I get conservative guys point about public assistance

[Roflmouth]

Blanket statement, appeal to emotion, and erroneous conclusion. The trifecta of fail.

1. Don't be scared homey.

Golly, I'm sure glad you didn't appeal to an emotion.

2. Offenders frequently get out and commit more crimes,

Not while they're in prison though. So thanks for arguing for longer sentences.

so much for keeping them away from you. Which is Maybe if the focus was not punishment, those numbers would drop.

And maybe if magical unicorns dropped from the sky, they would all see the errors of their ways.

We will not even go full ham on the topic of how minor offenders are conditioned and indoctrinated into much worse threats to society while doing their time either.

They're not "conditioned or indoctrinated," they're fully sentient beings capable of making choices, like choosing to commit more crimes.

3. Choosing the term victim, while technically accurate, reflects your fear and insecurity.

It also reflects reality. But it's not like prison reformers and other useless idiots spend even a second thinking about the victims of crimes, so sorry for bringing that up.

 

[agent00f]

Like any of the santamonious complete asshole liberals spewing utter bullshit in this thread thumbing down your nose about the supposed charity of others goes to rural America and helps anyone out. STFU already with the high horse bullshit.

Every other thread the biggest assholes amoung you are dismissing at least half your fellow countrymen as idiot hicks because they don't tend to vote for your preferred puppetmasters. Do shove the sanctimony up your self-righteous asses... no one is fooled that any of you left loons are any great helpers of the rural poor.

Liberals are not statistically more charitable than conservatives either... you can shove that fact straight up next to puffed up sanctimony.

Also: to the lame excuses about all of these types just becoming crimminals unless a politician fleeces someone else and pretends to give it to poor people... there's not a significantly higher crime rate in rural and small town America vs. larger urban areas. Pretty obvious to most, but never facts get in the way of a good high-horse hyporcrite rant!

A serious question for you: are more likely or less likely to continue ranting this way after being reminded that chucky or rofl might as well have wrote it sans comments about blacks or muslims or gays? If you're too scarred to reply we'll just empirically observe the answer.

You mean like when you repeatedly called black people "darkies?" LOL

There's good reason why you're particularly apt for scarring your peers.

 

[Roflmouth]

A serious question for you: are more likely or less likely to continue ranting this way after being reminded that chucky or rofl might as well have wrote it sans comments about blacks or muslims or gays? If you're too scarred to reply we'll just empirically observe the answer.

"We'll" LOL

 

[agent00f]

"We'll" LOL

Yes, you'll also get to see how effective you are as a tool.

 

[Roflmouth]

Yes, you'll also get to see how effective you are as a tool.

Your delusions are adorable.

 

[agent00f]

Your delusions are adorable.

I'm sure Zaap shares that view with you and chucky, along with all just about everything else, too.

 

[Roflmouth]

I'm sure Zaap shares that view with you and chucky, along with all just about everything else, too.

You're not sure about anything and it kills you inside.

 

[agent00f]

You're not sure about anything and it kills you inside.

No, I'm pretty sure Zaap is permanently scarred from being likened to you.

 

[Roflmouth]

No, I'm pretty sure Zaap is permanently scarred from being likened to you.

No, you're really not, just as you're so desperately, pitiably unsure about everything else.

 

[agent00f]

No, you're really not, just as you're so desperately, pitiably unsure about everything else.

No, I'm pretty sure you're going to just about the only diehard conservative left to represent the cause soon enough, which is pretty great given how awful you make them all look.

 

[Ackmed]

So what? Here's a concept you might find useful-

http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts

So what? Well, you simply can't make as good of food choices from a gas station as you can an actual grocery store.

I can't speak to every gas station in America, just the one I pass by every day. Which proudly claims to accept EBT. You're argument is invalid in my case, as a Food City is .7 miles away according to google maps.

Its not punishing people for being on EBT by not allowing them to use in gas station, or putting restrictions on where and what can be bought. Its trying to help them make better choices and not add to the huge obesity problem we have in America. Eating from a gas station will almost certainly do that. Not to mention all the other things that can be bought there.

I realize you just like to argue and try to troll me, but this time you really fell short. Terrible argument.

 

[kinev]

And yet what I made this point, Kinev decided to deflect it and turn it into "and how much do YOU help?" (And the answer turned out to be "a hell of a lot more than Kinev suspected").

How do we get this point across to the people who most need to see it?

No, I addressed the fact that you accused others of having a stock ticker instead of a soul when evaluating how/when to help (in addition to calling people "inhuman", "sociopathic", dark, desiring to see others suffer, etc). I pointed out that everyone, yourself included, analyzes how much to help others and at a certain point, we all decide that we have personally helped enough. I used, admittedly, hyperbolic examples that showed that you are guilty of the same sins that you accuse the other side of; it's just that where we draw that line is different. Same measuring stick; different goal lines.

