the myth is so pervasive in some circles that the truth doesn't even get considered.
So we've legislated acting like decent human beings. Good.
So, emotional responses aside, it appears we do invest a portion of our spending on social programs and support for non-citizens in this country illegally. Why does pointing it out irritate people so much? Does it take away from the narrative that we are just a bunch of brutes lacking in sympathy for the less fortunate?
Working in a safety net hospital - I see a lot of undocumented people getting care.
So I’m thinking about Alan‘s question –
I don’t mind when undocumented people receive services. I think it’s because in my mind I’m more of the world citizen than a US citizen.
So it doesn’t irritate me. But I’m probably a socialist or something ...
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-18, 12:00pm
Immigrants do get benefits including ability to use the state sponsored college system, ability to go to community colleges many places etc.. The problem with this is that every single one of these systems is already extremely overcrowded almost to the point of being unusable as is.
Leaving aside the costs and benefits of immigration and whatever one feels the proper humanitarian response should be to suffering around the world; why would any sovereign state want to abdicate control of its borders? You can address those issues through a legal framework, and admit more or fewer or different origins of people, but you need control over your borders to do that.
Is it simply that many of us lack the patience to deal with this situation within the law?
Teacher Terry
9-12-18, 12:33pm
Steve, I know your wife is a social worker and sees heartbreaking things all the time. There is so much misinformation about people that need services and what is available. This is done on purpose because upper classes want the middle class to hate poor people, illegals, etc so it will be easy to cut services to people who are perceived as lazy and takers. For example when I was in graduate school my professor pointed out that before cuts to programs are made you will see programs on tv showing lazy poor people. So one is showing a bunch of black people saying they didn’t want to work, etc. Then a month later republicans proposed a bunch of cuts to welfare programs.
Just call me a fan of facts and not memes that purport that undocumented people are scamming the entire country and making the U.S. "less great".
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that several million people in this country are not legal citizens. But however they got here and however they stay here, they exist. In fact, undocumented workers are pillars of several industries in the U.S. (including, despite his ignorance of it, Trump's hospitality and development businesses). The fantasy that 10-11 million people (and their U.S. citizen children) can be pushed out of this country so their jobs can be filled by white people (who somehow will want to work for peanuts in crappy conditions) is a white wet dream. "Getting rid of the illegals" who already are here is a talking point and no more.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that many undocumented residents end up hitting the safety net at some point or another -- but so do a lot of citizens. I'm guessing the vast majority of those who erroneously think undocumented residents are soaking up tax dollars have no idea how much of emergency-fund money goes to people who are here illegally and people who are here legally -- or that longer-term money doesn't happen.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out insecure areas of the country's border except when the ostensible national security argument really turns out to be a racial argument (we've got a few thousand miles of border with Canada; Trump isn't threatening to shut down the government for money for a wall to be built there). It's "hardening our borders" when we deal with the Canadian border, ports on both coasts (and the Gulf), and the joke that is the TSA; until then, it's xenophobia masked as "national security".
There is something wrong with a government apparatus that cannot distinguish U.S. law from its own rampant fear of non-whites. Don't like the law that allows people from other countries to come to the U.S. to seek asylum? Try to change that rather than blacken America's eye by tearing toddlers away from their parents at the border with some phony claim about security.
There is something wrong in insinuating that all our problems are solved if we just get rid of the "illegals". In 20 years Trump voters are going to be surprised to find the country is minority-white and that we're going to have to find a supply of new workers because white USians aren't having babies like they used to and nobody wants to give up their farm subsidies and disaster relief and Social Security because there aren't enough workers to pay for the taxes that fund those programs.
We need better ways to allow people to immigrate to this country. We need to quit funding the civil wars abroad that create refugees. We need to regain some compassion about our fellow residents rather than side with corporations who don't give a damn about people of any color. Immigration built this country and made it great long before some lumpy combover (whose own grandparents and whose wife's parents came from somewhere else and took advantage of the existing immigration laws) declared America wasn't great.
Get the facts right and try to be even-handed about what's going on and the discussion becomes very different.
Just call me a fan of facts and not memes …...Good to know, but maybe you should have thrown in a couple of extra references to white people and corporations, that would have made it clearer.
I don’t mind when undocumented people receive services. I think it’s because in my mind I’m more of the world citizen than a US citizen.
