Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


jk

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wxman91 said:

I haven't double-checked your number for accuracy, but if so, why is that the case?

To your second point, I'll let my Pakistani SIL know that she's had no problems as a Muslim in America.  Oh, only East Asians count.  Got it.

One of the main reasons is democratic policies that encourage people to stay single as they receive more benefits from the government.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

One the the main reason is democratic policies that encourage people to stay single as they receive more benefits from the government.

That's an interesting theory.  So, do you advocate that we change those policies and increase the payments so that married people receive an equal amount?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wxman91 said:

That's an interesting theory.  So, do you advocate that we change those policies and increase the payments so that married people receive an equal amount?

Theory? Ever talked to someone on welfare?

I advocate that there is a tiered system of help as you climb your way out of financial hardship and your income rises. Provide real life benefits so people can get to work.

I make minimum wage as a single mom with three kids at home, so I get x benefits, as my income rises those benefits should just go away at a certain threshold or if I get married, increasing my household income. They should be reduced by a sensible amount as I rise up and improve my station in life until ultimately I need no help.

As it stands, a person going from poverty to rising up will have to take a step back initially from a financial standpoint. Hence, why people don't usually see the benefit to doing it.

You have to reward hard work to get people to want to do it, democratic economic policies generally don't fit that description.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

No, you presented a chart that shows they are the lowest in net worth of every race.  Then, you explained why it was.  So you must have the antidote.

There are no shortage of good ideas out there.  They just need the willpower and dollars to come to fruition.  The problem is that this is such an ingrained, multi-century issue that there are no magic bullets.  Here's a few:

  • My top idea would be about education.  Reduce class sizes dramatically in low-performing schools and make sure that the facilities in urban areas are up to par.
  • Ensure that public transportation is fully funded.  Most urban, impoverished residents do not have vehicles and are effectively "trapped" in their locations which may not be anywhere close to where the jobs are.
  • Stop imprisoning people for drug violations.  Period.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wxman91 said:

There are no shortage of good ideas out there.  They just need the willpower and dollars to come to fruition.  The problem is that this is such an ingrained, multi-century issue that there are no magic bullets.  Here's a few:

  • My top idea would be about education.  Reduce class sizes dramatically in low-performing schools and make sure that the facilities in urban areas are up to par.
  • Ensure that public transportation is fully funded.  Most urban, impoverished residents do not have vehicles and are effectively "trapped" in their locations which may not be anywhere close to where the jobs are.
  • Stop imprisoning people for drug violations.  Period.

 

Those are reasonable solutions, though to be black on white(pun unintended) on that last one is a slippery slope, maybe some nuance to that and I'm on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

Theory? Ever talked to someone on welfare?

I advocate that there is a tiered system of help as you climb your way out of financial hardship and your income rises. Provide real life benefits so people can get to work.

I make minimum wage as a single mom with three kids at home, so I get x benefits, as my income rises those benefits should just go away at a certain threshold or if I get married, increasing my household income. They should be reduced by a sensible amount as I rise up and improve my station in life until ultimately I need no help.

As it stands, a person going from poverty to rising up will have to take a step back initially from a financial standpoint. Hence, why people don't usually see the benefit to doing it.

You have to reward hard work to get people to want to do it, democratic economic policies generally don't fit that description.

I fully agree with this idea.  But it is disingenuous to frame this as a republican idea and say that the Ds are against it.  Ds aren't the ones that are for cutting benefits, Rs are.  So, any plan that the Rs come up with, no matter if the phase-out is sensible, will result in a benefit cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

Those are reasonable solutions, though to be black on white(pun unintended) on that last one is a slippery slope, maybe some nuance to that and I'm on board.

I think most people agree that putting people in jail for using drugs is a futile exercise and harmful in the long run.

I also think that it is absurd for a kid selling on street corner to be charged with a felony that will follow him around his entire life.  Mandatory minimum sentences at the state and federal levels need to be thrown out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wxman91 said:

I fully agree with this idea.  But it is disingenuous to frame this as a republican idea and say that the Ds are against it.  Ds aren't the ones that are for cutting benefits, Rs are.  So, any plan that the Rs come up with, no matter if the phase-out is sensible, will result in a benefit cut.

I disagree with your framing of Republicans position on welfare. "Cutting benefits" is a campaign talking point for the opposition, but Republicans want to cut benefits by providing a way for people not to need those benefits. That is the position I align with.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wxman91 said:

I think most people agree that putting people in jail for using drugs is a futile exercise and harmful in the long run.

I also think that it is absurd for a kid selling on street corner to be charged with a felony that will follow him around his entire life.  Mandatory minimum sentences at the state and federal levels need to be thrown out.

I agree. As long as a first time offender and a chronic offender are handled differently.

Marijuana needs to become equal to alcohol from a legal perspective as soon as possible and that would take care of the majority of the problem.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wxman91 said:

Well, you have people like Oxbow who have apparently decided that it is the Black community's culture that is the problem, not the circumstances that have led to the various problems.

Two incredibly obvious factors which are never discussed by the woke community are family and education.  Make each a focus and statistically the rest falls into place.  I can't understand why a major focus on this whole issue isn't placing an emphasis on the family and education.  Unfortunately it's racist to state that having an intact family, or at least a strong father figure, is critically important.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

Two incredibly obvious factors which are never discussed by the woke community are family and education.  Make each a focus and statistically the rest falls into place.  I can't understand why a major focus on this whole issue isn't placing an emphasis on the family and education.  Unfortunately it's racist in state that having an intact family, or at least a strong father figure, is critically important.

"We disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

"We disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable".

I don't agree with BLM's use of "disrupt" either (wtf?), but you forgot to include the second half of the sentence where BLM's advocates supporting each other as families and collectively caring for another.  I'd like to think that most of my fellow Sioux fans have also lent a hand to an extended family member or friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

I don't agree with BLM's use of "disrupt" either (wtf?), but you forgot to include the second half of the sentence where BLM's advocates supporting each other as families and collectively caring for another.  I'd like to think that most of my fellow Sioux fans have also lent a hand to an extended family member or friend.

You don't need to disrupt the nuclear family structure to achieve that part though. I also notice a lack of mention on the importance of fathers in BLM's message...

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

I don't agree with BLM's use of "disrupt" either (wtf?), but you forgot to include the second half of the sentence where BLM's advocates supporting each other as families and collectively caring for another.  I'd like to think that most of my fellow Sioux fans have also lent a hand to an extended family member or friend.

I’d bet that 60% of your fellow male Sioux fans that have children aren’t divorced or are living in the same household as their children.  You can achieve B without having to disrupt A.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benny Baker said:

I don't agree with BLM's use of "disrupt" either (wtf?), but you forgot to include the second half of the sentence where BLM's advocates supporting each other as families and collectively caring for another.  I'd like to think that most of my fellow Sioux fans have also lent a hand to an extended family member or friend.

Correct collective caring as in Marxist.  No thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benny Baker said:

I don't agree with BLM's use of "disrupt" either (wtf?), but you forgot to include the second half of the sentence where BLM's advocates supporting each other as families and collectively caring for another.  I'd like to think that most of my fellow Sioux fans have also lent a hand to an extended family member or friend.

 

1 hour ago, SiouxBoys said:

You don't need to disrupt the nuclear family structure to achieve that part though. I also notice a lack of mention on the importance of fathers in BLM's message...

 

1 hour ago, homer said:

I’d bet that 60% of your fellow male Sioux fans that have children aren’t divorced or are living in the same household as their children.  You can achieve B without having to disrupt A.  

You missed the part where I literally said "wtf" to disrupting the nuclear family.  I agree with you both; you don't need to disrupt the nuclear family whatsoever.

In any event, I was merely pointing out that quoting half the sentence suggests that BLM is indifferent, perhaps hostile, to the concept of families.  Just putting it in full context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

 

 

You missed the part where I literally said "wtf" to disrupting the nuclear family.  I agree with you both; you don't need to disrupt the nuclear family whatsoever.

In any event, I was merely pointing out that quoting half the sentence suggests that BLM is indifferent, perhaps hostile, to the concept of families.  Just putting it in full context.

BLM is......even in full context.  They don't claim to hide that fact.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MrEdway said:

White Privilege...having an adult male for the first 18 years of your life who would kick your ass if you screwed up.

Systemic Racism...doesn't exist, never has. 

Systemic racism has certainly existed. To what extent it exists today is another discussion altogether.

3 hours ago, Benny Baker said:

I don't agree with BLM's use of "disrupt" either (wtf?), but you forgot to include the second half of the sentence where BLM's advocates supporting each other as families and collectively caring for another.  I'd like to think that most of my fellow Sioux fans have also lent a hand to an extended family member or friend.

People dont mind helping each other out, no doubt.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MrEdway said:

Systemic Racism...doesn't exist, never has. 

Really?

This is singularly the stupidest thing I've read on the internet in years.

Let's say that to the victims of Jim Crow in a segregated United States.

Let's say that to the victims of apartheid.

Let's say that to the victims of the holocaust.

I could go on, but why bother? 

You don't earn anything for saying that other than the wrath of people with a sense of right and wrong. You are a fool.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...