It's easy to say "We should help the poor....you pay for it", which is what people who advocate for increased welfare spending by the government do. They get to feel like they're helping, caring, compassionate, and in extreme cases like you, get to deride those on the other side and label them monsters without opening their own wallets. It is a lot harder to give personally which is why I illustrated that despite all of the charity you are engaging in, you (and all of us) COULD give more, but we don't because our stock ticker has told us we've given enough. It's as simple as that: everyone has a stock ticker. You're not a bad person for not giving half of your salary to the poor; you're a bad person for condemning others for not wanting to be forced by you through the government to do that which you are not willing to personally do.

I don't think the other side is "evil" because they want to help the needy in a different way than I do. We might just see the definition of "needy" as different and we might differ in the best methods for helping. That is the whole point of this thread and the article.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what? Well, you simply can't make as good of food choices from a gas station as you can an actual grocery store.

I can't speak to every gas station in America, just the one I pass by every day. Which proudly claims to accept EBT. You're argument is invalid in my case, as a Food City is .7 miles away according to google maps.

Its not punishing people for being on EBT by not allowing them to use in gas station, or putting restrictions on where and what can be bought. Its trying to help them make better choices and not add to the huge obesity problem we have in America. Eating from a gas station will almost certainly do that. Not to mention all the other things that can be bought there.

I realize you just like to argue and try to troll me, but this time you really fell short. Terrible argument.

I'm not trolling you, just trying to get you to think about your judgemental Scrooge attitude.

There are rather large swaths of the country where nearly everybody is poor or near poor, scrambling just to get by. Federal transfer payments largely keep the economies afloat, not Jerb Creators. They've been going downhill for decades simply because progress & capital migration left them as backwaters of economic activity, opportunity & services. That's true of both urban & rural areas.

 

[Roflmouth]

I'm not trolling you, just trying to get you to think about your judgemental Scrooge attitude.

There are rather large swaths of the country where nearly everybody is poor or near poor, scrambling just to get by.

Because they choose to stay poor instead of putting in the work to get out of their shitty situations.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because they choose to stay poor instead of putting in the work to get out of their shitty situations.

You apparently define professional trolling as hard work, at least wrt your own situation.

Poverty isn't a moral deficiency but rather an economic condition. It's not like 25% of Pemiscot county is morally depraved, is it? It's merely convenient for insecure assholes to think that they might be.

 

[Zaap]

Agent sure does try hard to involve me in his dumb little arguments.

I'm pretty sure there's only one or two absolute lunatics on this forum, that are happy to be aligned with that nutbag and/or whoever he's the sockpuppet of.

For everyone else- the thread is pretty much over when it's just agentfail and whoever is bored/ignorant/newbie enough to still be bothering with him.

 

[agent00f]

Because they choose to stay poor instead of putting in the work to get out of their shitty situations.

Agent sure does try hard to involve me in his dumb little arguments.

I'm pretty sure there's only one or two absolute lunatics on this forum, that are happy to be aligned with that nutbag and/or whoever he's the sockpuppet of.

For everyone else- the thread is pretty much over when it's just agentfail and whoever is bored/ignorant/newbie enough to still be bothering with him.

Zaap, given the two of you are peas in a pod it would seem a safe assumption you don't disagree that we need to get rid of the muslims in addition to poor people.

 

[chucky2]

I won't even try to explain away your fantasies or strident self righteousness. Welfare abuse isn't shit compared to the abuse that the American people have suffered at the hands of the high priests of greed & the religion of trickle down economics.

Or, one could understand they're both a problem and both needs fixing...unlike a certain self righteous poster who blathers about Corp greed (who actually employ people and produce things) any chance he can get - did this certain poster get downsized or something? Where did the big bad Corp touch you, er, sorry, this certain poster...

More to the point, you're pretty much proud to be ignorant, having admitted to not even reading the article linked in the OP or much of anything else on the subject of poverty. If you can judge poor people to be immoral, then that justifies them living on the edge of desperation & Trump shitting in gold toilets. The fact that he's rich means that he's moral, right?

Here's what I can judge for certain: No one on the public teat needs to be blowing my tax dollar supported handout money on Pepsi and Cheetos. Full stop. I don't have money forcibly taken from my paycheck so they can have luxuries. If they want luxuries, they can get off the public teat and enjoy them on their own dime. What that has to do with your TDS I'm not sure?