So it doesn’t irritate me. But I’m probably a socialist or something ...
Love this response. I feel the same way.
iris lilies
9-12-18, 2:15pm
Just call me a fan of facts and not memes that purport that undocumented people are scamming the entire country and making the U.S. "less great".
tions) is a white wet dream. "Getting
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that many undocumented residents end up hitting the safety net at some point or another -- but so do a lot of citizens. I'm guessing the vast majority of those who erroneously think undocumented residents are soaking up tax dollars have no idea how much of emergency-fund money goes to people who are here illegally and people who are here legally -- or that longer-term money doesn't happen.
If you are referring to me—of course I dont think that. Lord how I tire of those who tell me what I think.
Here’s what I actually think: with citizenship in this country comes responsibilities of course, but also it comes with privileges. It comes with the privilege of support from social programs. It is an awesomely important deal when an immigrant becomes a citizen, rights and privileges on both sides come with that status. It seems disrespectful to not recognize the awesome power and privilege of citizenship. The Man Without a Country is kind of a tearjerker for me, although granted it has an overwrought tone if I remember correctly, but the sentiment remains.
Perhaps legal non-citizens (green card workers and etc.) should and do get some benefit from social programs, that I don't know. Wont eeigh in on that one.
I do know that those here illegally should not expect me to fund their lives. I am not interested in doing that. They are not my fellow citizens.
i could protest that this has nothing to do with race, but living as I do in the capital of racial politics of the U.S. I have learned that is a fruitless arguement.
Love this response. I feel the same way.
Just to expand briefly:
I once asked my husband if he thought of himself more of an American or a Christian. He said "American." I, OTOH, identify more as a Christian, not in a dogmatic way (I'm not actually a member of a church and I also try to adhere to aspects of Buddhism and Hinduism). But while I am certainly American (and have been for many generations, predating the American Revolution) I would be more likely to adhere to principles of Christianity than the Constitution if there were ever a conflict. And sometimes I think there is.
Just call me a fan of facts and not memes that purport that undocumented people are scamming the entire country and making the U.S. "less great".
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that several million people in this country are not legal citizens. But however they got here and however they stay here, they exist. In fact, undocumented workers are pillars of several industries in the U.S. (including, despite his ignorance of it, Trump's hospitality and development businesses). The fantasy that 10-11 million people (and their U.S. citizen children) can be pushed out of this country so their jobs can be filled by white people (who somehow will want to work for peanuts in crappy conditions) is a white wet dream. "Getting rid of the illegals" who already are here is a talking point and no more.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that many undocumented residents end up hitting the safety net at some point or another -- but so do a lot of citizens. I'm guessing the vast majority of those who erroneously think undocumented residents are soaking up tax dollars have no idea how much of emergency-fund money goes to people who are here illegally and people who are here legally -- or that longer-term money doesn't happen.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out insecure areas of the country's border except when the ostensible national security argument really turns out to be a racial argument (we've got a few thousand miles of border with Canada; Trump isn't threatening to shut down the government for money for a wall to be built there). It's "hardening our borders" when we deal with the Canadian border, ports on both coasts (and the Gulf), and the joke that is the TSA; until then, it's xenophobia masked as "national security".
There is something wrong with a government apparatus that cannot distinguish U.S. law from its own rampant fear of non-whites. Don't like the law that allows people from other countries to come to the U.S. to seek asylum? Try to change that rather than blacken America's eye by tearing toddlers away from their parents at the border with some phony claim about security.
There is something wrong in insinuating that all our problems are solved if we just get rid of the "illegals". In 20 years Trump voters are going to be surprised to find the country is minority-white and that we're going to have to find a supply of new workers because white USians aren't having babies like they used to and nobody wants to give up their farm subsidies and disaster relief and Social Security because there aren't enough workers to pay for the taxes that fund those programs.
We need better ways to allow people to immigrate to this country. We need to quit funding the civil wars abroad that create refugees. We need to regain some compassion about our fellow residents rather than side with corporations who don't give a damn about people of any color. Immigration built this country and made it great long before some lumpy combover (whose own grandparents and whose wife's parents came from somewhere else and took advantage of the existing immigration laws) declared America wasn't great.
Get the facts right and try to be even-handed about what's going on and the discussion becomes very different.
