Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: angcat
I think it's because women are loose these days. Very different from my days in the 80’s. We dated and men took us out and spent some money. Now all whores walking around pregnant no dating just hop into bed and get preggers and get welfare. It really is a disgusting generation. Except for a few (and of course my daughters). And my generation raised these whores.

You touch on a point I bring up often. The "Great Society" program of the 1960s made a very socially destructive form of behavior possible. Giving money and housing to unmarried welfare recipients not only creates future criminals and future parasites, it encourages exactly the wrong sort of behavior. (promiscuity) Back when there were bad consequences for being loose, we had a lot less of it.

This disaster has LBJ stamped all over it.

36 posted on 09/21/2015 6:44:20 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
There is no shame now it is mind boggling. I never can understand why a 19, 20 year old want babies. We had so much fun at that age. None of my friends had babies unmarried at that age. I knew less than a handful of pregnant girls in my High School in Yonkers. If they were they left and it was kept low keyed. Not like today they parade their disgusting behavior around 20, 21 year old no college no future no contribution to society.
46 posted on 09/21/2015 6:49:09 AM PDT by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

You touch on a point I bring up often. The “Great Society” program of the 1960s made a very socially destructive form of behavior possible. Giving money and housing to unmarried welfare recipients not only creates future criminals and future parasites, it encourages exactly the wrong sort of behavior. (promiscuity) Back when there were bad consequences for being loose, we had a lot less of it.


How right you are. I used to love Diana Ross and the Supremes singing that old song, “Love Child.” I don’t know when they sung it, maybe the 60s? But that notion is so foreign to us now.

She was telling her man in the song that she DID TOO love m and want him. But she didn’t want to do what he was “wanting” because she didn’t want to create a child like she was, a Love Child, a shame to her family, who grew up dirt poor in second hand dresses and knew the shame at school of being that unplanned pregnancy.

WHAT A CONCEPT. My first husband, in Europe, was such a love child, and in Switzerland it was still shameful then. Everyone knew it meant poverty and shame.

I think we were better off then. Kids deserve a more secure, higher income family where a loving parent watches the child all day.


69 posted on 09/21/2015 7:11:40 AM PDT by Yaelle (Trump would make a Gorbachev tear down a wall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson