Lori Alexander On Entitlement

[jenny_islander]

Totally ridiculous. When someone makes such a completely ignorant comment, clearly without doing any sort of research and making broad statements about every society ever, it just makes anything else she spews out seem idiotic, too. I don't understand how anyone can take this person seriously.

Also, if she really believes that government shouldn't be offering such services, she can forget getting any help from police, or the fire department, animal control, trash and recycling, street maintenance, postal service... forget going to any public space like a library, or a park, or a playground, not to mention schools. People fail to realize how much is provided by the government that they completely take for granted while they go shouting about "socialized" government.

Remember, "GET THE GOVT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!"

I swear sometimes it seems as though grown adults who know better believe in the Magic Money Tree.

[lilwriter85]

Not surprised the Nitwit allowed this comment to be published.

Harper · 1 hour ago

My grandmother was born to a family of Oklahoma sharecroppers in 1918. They were already used to poor crops and hunger when the Dust Bowl hit. She grew up with no electricity or running water and with dirt floors. No one in the family took part in the public work projects created by the government. In her words, "Those programs were for people who really needed them."

[jesssnerch]

I'm confused. What is the difference between marriage and civil union? Is it lack of religious endorsement? My husband and I were married by a judge. No church. I don't tell people we're civilly unified. I say we're married. It pisses me off when people use semantics to justify their bigoted assholishness.

[desertvixen]

Ben, I salute you.

Ken, I wish you would go away.

IF the government would step out of such things, the churches and other religious organizations would educate the young women and teach them abstinence and adoption.

What about the young men? Young women aren't getting pregnant by themselves.

[linnea27]

Ben, I salute you.

Ken, I wish you would go away.

What about the young men? Young women aren't getting pregnant by themselves.

It's the poor boys who are the victims here, of course. When young girls dress provocatively they have NO CHOICE but to have sex with her. Even when they are raised with good Christian values they are assaulted by what they see and can no longer control their actions. If girls could dress and behave modestly there would be no unwanted pregnancies or rape! Boys will be boys; they can't help their god-given sex drive. It's how they're made.

[/horriblesarcasm]

Ugh. I feel dirty just writing that. It's amazing people walk around with that attitude full-time.

[desertvixen]

Ugh. I feel dirty just writing that. It's amazing people walk around with that attitude full-time.

I know. I usually feel like a shower after I channel fundies.

[lilwriter85]

I wonder if Lori and Ken ever donate money to those pregnancy crisis centers that are sometimes run by fundie lite types.

[Koala]

I'm sorry, but would it be too much for either of these two to cite sources for all of these bullshit "facts" and "statistics" they put out there?

Ken:

I know there are some terrific monogamous and faithful gay couples who are in long term relationships, but the facts of gay civil unions and marriage is that the vast majority are open, meaning the partner's are not monogamous, but fooling around regularly with others. Is that a good place for an adopted child to ultimately discover that dad and dad love each other and yet sleep with other partners regularly?

How the fuck does he know this? Doesn't site a single statistic, just puts it out there and expects everyone to swallow it.

Three times (in this post) I have seen them divert when they were called on the utter shit they are feeding their readers:

Ken:

And, if you want to enter a dialogue with us, you are welcome to do so by writing to me at Bootsy328@yahoo.com, but trolling is not appreciated or helpful

So "open" dialogue now has to take place behind closed doors. Oh, and anyone who dares question Lori must be a troll.

Lori:

I have already written about gay marriage and my thoughts about it. We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue

But we all know she isn't just writing about her thoughts. She's putting information out there as fact, and her idiot readers are eating it up with a spoon.

Ken:

You have many interesting points which I cannot address all at this time.

And then he goes on to write a gwot (giant wall of text) addressing only the issues he thinks he can tackle and a subsequent post addressing someone else. Know why you can't "address his points at this time" Ken? Because you have NOTHING (aside from your bigotry) to refute them.

[lilwriter85]

Ken:

Any cursory study of the word marriage will lead you regularly back to one theme, and that is the procreation of children and the making of a family. Two of the same sex are not able to make children, hence, should what they do together be called a marriage?[

As you know, we would oppose gay sex on many grounds, moral and natural, but putting that aside, the concept of marriage is, and has been from the beginning of time, a societal recognition of a heterosexual couple who desires to both live together and procreate together. It created a structure for society around which the family was central, primarily because of the need to continue the repopulation of the society.

So what are you really fighting for? Recognition that somehow same sex couples deserve the same recognition as married couples, even though such couples cannot procreate. Yes, they can adopt, and I believe that such adoptions are unfair to the child who will not experience the normalcy of a mom and dad in his/her upbringing. Regardless, I still would not oppose same sex couples adopting, BUT they cannot contribute to society what most heterosexual couples can contribute... offspring.

Well, Ken you are a fucking idiot, not every straight married couples uses procreation as a theme for their marriage. Some straight couples who are able to have biological children choose to adopt, instead of adding to the overpopulated world. There is nothing wrong with couples wanting to have biological children. But not every couple is going to feel the desire to reproduce. I know two couples who are choosing to adopt instead of having biological children. Also Ken, there are heterosexual women who choose to have children via artificial insemination because they desire motherhood. Knowing you and your moron wife, you two probably hate the women who do stuff like that. There have also been single straight men who have adopted children or had children via surrogacy because they desire to become a parent. Let's not forget that some straight couples can't have children of their own, so I guess those marriages are meaningless because they can't contribute offspring to society.

[bananacat]

I wonder if Lori and Ken ever donate money to those pregnancy crisis centers that are sometimes run by fundie lite types.

Sometimes? They are nearly always run by fundie-lites.

[desertvixen]

a societal recognition of a heterosexual couple who desires to both live together and procreate together.

Except only...NOT. Do these people think time started in the 50s? (I know companionate marriage goes back farther than that, but the HISTORICAL FAIL is making my brain hurt, and I still have to proofread and add cites to my 1200 words on gay male culture in NYC from 1890 to 1940...)

Also, Ken's email is Bootsy? Somehow from him I would have expected something a little more typically masculine and Bradrick-esque.

[Gizmola]

there are many who are able to work and refuse to do so.

This quote above from Lori annoys me to no end. I read this kind of crap on FB from people who are against "entitlements" including Social Security, Medicare, WIC, etc. HOW DO THEY KNOW PEOPLE REFUSE TO WORK??? SAID WHO??? I'm so sick of this hatred towards those who need help. I'm not even talking that from a fundie, "I heart Jesus" perspective they should be working overtime to help out those who need help. Even atheists I know spout this nonsense.

I assume that everyone who accepts government aid does so because they need help. Period. It's not my place to judge what kind of help they need or how much or what they're doing with or without that help. You need help? It's there. No strings attached.

I know I'm quite inarticulate on this presently, but it really gets to me. No one EVER states any kind of statistic or reference proving this statement to be true. It's just bandied about by those who believe the government is evil and that welfare recipients are evil freeloaders...of course, when THEY take Social Security or unemployment benefits, that's different. THEY really do need them. Everyone else? Screw 'em.

Does anyone else know what I mean or understand what I'm trying to express? Anger and frustration are impeding my ability to be coherent.

[lilwriter85]

Except only...NOT. Do these people think time started in the 50s? (I know companionate marriage goes back farther than that, but the HISTORICAL FAIL is making my brain hurt, and I still have to proofread and add cites to my 1200 words on gay male culture in NYC from 1890 to 1940...)

Also, Ken's email is Bootsy? Somehow from him I would have expected something a little more typically masculine and Bradrick-esque.

I laughed when I saw Ken's email address.

[desertvixen]

I assume that everyone who accepts government aid does so because they need help. Period. It's not my place to judge what kind of help they need or how much or what they're doing with or without that help. You need help? It's there. No strings attached.

I know I'm quite inarticulate on this presently, but it really gets to me. No one EVER states any kind of statistic or reference proving this statement to be true. It's just bandied about by those who believe the government is evil and that welfare recipients are evil freeloaders...of course, when THEY take Social Security or unemployment benefits, that's different. THEY really do need them. Everyone else? Screw 'em.

Does anyone else know what I mean or understand what I'm trying to express? Anger and frustration are impeding my ability to be coherent.

I think you're pretty coherent, and I definitely know what you mean.

It's one issue on which I am a little bit of a bleeding heart, but I don't mind that my tax dollars go to feed children who need it, help people who need help heating their homes, paying for childcare, or just trying to make it. I can't justify the idea of punishing people who are struggling and doing their best just because there are some abusing the privilege. I think there are definitely ways we can improve the system, but abolishing it is not the answer.