Without commenting on the fact-to-feeling ratio of this post, couldn’t we address many of these issues within a legal context that includes secure borders?
Not everybody who would like to see that is an ignorant racist with a bad haircut. Do the facts we are supposed to get right need to include a lot of name-calling and impugning of motives and coiffures?
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-18, 3:03pm
Everyone on earth is born with worth just by virtue of being human and it's hard to argue with that from a moral basis. However you can't necessarily actually run a government that way, short of global government and that's just a pipe dream for now.
Even Sweden is moving to the right as a backlash against refugees (though the largest group is the social democrats). Now the U.S. does not compare to Europe in scale of issues with immigrants/migrants/refugees and they were especially welcoming. And I think the voters in Sweden must be acting pretty foolish these days, as voting for the right, regardless of one's position on immigration issues, always causes more than it's own share of troubles.
Teacher Terry
9-12-18, 3:30pm
I am a citizen of the world. We do not need to make a Iron Curtain around the border. Just a waste of time and money.
iris lilies
9-12-18, 3:36pm
I am a citizen of the world. We do not need to make a Iron Curtain around the border. Just a waste of time and money.
Cool. where can I get one of those ” citizen of the World” passports?
That is silly. Try taking your “citizenship of the world” passport to Canada for permanent residency, they will laugh you across the border as they boot you out.
Cool. where can I get one of those ” citizen of the World” passports?
That is silly. Try taking your “citizenship of the world” passport to Canada for permanent residency, they will laugh you across the border as they boot you out.
Passports are passports. But nationalism as an ideology is dangerous.
Passports are passports. But nationalism as an ideology is dangerous.
Are passports necessary without nationalism?
Are passports necessary without nationalism?
Sure, they may be a useful tool for documenting comings and goings, but they don't require or assume blind, excessive devotion to one's country--that's how I define nationalism, anyway.
If we were to abolish the nation-state in favor of one world government, the consequences for stamp collecting would be disastrous.
Teacher Terry
9-12-18, 4:20pm
IL, you can become a citizen of the world by having empathy and caring about all the people in the world.
IL, you can become a citizen of the world by having empathy and caring about all the people in the world.So if you emote convincingly at customs stations you can go anywhere? I'll have to practice my deeply caring face for my next trip abroad.
IL, you can become a citizen of the world by having empathy and caring about all the people in the world.
As a citizen of the galaxy, I condemn such parochial thinking as unforgivably people-centric.
Teacher Terry
9-12-18, 4:30pm
Catherine, I totally agree with you.
So if you emote convincingly at customs stations you can go anywhere? I'll have to practice my deeply caring face for my next trip abroad.
That reminds me of an old joke:
Anything to declare?
My love for all mankind.
iris lilies
9-12-18, 5:41pm
Passports are passports. But nationalism as an ideology is dangerous.
Are the Canadians dangerous for keeping me out with proper ID and appropriate assets to buy my way in?
Love this response. I feel the same way.
And I don’t mind being in a higher tax bracket. I have more than enough for my needs.
I’m abnormal. 😀
Good to know, but maybe you should have thrown in a couple of extra references to white people and corporations, that would have made it clearer.
I'll see what I can do for you in future posts, Alan. Always like to leave people happy.
Here’s what I actually think: with citizenship in this country comes responsibilities of course, but also it comes with privileges. It comes with the privilege of support from social programs. It is an awesomely important deal when an immigrant becomes a citizen, rights and privileges on both sides come with that status. It seems disrespectful to not recognize the awesome power and privilege of citizenship.
Behind this 100%. Goes for U.S. citizens as well as citizens of -- er -- the world.
I do know that those here illegally should not expect me to fund their lives. I am not interested in doing that. They are not my fellow citizens.
And there lies the difference. Those here illegally do not expect you to fund their lives. They're busy working (largely in conditions citizens won't work) and not accepting government help (because, emergency help aside, they are not eligible for it). But stuff happens. People get injured at work. The older among them suffer age-related diseases which should be treated. People get pregnant and have kids who grow up and should go to school (ignoring the ugly reality that the kids are American citizens by virtue of being born on American soil). People without documents probably require police and fire services at the same rate as citizens. These people may not be your fellow citizens but they are fellow human beings. Display compassion about that as you will (or don't).
