[POLL] Do You Support Socialized Food?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigLouis
Yes, I will agree that most homeless follow your guidelines. However you cannot guarantee that it is beyond any shadow of a doubt that 100% of them do. You cannot take your life experience for facts that apply to everything.

How about the children of the homeless adults? Are they just lazy bums too?

There is no 100% in this world. That would be perfection, and perfection does not exist in this reality,

In this country, the laws dictate that those who are unable to properly feed, house, clothe, and otherwise care for their children are to have their children taken away from them. Then the children are placed in state-supervised and state-supported foster care homes where they are to receive the minimum basic care as dictated under the law.
In other words, your "think of the children" argument is meaningless, and I can only assume that you are either misinformed or you brought it up as a distraction in an attempt to strengthen your cause. That problem has already addressed by the people.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: SampSon
Russianpower == mysos == biglouis

So we have 3 people on a side of an argument so what does that mean exactly?

SampSon, Big Loius asked you a question, and we all(mysos, big loius, and myslef) would like to know the answer.
EDIT
provide proof to backup your statements please.. Otherwise, it's garbage.(like someone in your group said)

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: Amused
Uh oh! Here comes the "Wont somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!" argument. :roll:

So you don't think of the children. So that makes you a piece of garbage. Get off your high horse for the simple fact that you've most likely been coddled and never had to struggle. Have I had to struggle? No I have not however I can understand why some people do.

Ding ding ding!! We have a winner!

:roll:

Please show me starving kids in the US.

Oh, wait, you couldn't even show proof of ANYONE starving, much less kids.

And no. I have not been coddled. I was homeless and addicted to drugs when I was in my late teens. I cleaned myself up and got my life together. I am a self made man.

Yup everyone lived the "life" when you're typing on the internet. If this were a military thread you'd tell us how you were in the special forces too. :roll:

I sure as hell would take Amused's word before yours.

OMG I'm so hurt that in your opinion I don't have any credibility. Are you for real? Yes you probably are. Sad.

And how are you to know that it was emotionally charged that I'd bring up children? What kind of internet badass are you anyway are you going to deny that children aren't affected by this at all? What is your motivation behind this denial?

Que the violin.

This very same argument is used as an argument for gun control. It definitely is an argument that appeals to emotion, not reason. It is used so often because it is easy to demonize you opponent as being a heartless bastard instead of conceding that your position is weak.

 

[artikk]

did this thread just die?
EDIT I guess it did.

 

[BigLouis]

Originally posted by: russianpower
did this thread just die?

No I'm finished. The people you're discussing this with have a computer. People that can't speak and actually live this life do not. The holier than thou attitude will persist to the point of being "discredited" by placing credence over what one person says than the other for whatever crappy excuse they can formulate. I think it's being internet friends or something. :roll:

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: russianpower
did this thread just die?

No I'm finished. The people you're discussing this with have a computer. People that can't speak and actually live this life do not. The holier than thou attitude will persist to the point of being "discredited" by placing credence over what one person says than the other for whatever crappy excuse they can formulate. I think it's being internet friends or something. :roll:

:thumbsup:

 

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: SampSon
Russianpower == mysos == biglouis

So we have 3 people on a side of an argument so what does that mean exactly?

SampSon, Big Loius asked you a question, and we all(mysos, big loius, and myslef) would like to know the answer.
EDIT
provide proof to backup your statements please.. Otherwise, it's garbage.(like someone in your group said)

I was just implying that you three are the same person with 3 different usernames.
It's a common occurance. Don't get your panties in a bunch or anything.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: russianpower
did this thread just die?

No I'm finished. The people you're discussing this with have a computer. People that can't speak and actually live this life do not. The holier than thou attitude will persist to the point of being "discredited" by placing credence over what one person says than the other for whatever crappy excuse they can formulate. I think it's being internet friends or something. :roll:

Yet another nice personal attack, a sure sign of a loosing argument.

Text<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html</a>
Not in the top 15 causes of death.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
Pull your own statistics from the CDC by age group.

 

[mwtgg]

Aye, I wholeheartedly support this plan. This way no children will go hungry at night while their parents struggle to make it in life.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: SampSon
Russianpower == mysos == biglouis

So we have 3 people on a side of an argument so what does that mean exactly?

SampSon, Big Loius asked you a question, and we all(mysos, big loius, and myslef) would like to know the answer.
EDIT
provide proof to backup your statements please.. Otherwise, it's garbage.(like someone in your group said)

I was just implying that you three are the same person with 3 different usernames.
It's a common occurance. Don't get your panties in a bunch or anything.

:thumbsup: The treaty of Ghent is signed and the War of 1812 has ended. Nothing is changed, nothing is gained, nothing is won, nothing is lost.