 

[zinfamous]

No, I addressed the fact that you accused others of having a stock ticker instead of a soul when evaluating how/when to help (in addition to calling people "inhuman", "sociopathic", dark, desiring to see others suffer, etc). I pointed out that everyone, yourself included, analyzes how much to help others and at a certain point, we all decide that we have personally helped enough. I used, admittedly, hyperbolic examples that showed that you are guilty of the same sins that you accuse the other side of; it's just that where we draw that line is different. Same measuring stick; different goal lines.

It's easy to say "We should help the poor....you pay for it", which is what people who advocate for increased welfare spending by the government do. They get to feel like they're helping, caring, compassionate, and in extreme cases like you, get to deride those on the other side and label them monsters without opening their own wallets. It is a lot harder to give personally which is why I illustrated that despite all of the charity you are engaging in, you (and all of us) COULD give more, but we don't because our stock ticker has told us we've given enough. It's as simple as that: everyone has a stock ticker. You're not a bad person for not giving half of your salary to the poor; you're a bad person for condemning others for not wanting to be forced by you through the government to do that which you are not willing to personally do.

I don't think the other side is "evil" because they want to help the needy in a different way than I do. We might just see the definition of "needy" as different and we might differ in the best methods for helping. That is the whole point of this thread and the article.

Do you realize that in many parts of the country, gas stations and 7/11-type markets really are the only options that many, many people have when it comes to food? These are called Food Deserts, are recognized by the FDA, and it is a huge problem.

So, what do you do? Just assume these people will make the "better" choice of finding other options, 10, 15, 20 miles or more away (of course many will have to figure out how to get there), or at the very least, allow them to use EBT for their only real food options, as shitty as they may be? Tough choice. Neither really is a good solution for them, but only one option is the only one that works (currently)

 

[zinfamous]

Because they choose to stay poor instead of putting in the work to get out of their shitty situations.

And clearly, you choose to be an ignorant fucking idiot, instead of educating yourself on the reality of these people and their issues.

You have no empathy, which makes you a perfect conservative for the cause of your masters.

 

[zinfamous]

Zaap, given the two of you are peas in a pod it would seem a safe assumption you don't disagree that we need to get rid of the muslims in addition to poor people.

Zaap isn't a troll. He may align along a different political or philosophical angle at times, maybe most of the time, but I recall him being relatively reasonable at times (not always; but then neither am I or other similarly disgusting leftists). But he can also be very agreeable and shares some typically leftists/commie views, which means he's complicated, which is good.

ROFLmouth is a paid troll or simply an idiot. They are nothing alike. If you choose to dismiss someone like Zaap as a racist (your general go-to) or idiot simply because you disagree with him on the topic, then I'm afraid that the issue is you.

 

[agent00f]

Zaap isn't a troll. He may align along a different political or philosophical angle at times, maybe most of the time, but I recall him being relatively reasonable at times (not always; but then neither am I or other similarly disgusting leftists). But he can also be very agreeable and shares some typically leftists/commie views, which means he's complicated, which is good.

ROFLmouth is a paid troll or simply an idiot. They are nothing alike. If you choose to dismiss someone like Zaap as a racist (your general go-to) or idiot simply because you disagree with him on the topic, then I'm afraid that the issue is you.

I didn't say Zaap is a racist, only that he's obliged to protect them. That and he behaves more or less like Roflmouth/chucky most of the time, which is hardly a coincidence.

I like to think you have enough respect for yourself to avoid disagreeing with the obvious.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I am still trying to figure out how assistance programs don't come out of everyone's pocket. Besides Trump who repeatedly files bankruptcy and raids his own charity organizations for pocket money.

 

[Jhhnn]

Or, one could understand they're both a problem and both needs fixing...unlike a certain self righteous poster who blathers about Corp greed (who actually employ people and produce things) any chance he can get - did this certain poster get downsized or something? Where did the big bad Corp touch you, er, sorry, this certain poster...



Here's what I can judge for certain: No one on the public teat needs to be blowing my tax dollar supported handout money on Pepsi and Cheetos. Full stop. I don't have money forcibly taken from my paycheck so they can have luxuries. If they want luxuries, they can get off the public teat and enjoy them on their own dime. What that has to do with your TDS I'm not sure?

Self righteous greed doesn't look good on anybody.

Demanding great judgement from poor people is an oxymoron just as much as believing that trickle down actually delivers to ordinary Americans.

Billionaires obviously deserve tax cuts because they're already rich & poor people deserve to get screwed even harder to make that happen. It's the morality you live by.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am still trying to figure out how assistance programs don't come out of everyone's pocket. Besides Trump who repeatedly files bankruptcy and raids his own charity organizations for pocket money.

What's missing here is understanding the kind of Greed that exists at the top. We have fabulously wealthy people whose need for money is completely abstract. Paying very high taxes on their investment based incomes won't change their lifestyles at all. More money means more power. Enough of it and you can challenge democracy itself, which is what's happening today.