[W:109] If White Conservatives Loved All People The Way They Do Embryos

[Josie]

Charity is doing a terrible job at eradicating poverty. :shrug:

What will eradicate it?

Well?

 

[weaver2]

Fox News personalities have attacked the people on welfare.

They have.

Bill*O'Reilly: “How Can You Be So Poor And Have All This Stuff?” *In July 2011, O'Reilly Factor*host Bill O'Reilly and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs cited a misleading report from the Heritage Foundation about the ownership of*certain kitchen*appliances*by the poor in order to question the severity of poverty in the United States. Pointing the report,* O'Reilly asked,* “How can you be so poor and have all this stuff?” To which*Dobbs*responded* “Amen, brother.” *[Fox News,*The O'Reilly Factor,*7/20/11]

Fox*Wondered*If Children Should Work For Free School Meals.*In April 2013, Fox News*asked*viewers if school children*should*be forced to work in exchange for free school meals, after a Republican lawmaker in West Virginia proposed such a requirement for a new law*intended to combat*child hunger. [Fox News,*Fox & Friends First,*4/25/13]
"The Rich Suffered More": The Worst Of Fox News' Poor-Shaming | Media Matters for America

How many more would you like?

 

[Bodi]

If White Conservatives Loved All People The Way They Do Embryos





Once the baby is born, the "prolife" movement picks and chooses which babies' lives matters and which do not.

Immigrants fleeing hellish conditions for a chance at a new life? They don't matter.
Babies born into deep poverty? They don't matter.
Babies in abusive households? They don't matter.
LGBTQs? They don't matter. Especially Ts and Qs.

And so on, and so forth. Have you ever noticed how the people who claim to be devout supporters of the lives of babies are remarkably opposed to any kind of policy that would increase the survivability of babies once they leave the womb? Why this hypocrisy, anti-choicers?

This sounds so horrible... I am shedding tears.

 

[Bodi]

No wars were declared against them by the United States.

Straw Man. You said that Liberals know better than to kill innocent people. War does not need to be declared within the context of your original statement. As such, you original statement is wrong and hypocritical.

 

[Bodi]

Facts are bait? :lol:

Those are not facts...

 

[CLAX1911]

Facts are bait? :lol:

No bait is bait

 

[RedAkston]

Bill*O'Reilly

Bill was attacking the system, not the recipients. Context, it's important, as is the fact that O'Reilly hasn't been a Fox News Personality for nearly 3 years now.

Fox*Wondered*If Children Should Work For Free School Meals...

Discussing a stupid suggestion by a lawmaker isn't attacking people on welfare. Again, context is important.

Fox Contributor Lamented...

Michael Goodwin isn't and has never been a Fox New personality. He was a "contributor", which is something else entirely. He's also not attacking those on welfare, he's discussing the "stigma" that (at least used to) comes with applying for handouts.

Steve*Doocy...

They were discussing disability, which is different than the "handouts" that we have been discussing (welfare, food stamps, housing, etc...). They were also discussing whether or not the rapid increase in disability applications were coming from "'moochers', or because people need help". This isn't an attack on people on welfare (or disability) per se so much as it was discussing if there are "moochers" trying to take advantage of the system, of which there are. While this is the closest that you or anyone have come to providing something resembling "Fox News personalities attacking the people on welfare" up to this point, there is a distinct difference between disability and welfare and no one was being attacked here. They were simply having a discussion regarding the ever increasing applications for disability.

Payne...

I'll give you partial credit here. Describing the actions of some on welfare could be seen as an attack on people on welfare, but it wasn't an attack on "people on welfare" so much as it was discussing what some people believe based on the actions of some, who happen to be on welfare. There are people that aren't on welfare that "bum rush" Wal-Mart after Thanksgiving as well. In fact, I'd say there are more that do this that aren't on welfare than there are those that are. In addition, Charles Payne isn't a Fox News Personality and he never has been. He has only worked for Fox Business, never for Fox News.

Fox Contributor Compares Public Pensions To “Ponzi Schemes,” Laments That More Stigma Isn't Attached To Welfare...

