Actually, I disagree.

Suppose you ran a society. And the common wisdom in your society said that doing or embracing a particular concept was likely to bring about the downfall of your society. It would just make sense then that you would make laws against that concept, in the name of protecting your society.

Now let's suppose your society was in a cold war with another society. Well, logic would tell you that if you know of a thing that would destroy your society, it would likely also destroy your enemy's society.

Therefore, it would make sense to figure out a sneaky way of getting your enemy's society to do/embrace the thing that you and your society are convinced would end any society, in the hopes of ending their society. Cold war over, you win.

That's the logic, and it is internally consistent, whether or not we agree with it.

How about a society that says we will pay into a system that will help the poor and disadvantaged, but not allow a transition period if a woman with children gets married? Doesn't that promote not getting married? And the same society sends people to her house to see if there is a man living there. If so, she is cut off from help with school, daycare, food stamps and of course monetary assistance. So the male role model is out the door or they have to play a cat and mouse game with the welfare system.
How about the fact a white male who is not Hispanic can't get any assistance at all? He might tend to resent his female counterpart, I would think.
Also there is tons of assistance out there for women and for kids. And that's great. I don't see a lot of stuff for men, fathers, husbands, boyfriends, teen aged boys...

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

Well, certainly those are examples of problems with social programs designed to help families, but I think there is a big difference between failing to serve the family properly and actively discrediting the family as an institution.

I hate to use TV shows as a reference, but I remember seeing one once that had a single mother who was employed, and trying to keep her kids.
She couldn't make ends meet with the bills, and seeing adequate care for her kids while she was at work, and she didn't have anywhere else to turn to.
She was trying to fight the legal system that was trying to take her kids away.

Eventually, the lawyer in the story-line told her to quit her job and go back on welfare. It actually put her in a better position to raise her kids and pay her bills.


And as a side-note, I remember initially laughing when I saw Dan Quayle's statement on the Murphy Brown issue.
Later in life, I realized more clearly what he was REALLY getting at, and wish he had chosen his words more clearly. (Although, I think his words were intelligibly aimed when he made the comments.)

Single mother-hood is NOT easy.
For a woman like "Murphy Brown" who has the luxury of being able to hire a live-in nanny and owning her own place, it is more feasible.
But for the NORMAL woman in society, bringing in enough money to pay for the roof overhead, pay for the daycare, pay for the car, pay for meds if kid gets sick, pay for ...
(The same is obviously true for the "single father", but considering the reality of "single parent care" in our country, I believe the single mothers far outnumber the single fathers.)

It's not an easy life.

No Family is under any type of attack. Our society and our government does EVERYTHING it can to promote families.

In somebody's dream world. No names mentioned here.



Back to the immigrant INVASION.

America "allows" over ONE MILLION legal immigrants every year. MORE than any other country in this solar system. The apportionment of these allocations is constantly controlled by congress (politics anyone?).
This statistic does not include any of the multi-millions of others that are allowed (and also not allowed) to enter our country. Do we have a problem? Are we too "loved"?

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

How about we bring up some names just to be clear.

Republicans.
Religious right groups.
These are the people who are claiming "family" is under "attack".

Glad to see you agree they are full of crap!

It amuses me the way that liberals just can't EVEN SEE sarcasm.

Comes from not having a sense of humor.

Seems like a miserable life.


====================================

And our country is just as safe as our families.

Republicans and religious groups (is there such a thing as a religious left group?) are the ENEMY and are the only ones to fear.

AND GW himself (well sometimes Dick takes over for a while) is wiretapping and recording everything that goes on in YOUR life while ignoring the REAL threats.

I wish these last three were examples of YOUR sarcasm but sadly you actually believe them.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

I saw the sarcasm.
I am amused you claimed I didn't see your sarcasm, while you completely missed mine!

I also saw you run away from the issue.
Like many things, you tried to work in the assumption of validity of the claim while you cowardly avoided any attempt to substantiate the claim.

Would you care to justify the claims on "attack on the family"?
Or would you mind admitting that any real "attacks" on the "family" come primarily from heterosexuals who have gutted the legal status of "marriage" so that it's ridiculously easy to obtain a divorce?

Would you care to examine with me the actual STATUS of marriages in red and blue states? Comparing the fact that the divorce rate in BLUE states is MUCH BETTER than that of the red states?


It gets REALLY boring to see you toss out strawman arguments which you proclaim I believe.
But you lack the intelligence or the reading comprehension to honestly admit when I explicitly state that those items are NOT my belief or position.

1) The "family" needs work. But unfortunately, "some" people toss around their prejudices as the cause of "family" woes when they lack the intellectual honesty and base courage to admit and address the real problems.

2) I whole-heartedly am concerned regarding terrorism and al Qaeda.
I think your real question should be asked of George Bush, who said the following regarding Osama bin Laden: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

3) Quite frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not Bush has wire-tapped ANYTHING in my life. He has been in charge for illegal wire-tapping.
That you don't even try to refute. You only try to obfuscate the issue by talking about whether or not he tapped MY phone...

Clinton never slept with you, your wife, or any of your family. Does that mean his actions don't concern you?

I am an Independant and was raised a Democrat with a capitol D. Maybe someday I will vote for another Democrat for president. I just happen to agree more on world affairs with Rep candidates right now. Actually the past few elections my vote has been split between some Democrats and some Republicans dependind on how they vote on issues specific to my part of the country with it's unique land and water use issues, etcetera.
But, I have to say, the family is dwindling or better yet in the ocean without a life preserver. I think some government policies have added to their demize. And there are societal changes on both sides of the political fence that have also contributed.
My evidence that the family unit is in jeapordy is the fact so many women are on welfare (Where's the employment?; Where's the instilled ability to look for it? Why are there no suitable candidates for a husband? What's wrong with our education system?) and the fact unless people know you, they are inclined to think you are just living together! Being married or being in a committed relationship is so hard today. Older couples actually play around with the idea of getting a divorce so they can get more benifits [that they paid into while working].
Plus nobody stays home with the kids. Grandma is in Florida, Mom's at work, Dad's at work. Just having a constant adult who is there all the time is very stabilizing for a child growing up. And in most cases, what we are ultimately discussing in this family issue is the children who's good or disfunctional adult citizenship will be the result of our efforts.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

A perfect example of this "push" over the edge is Hillary's book (and mindset) "It Takes A Village"...

It's ideology is that a child is EVEYONE'S effort to raise and upbringing is society's job, not the parents...

Which is, of course, friggin' absurd...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd