"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.
Naked racism is hard to digest.
Typical response when your position can't be substantiated by facts.
Resort to slander. I'm used to it...in spite of the diversity of my
immediate family.
**** off, Harry...you're a foolish old man.
If the shoe fits......
Read my reply to Bret. The fact that you have a black son-in-law, however
laudable, doesn't mean you can't be a racist.
You don't know **** about my family and you're the last POS
I'd bother trying to educate.
My parents had a black son-in-law, and they could not bring themselves to have
the wedding in their city.
So you come from a racist background.
I see now...don't project your issues to me.
They accepted him, but not without racial stereotypes at work. My sister is
a poor housekeeper -- but it was always his fault the house was messy in my
mothers eyes. When their son had problems in high school....it was his fault,
not my sister's (who later was diagnosed with ADD despite her success in
life). And on and on. No matter that he was a college professor who went on
to become Dean of the College. That's stereotyping. That's racism.
When applied on a much broader scale...it is still racism.
It isn't racism to want to save people from your malicious benevolence.
The data is clear. Too much government assistance just traps
people in a cycle of dependance. It isn't my fault that you're to
weak minded to see the facts of the matter.
And let me tell you about what it means to be poor and black and how social
factors influence life for the poor....
My brother-in-law was raised on the south side of Chicago...a notorious black
slum. He lived with a grandmother, mother, two sisters. An absentee father,
who visited with the kids ocassionally.
His mother worked. All three kids went to college...he went on to graduate
studies. Ah, you say...work ethic. My brother-in-laws opinion? Had his
grandmother died earlier, he likely would have ended up selling groceries in
the 'hood, or perhaps running with one of the local gangs. Why? Because with
his mother working and no grandmother to take care of the kids, their lives
would have fallen apart...no one at home after school, an exhausted mother
trying to do it all including supporting the family, cooking, cleaning,
etc...and he and the girls...especially him would have been expected to work
to help out the family. That slimmest of margins meant the difference
between success and failure for him...not my opinion...his. No such thing as
free child care. No such thing as after-school programs. If the mother stayed
home to make sure the kids were okay.....you'd call her a welfare queen.
I'm happy it worked out for your brother-in-law.
But the data remains irrefutable.
http://www.city-journal.com/html/15_3_black_family.html
http://www.fumento.com/greatsociety.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...15roberts.html
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp
http://www.american-partisan.com/col.../qtr2/0506.htm
How about this...Sharp reductions in child poverty due to
WELFARE REFORM.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1661.cfm
Want another example?
No...your silly little one of anecdotes are meaningless
when discussing what is best for society. The data is
voluminous showing that government welfare programs
contributed to the breakdown of the family which in turn
leads to poverty. There is even data now showing
that the failure of preceding generations of parents
has resulted in a decline of marriage worthy young
black men extending the problem to subsequent
generations.
Would you knowingly poison the lives of
millions for the betterment of very few?
Apparently you would.
ScottW