This is another example of a contributor, not a Fox News personality, attacking the system and the fact that public pensions are horrible. Lamenting that there isn't more of a stigma associated with welfare isn't an attack on the people on welfare as I believe the vast majority of people that have ever gone on welfare aren't proud of the fact. Discussing the lack of a stigma isn't an attack on those on welfare so much as it is that we have a certain percentage of the public who sees no problem with using the welfare system to their advantage.

How many more would you like?

While I'll give you credit for putting forth a little more effort than you counterpart did, you didn't provide a single link to any of these "facts". You also only listed one actual Fox News personality that still works at Fox News (partial credit for O'Reilly). Contributors and those who work for other networks aren't Fox News personalities and you didn't provide a single instance of a Fox News personality attacking people for simply being on welfare.

Welfare is supposed to be a safety net to help people get back on their feet, or at least on their feet if they're young and just starting out. It's not supposed to be used as a means to live one's life year after year after year. I don't knock anyone for using welfare as a means to get by temporarily, and I've never heard a single Fox News personality state anything to the contrary. Having said that, I don't watch much Fox News and I'm not a big fan of Hannity at all, which you didn't even bring up. So while you put forth a better effort, you have failed to show that Fox News personalities have attacked the people on welfare, at least in a general sense.

 

[Phys251]

This sounds so horrible... I am shedding tears.

So not all lives matter to you. Got it.

 

[Bodi]

So not all lives matter to you. Got it.

Correct ...

 

[Aberration]

View attachment 67272195

The blue line on the graph shows the actual number of people in poverty. In 1959 it was 40M and the total population of the US was 178M. Actual people in poverty was still 40M in 2016 when the population was 330M.

The red line of the chart shows the % of people in the US in poverty ie the relationship between the number in poverty and the total population. In 1959 the % of the population in poverty was about 22% today it is 12.7%. The poverty rate has never gone back up to 22%even during the recession.

What part of this chart shows that the War on Poverty did not work?

So the war on poverty solved nothing. Still 40M in poverty.

 

[Cynical]

And yet welfare moms on average have the amount of children as non welfare moms.

They have 1.9 children.



Five Media Myths About Welfare | FAIR

And yet that is the trend regarding pregnancies in America:

"More than half of millennial women aged 26 to 31 who have babies are either unmarried or single instead of part of a married couple, according to a recent study from Johns Hopkins University. Fifty-seven percent of children born to millennial women are born out of wedlock, and 63 percent are born to women lacking a college education, according to the Hopkins study, entitled “Changing Fertility Regimes and the Transition to Adulthood.”"

Johns Hopkins: 57 Percent of Children Born to Millennials Are Out of Wedlock | CNSNews

 

[minnie616]

And yet that is the trend regarding pregnancies in America:

"More than half of millennial women aged 26 to 31 who have babies are either unmarried or single instead of part of a married couple, according to a recent study from Johns Hopkins University. Fifty-seven percent of children born to millennial women are born out of wedlock, and 63 percent are born to women lacking a college education, according to the Hopkins study, entitled “Changing Fertility Regimes and the Transition to Adulthood.”"

Johns Hopkins: 57 Percent of Children Born to Millennials Are Out of Wedlock | CNSNews

Blue states have higher percentage of college graduates.
Blue states have fewer single moms.
Blue states have fewer divorces.
Blues states have more stable two parent homes.


Actually the pro life movement may be responsible for the increase of single mothers.

It is very telling that the highest numbers of single mothers live in the red states.


From the following :

Did the Pro-Life Movement Lead to More Single Moms?

As the co-authors of Red Families v. Blue Families, we often give talks about the recent rise in what’s called the “nonmarital birthrate,” or the idea that more than 40 percent of children are now born to women who aren’t married.


Sometimes at our talks someone will come up to us, confess his or her encounter with single parenthood, and say something like:


“When my daughter got pregnant and decided to keep the child, we were OK with that because we are Christians. When she decided not to marry the father, we were relieved because we knew he would be bad for her and the marriage would never work.”

They express these two beliefs—that they are Christian and thus uncomfortable with abortion and that they are relieved their daughter decided to raise the child alone—as if they are not connected.

But in fact this may be one of the stranger, more unexpected legacies of the pro-life movement that arose in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade: In conservative communities, the hardening of anti-abortion attitudes may have increased the acceptance of single-parent families.

And by contrast, in less conservative communities, the willingness to accept abortion has helped create more stable families.

Did the pro-life movement lead to more single moms?

 

[weaver2]

Bill was attacking the system, not the recipients. Context, it's important, as is the fact that O'Reilly hasn't been a Fox News Personality for nearly 3 years now.


Discussing a stupid suggestion by a lawmaker isn't attacking people on welfare. Again, context is important.


Michael Goodwin isn't and has never been a Fox New personality. He was a "contributor", which is something else entirely. He's also not attacking those on welfare, he's discussing the "stigma" that (at least used to) comes with applying for handouts.


They were discussing disability, which is different than the "handouts" that we have been discussing (welfare, food stamps, housing, etc...). They were also discussing whether or not the rapid increase in disability applications were coming from "'moochers', or because people need help". This isn't an attack on people on welfare (or disability) per se so much as it was discussing if there are "moochers" trying to take advantage of the system, of which there are. While this is the closest that you or anyone have come to providing something resembling "Fox News personalities attacking the people on welfare" up to this point, there is a distinct difference between disability and welfare and no one was being attacked here. They were simply having a discussion regarding the ever increasing applications for disability.


I'll give you partial credit here. Describing the actions of some on welfare could be seen as an attack on people on welfare, but it wasn't an attack on "people on welfare" so much as it was discussing what some people believe based on the actions of some, who happen to be on welfare. There are people that aren't on welfare that "bum rush" Wal-Mart after Thanksgiving as well. In fact, I'd say there are more that do this that aren't on welfare than there are those that are. In addition, Charles Payne isn't a Fox News Personality and he never has been. He has only worked for Fox Business, never for Fox News.


This is another example of a contributor, not a Fox News personality, attacking the system and the fact that public pensions are horrible. Lamenting that there isn't more of a stigma associated with welfare isn't an attack on the people on welfare as I believe the vast majority of people that have ever gone on welfare aren't proud of the fact. Discussing the lack of a stigma isn't an attack on those on welfare so much as it is that we have a certain percentage of the public who sees no problem with using the welfare system to their advantage.


While I'll give you credit for putting forth a little more effort than you counterpart did, you didn't provide a single link to any of these "facts". You also only listed one actual Fox News personality that still works at Fox News (partial credit for O'Reilly). Contributors and those who work for other networks aren't Fox News personalities and you didn't provide a single instance of a Fox News personality attacking people for simply being on welfare.

Welfare is supposed to be a safety net to help people get back on their feet, or at least on their feet if they're young and just starting out. It's not supposed to be used as a means to live one's life year after year after year. I don't knock anyone for using welfare as a means to get by temporarily, and I've never heard a single Fox News personality state anything to the contrary. Having said that, I don't watch much Fox News and I'm not a big fan of Hannity at all, which you didn't even bring up. So while you put forth a better effort, you have failed to show that Fox News personalities have attacked the people on welfare, at least in a general sense.

Take a pole and see how many people think Fox isn't attacking the poor.

 

[RedAkston]

Take a pole and see how many people think Fox isn't attacking the poor.

You could take a pole. or a poll, and I'm certain that the results would fall mostly under partisan lines.

 

[Cynical]

Blue states have higher percentage of college graduates.
Blue states have fewer single moms.
Blue states have fewer divorces.
Blues states have more stable two parent homes.


Actually the pro life movement may be responsible for the increase of single mothers.

It is very telling that the highest numbers of single mothers live in the red states.


From the following :



Did the pro-life movement lead to more single moms?

So when a single woman has a child she is doing it to get back at the the pro-life movement? Regarding your statements about Red vs Blue states demonstrate nothing. You are aware that not everyone in a so-called Red state votes R and not everyone in a Blue state votes D. Regarding this thread you would need stats on conservative Christians vs liberals for areas you raised.

 

[minnie616]

So when a single woman has a child she is doing it to get back at the the pro-life movement? Regarding your statements about Red vs Blue states demonstrate nothing. You are aware that not everyone in a so-called Red state votes R and not everyone in a Blue state votes D. Regarding this thread you would need stats on conservative Christians vs liberals for areas you raised.

The stats are in the book

Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do
by Andrew Gelman

The book already analyzes far more data most.
It is also rich in graphical presentation of evidence.