Unfortunately, the discussion gets clouded, primarily by fear and, to a lesser degree, supposed economic arguments. Less-educated people love a good myth despite any amount of real facts which refute it. Ronald Reagan got lots of mileage out of his fictitious Cadillac-driving welfare recipient. The current occupant of the Oval Office likes to impugn entire people groups (regardless of their citizenship status) and instill fear among his base ("They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." ). Why don't we discuss a wall with Canada? What's the readily identifiable difference between Mexicans and Canadians? (Hint: Not how they pronounce "o" sounds). We don't because it's not being treated as a [I]security issue at Trump's level. Let's not even go back to historical implementations of this xenophobia, like redlining.
But I'm not going to waste my time writing more about this. I've been on this board for several years now and I cannot recall any situation in which one of us convinced the other to view the situation differently. I don't even visit the Public Policy board here anymore because (it seems to me) the discussions always devolve to pretty much the same two sides. You feel it or you don't. Some of us do; some of us don't. I try not to see it as a moral failing. After all, poverty isn't a moral failure, either. Or maybe it is. I'm done. Should never have gotten into this to start with. Not the experience I want from this board.
p.s., white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations white people evil corporations (gotta make sure I end up on a high note. Wouldn't want to disappoint anyone ;)).
Teacher Terry
9-13-18, 10:29am
Steve, you summed up the situation perfectly. A lack of empathy for others really bothers me. But you are right that no one ever changes their minds so really pointless to even discuss it.
catherine
9-13-18, 10:46am
Steve, you summed up the situation perfectly. A lack of empathy for others really bothers me. But you are right that no one ever changes their minds so really pointless to even discuss it.
But it's still fun. Sharpens debating skills. Kind of like practicing parallel parking in an empty parking lot.
There will always be a degree of conflict between those who feel the law should be enforced as written and those who argue for what they feel to be a superior moral vision that transcends mere legality.
Since we all have different ideas about what the higher good is, The temptation will always exist to assign base motives to the other camp. I don’t think the immigration debate is necessarily one between racist xenophobes and smugly superior virtue-signalers any more than I think the abortion debate is one between superstitious theocrats and people who hold life cheaper than ideology.
Unfortunately, it appears there is good money and political advantage to be gained from promoting the alternative approach. I think there will always be a certain amount of friction between policy and morality, and we seem to be in one of those periods where formulaic insult is prevailing.
There will always be a degree of conflict between those who feel the law should be enforced as written and those who argue for what they feel to be a superior moral vision that transcends mere legality.
...
In all fairness, Republicans take a buffet position on which laws to enforce or follow; they pick and choose on environmental, banking and tax laws, voting rights, human rights, etc. Just as with the silly elitist label righties hang on the rest of us (who is more elitist than 47% Mitt Romney and his car elevator?), they embody the "four fingers pointing back at you" meme.
In all fairness, Republicans take a buffet position on which laws to enforce or follow; they pick and choose on environmental, banking and tax laws, voting rights, human rights, etc. Just as with the silly elitist label righties hang on the rest of us (who is more elitist than 47% Mitt Romney and his car elevator?), they embody the "four fingers pointing back at you" meme.
I would never claim that selective enforcement or smug self-satisfaction were the sole province of any one party. Although I would say some high profile gaffes about bitter clingers and deplorables were made publicly while Mitt’s remarks about the 47% were not, but furtively recorded and released.
I would never claim that selective enforcement or smug self-satisfaction were the sole province of any one party. Although I would say some high profile gaffes about bitter clingers and deplorables were made publicly while Mitt’s remarks about the 47% were not, but furtively recorded and released.
Say what you will about us, no one can call us sneaky! :~)
Personally I don't see equivalence in judging people publicly for the content of their character versus judging them at a private event for the content of their tax bill.
Hillary specifically called out four categories of people she felt were deplorable. If anyone would like to defend those categories, by all means, I'd love to hear it. I'll warn you though, unlike the leader of the Republican Party I don't consider any nazis to be good people so you will need to put together a more compelling argument than he did.
Say what you will about us, no one can call us sneaky! :~)
Except for the ones doing the furtive recording?
iris lilies
9-13-18, 3:44pm
Except for the ones doing the furtive recording?
Please, that guy had the shield of the Kennedy name behind him. We dont dis Kennedys.
kidding here because it seems to me that our current cultural climate doesnt hold them in awe as we once were forced to.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.