[Gizmola]

I think you're pretty coherent, and I definitely know what you mean.

It's one issue on which I am a little bit of a bleeding heart, but I don't mind that my tax dollars go to feed children who need it, help people who need help heating their homes, paying for childcare, or just trying to make it. I can't justify the idea of punishing people who are struggling and doing their best just because there are some abusing the privilege. I think there are definitely ways we can improve the system, but abolishing it is not the answer.

QFT. The only reason I assume there's any abuse is because there is abuse in any system. It just is. However, we have no real way to know how much abuse and the assumption that EVERYONE is abusing the system or that by virtue of taking govt aid one is lazy bugs me greatly. I believe very, very few people want to accept govt aid and do so only to take care of their families or themselves when they haven't any other options. If we want to overhaul the system or we want to do something to assure that govt aid is a temporary system so that people have other options, fine. But to paint all people as lazy is just downright rude. Especially since the people who spout that crap are usually those who would avail themselves of the aid should they need it. Hypocrites.

[lilwriter85]

I think you're pretty coherent, and I definitely know what you mean.

It's one issue on which I am a little bit of a bleeding heart, but I don't mind that my tax dollars go to feed children who need it, help people who need help heating their homes, paying for childcare, or just trying to make it. I can't justify the idea of punishing people who are struggling and doing their best just because there are some abusing the privilege. I think there are definitely ways we can improve the system, but abolishing it is not the answer.

This.

[linnea27]

QFT. The only reason I assume there's any abuse is because there is abuse in any system. It just is. However, we have no real way to know how much abuse and the assumption that EVERYONE is abusing the system or that by virtue of taking govt aid one is lazy bugs me greatly. I believe very, very few people want to accept govt aid and do so only to take care of their families or themselves when they haven't any other options. If we want to overhaul the system or we want to do something to assure that govt aid is a temporary system so that people have other options, fine. But to paint all people as lazy is just downright rude. Especially since the people who spout that crap are usually those who would avail themselves of the aid should they need it. Hypocrites.

I also agree. I'm a social worker and I've worked with many families receiving government assistance. Of those, I can think of one who was genuinely trying to work the system. The rest were really trying to make it- young moms who wanted to go to college to get a job to support their kids, women on disability, women with children with disabilities who couldn't work because no childcare centre would take children with those specific needs, women who left their abusive spouses and were trying to find work after years out of the work force, women turning away from a life of drug addiction and prostitution who would probably take any job thrown at them but "10 years as a prostitute" doesn't exactly look good on a resume, etc. While I'm not sure if Lori or Ken would see any of those people as "worthy" of assistance, every one of those families were trying their best and doing everything they could to provide a good life for their children. I gladly contribute my tax dollars to help these people.

Furthermore, it's not like these people are living high off the hog, even the ones working the system. They lived in horrible housing with very little food and no money for anything. It's not an appealing life for the vast, vast majority of people who can work.

[G G Gunhold]

The Unabomber look-a-like responded to Ben on the comments section. Ben responded back and then Lori also added a response. Hey Lori, I thought the Bible said that women should be quiet. Shouldn't you be letting Ken and Ben debate?

Interesting that those are the two options for young women. What happened to parenting, either with the father, with someone else, or with support from family or the community? Really bizarre, considering the get-married-young-pop-out-twenty mentality. Is Ken not on board with that? I suppose he's framed them as vulnerable and probably not Jebus-loving (if they were, they wouldn't be sexing the poor young men) and yes, they don't deserve to have kids. Or to have sex without having kids.

Seriously, I see so many fundie (lite) blogs that talk about how horrid (non-fundie, unwed) teen mothers are and how THEY deserve her child(ren) and will save them for a particularly capricious brand of Jebusness, or how they must save those colored babies in those other countries for "Him". Between that and the money that changes hands and the clear supply-demand stuff, it's hard not to see adoption in the U.S. as pretty corrupt. Treating any woman, whether she's your wife or a teenager in an unexpected/tough situation, as if she's a breeding sow there for you to fulfill your dreams of a family is seriously sick. And doing it by reaping the seeds of slut-shaming you (and society) planted years ago so it seems consensual is not any better.

[YPestis]

Well, I often wonder where this horror of "socialism" comes from within the fundie community. I suppose it stems from a natural fear of gov't interference since many fundies have fringe beliefs. I also wonder if race has anything to do with it. Many fundies of this brand are white. They were traditionally at the bottom of the economic pile but still above African-Americans. The civil rights movement no longer placed them above blacks, and they may perceive social programs as helping minorities at the expense of themselves. I get an inkling of racism from many fundies with their talk of how the Founders were wonderful slave owners and that slavery wasn't*that* bad back then.....

Anyway, the more pressing matter is the hypocrisy these fundies show. Many probably benefit from various social programs without realizing it. There are items like child tax credits, local food banks, medicaid, etc that these fundie families take advantage of to maintain their quiverful lifestyle. Then again, they could say tax credits is merely their money returned to them (not true as that means less money for roads, police and firemen that they still take advantage of). They could say that the local food banks is just voluntary donation and therefore not socialism (not true as many receive federal grants or tax-exempt status). And of course, they still get a bill from medicaid, except hospital waiting on delayed payment means charging others more to "redistribute" and cover the cost.

I had an old friend who took a right wing turn after college. She started railing against "radical feminist" and the evil "socialist" programs. She claimed all welfare should be abolished because they would be better managed by private charities/churches. She even railed against dual income homes and how parents love their McMansions more than their kids. Then she had a kid, her husband lost his job, they were on unemployment benefits for over a year....and now she works to support the family. These days, she rails against republicans and looks forward universal health care. I guess private charities weren't enough to cover her expenses during the whole year her family went without income. She even forewent health insurance briefly. As others stated, welfare is only wasteful to some when they are not receiving it, it's only unnecessary when they don't need it. I wish these other fundies would step down from their moral pedestal and see the hypocrisy their attitudes project. There's nothing Christian about looking down on others who choose a different lifestyle than you, who are at more difficult economic situation than you. Fundies talk a lot about Jesus, but few seem to share his enthusiasm for helping the poor and doing good works.

[lilwriter85]

It looks like Lori hasn't tried to bury this recent posting like she did with the previous one.

[Koala]

Lord only knows why not. She and Ken made complete asses of themselves.

"Here are the FACTS111ty! We can't back them up, so don't ask! JESUS HATES GAYS AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS! TRUST US!"

[Hisey]

. Between that and the money that changes hands and the clear supply-demand stuff, it's hard not to see adoption in the U.S. as pretty corrupt. Treating any woman, whether she's your wife or a teenager in an unexpected/tough situation, as if she's a breeding sow there for you to fulfill your dreams of a family is seriously sick. And doing it by reaping the seeds of slut-shaming you (and society) planted years ago so it seems consensual is not any better.

Some good friends just adopted a 14-year old with Hep B. Though some money did change hands (for work that was done), there didn't seem to be anything corrupt about it. The child (teen, really) is in much better health now that she is getting consistent medical care, and she has three older sisters to boot. I see it as a win-win situation, she is much loved.

As for cute-little-baby adoptions, I think it's time to stop being so condescending to birth mothers, and assuming that we can't trust their choices. I mean, they are adults or near adults, and they ahve made a choice, and so many people assume they were "coerced" or "pressured" or "would want to keep their baby once they spent time with it." It's kind of like the abortion argument--if you can keep women from aborting, they will eventually give birth, fall in love with their baby, and have a "happy family." Why not trust a woman's choice in both situations?

[valsa]

As for cute-little-baby adoptions, I think it's time to stop being so condescending to birth mothers, and assuming that we can't trust their choices. I mean, they are adults or near adults, and they ahve made a choice, and so many people assume they were "coerced" or "pressured" or "would want to keep their baby once they spent time with it." It's kind of like the abortion argument--if you can keep women from aborting, they will eventually give birth, fall in love with their baby, and have a "happy family." Why not trust a woman's choice in both situations?

This x 10

[lilwriter85]

Lord only knows why not. She and Ken made complete asses of themselves.

"Here are the FACTS111ty! We can't back them up, so don't ask! JESUS HATES GAYS AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS! TRUST US!"

For awhile Ken and Lori reminded me a bit of PP and ZsuZsu. But I have to give the PP credit for not commenting or trying to white knight ZsuZsu on her blog. Ken was totally white knighting his precious wife from the ebil liberals. He has done stuff like before on Lori's blog.

[lilwriter85]

It looks Lori did a post in response to the debate she and Ken had with Ben.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2012/09/in-defense-of-traditional-marriage.html