Posted on 08/23/2017 7:23:41 PM PDT by grundle
The Guardian recently published this article about a single mother who is having financial troubles as she tries to raise her two children on the salary that she gets from working at a fast food restaurant.
As is always the case with articles like this, the article makes absolutely no mention of the children’s father. (I have written about this media irresponsibility before – see here and here.)
In this particular case, the article refers to the woman as “a single mother of two.”
It doesn’t say that she is “divorced,” or that she is “widowed.”
The article makes absolutely zero mention of the children’s father.
The article does quote the woman as saying:
“At the top of America, when it comes to Trump and them, their goal is to keep us down. Between these billion-dollar companies and Trump, it’s a power trip.”
So now it’s Trump’s fault that this woman is a single mother of two.
I’d like to see the results of the DNA test for that.
If Trump is in fact the father of her children, then yes, it is Trump’s fault that she is having so much financial trouble.
Otherwise, Trump has no fault whatsoever in her situation.
The article also talks about how the woman is part of the movement to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
But in the real world, even liberals themselves do not want to pay fast food workers $15 an hour.
In December 2013, I made this blog post, which is titled “I dare liberals to buy a McDonald’s franchise, and pay the workers $15 an hour.”
More than three years later, I followed it up with this blog post, which is titled, “Hypocrite liberals have rejected my challenge for them to buy a McDonald’s franchise and pay the workers $15 an hour.”
I also made this other blog post, which is titled, “In the real world, no liberal has ever bought a McDonald’s franchise and paid the workers $15 an hour.”
So even liberals themselves are not willing to pay McDonald’s workers $15 an hour.
Here is some information that liberals never talk about:
Let’s consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.
The first group consists of people who followed all three of these steps:
1) Finish high school.
2) Get a full-time job.
3) Wait until age 21 and get married before having children.
The second group consists of people who followed zero of those three steps.
Among people who follow all three of these steps, the poverty rate is 2%.
Among people who follow zero of these steps, the poverty rate is 76%.
(My source for that information is this article, which refers to this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.)
Finally, here is a seven minute video with information that liberals never talk about. In my opinion, every middle school and high school in the U.S. should show this to all of their students, repeatedly, every year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru4SVUlNfMY
The consensus members here at FreeRepublic do not agree with you on: Abortion
Recreational Drug Use
Universal Health Care
Homosexual Marriage
and the Anti-Semitic lunatic, Ron Paul
(or his surrogate Gary Johnson)
You post at FreeRepublic because you're a pimp who is concerned about hits
for your trashblog and pushing your Libertarian agenda.
And your posting history, along with the link I provided in post #7 proves it.
The Gooch has had his posting privileges suspended on several occasions for exactly the sort of behavior I cited.
In fact he had a two week suspension just this month which commenced on 8/2.
As for not causing trouble and following the rules, he has also had numerous threads pulled for various reasons including content and blatant copyright violations which endangered FreeRepublic.
" If you disagree with him on so many issues, perhaps—through the art of persuasion—he can be disabused of some of his more fallacious policy positions..."
If you want to try, be my guest.
I'm going to stick with Mark Twain on this one.
Unfirnitaely herpin has become a “recreational” drug
Kind of unfair to drag others onto your battle
I know some folks on that list are interested.
If you are not, I will not bother you further.
interesting
Wow! That’s a great idea!
Thanks!
For too long people have assumed our ghetto folk having children young was because of ignorance and/or lack of availability of birth control. The simple truth is that this is the “career” these young women pursue - a professional parasite on the taxpayers’ backs. As they near high school graduation, they are looking at a situation where they will no longer qualify to provide benefits for the welfare sow that bred them. In order to set up a new nest, she must have a baby; getting a job/learning a profession or trade is unthinkable - she has no skills or education. She breeds a “golden ticket welfare bastard” and the cycle starts again; she gets her own apartment, food stamps, cash benefits, Obamaphone, free college if she wants it, etc. The only change over 50 years of this lunacy is the drop in birthrate; one bastard will suffice.
Flooding the ghetto schools with birth control accomplished nothing; nobody wanted it, though they all understood its purpose.
The only slight difference I have with what you have outlined is that I don’t think the first pregnancy is that calculated. Sexual activity is such a given as soon as the girl turns, say, fourteen, and no thought is given to contraception — it’s not even considered and dismissed — that the fist pregnancy is inevitable; it really does “just happen”. (My point is that the teenage girl’s mother needn’t bother to prod her daughter to get pregnant because pregnancy soon will follow the girl’s thirteenth birthday, as day follows night.) Now, after the first baby is born, and the teenage mother is given a place to live, Medicaid, food stamps, and a bit of cash, she will learn that the key to keeping all of this is to either be pregnant or have a child under age five at all times. This won’t be difficult, as these girls get pregnant over and again until their late forties. In fact, when I read that more black babies are aborted than born in NYC, I figured out that whether a particular pregnancy is carried to term depends on a) does the mother “need” this particular baby to keep her benefits? If the answer is, “No” — because she has enough kids under five already to hold her for a while — then it’s b) will this particular baby entice its own father to stop by and sleep over once in a while. If the answer again, is, “No”, then the pregnancy is aborted.
Sad but true points; I remember when those people were caught on tape accepting a donation on the condition it would be used for a black woman’s abortion...
Been saying this for years. Extend it to ‘welfare’ in perpetually poor African nations and watch the death-by-starvation rate plummet...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.