 

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: SampSon
Russianpower == mysos == biglouis

So we have 3 people on a side of an argument so what does that mean exactly?

SampSon, Big Loius asked you a question, and we all(mysos, big loius, and myslef) would like to know the answer.
EDIT
provide proof to backup your statements please.. Otherwise, it's garbage.(like someone in your group said)

I was just implying that you three are the same person with 3 different usernames.
It's a common occurance. Don't get your panties in a bunch or anything.

:thumbsup: The treaty of Ghent is signed and the War of 1812 has ended. Nothing is changed, nothing is gained, nothing is won, nothing is lost.

They burnt down the capitol.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: SampSon
Russianpower == mysos == biglouis

So we have 3 people on a side of an argument so what does that mean exactly?

SampSon, Big Loius asked you a question, and we all(mysos, big loius, and myslef) would like to know the answer.
EDIT
provide proof to backup your statements please.. Otherwise, it's garbage.(like someone in your group said)

I was just implying that you three are the same person with 3 different usernames.
It's a common occurance. Don't get your panties in a bunch or anything.

:thumbsup: The treaty of Ghent is signed and the War of 1812 has ended. Nothing is changed, nothing is gained, nothing is won, nothing is lost.

They burnt down the capitol.

yeah and the battle of new orleans was fought 2 weeks AFTER the threaty of ghent was signed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigLouis
No I'm finished. The people you're discussing this with have a computer. People that can't speak and actually live this life do not. The holier than thou attitude will persist to the point of being "discredited" by placing credence over what one person says than the other for whatever crappy excuse they can formulate. I think it's being internet friends or something. :roll:

Translation: simply because you believe that you have a superior moral argument makes you think that you are entitled to spend other people's wealth for them for whatever cause you think is worthy.
In other words: you're the asshole with the holier than thou attitude.

 

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: russianpower
did this thread just die?

No I'm finished. The people you're discussing this with have a computer. People that can't speak and actually live this life do not. The holier than thou attitude will persist to the point of being "discredited" by placing credence over what one person says than the other for whatever crappy excuse they can formulate. I think it's being internet friends or something. :roll:

It's not my responsibility to support the life of others. My family and I have enough problems of our own to be taking on the weight of everyone else on our shoulders.

My family immigrated here with nothing at all and busted their ass to get what they have. My parents barely had more than them, they busted their asses to get what little they have. I barely have more than my parents, and I've busted my ass 110% to get what I have. I've earned it, noone else has a stake in what I've earned.

Yes there are plenty of people out there with very genuine need, and there is help out there for them
I pay plenty in taxes and a chunk of that goes to social programs that people use in all sorts of ways. Reality is that most of these people have just as much, if not more, ability to pull themselves out of their holes. But most don't do that, and that's not MY problem.

It's not MY problem their family had low paying jobs and too many kids. It's not my problem their families are utterly irresponsible with their money. It's not my problem their families have substance abuse problems. It's not my problem these people choose not to help themselves. Most of all it's not my responsibility to take up the slack for these people.

Everytime I see someone selling foodstamps in front of a liquor store it makes me sad MY money, and everyone elses that is responsible enough to care for themselves, money is being wasted. So get off your high horse and stop telling me it's my problem to care for these people.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Free lunch programs and food stamps are good enough right now.

That and food is one area where private donations really can be a huge part vs. government inclusion. You really can't abuse or squander away cans of corn or soup like you can pure cash. Private run food shelters and local donations and volunteers are much more effective than the government ever could be.

True. Fairbanks has a food bank. They take private donations as well as donations from local stores. The schools have canned food drives during the holidays, and during the fair they have a canned food night where people can bring three cans of food to get in, which goes to the food bank. I don't know how it is in other cities with food banks, but it seems that the local food bank always has plenty of food to go around. It helps that a lot of people have gardens up here too, as the food bank also takes produce, not just canned stuff.

Sadly, people abuse it. I was told of a Russian woman that was driving a new SUV, and she showed up and asked them to hold her food boxes for a month as she was flying back to Russia.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Aye, I wholeheartedly support this plan. This way no children will go hungry at night while their parents struggle to make it in life.

In regards to people going hungry, I heard something interesting on the news the other day. They were talking about the commercials where they mention how many children go to bed hungry in America. You want to know how the FDA determines if a child is "hungry?" If I recall correctly, I believe the child had to miss ONE meal in a twenty-eight day period to be classified as "hungry."

I guess I spent my entire childhood in hunger.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

of course, the trick is to balance limits to find an optimal mix. if there are very few limits then everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes (if not worse).

The limit should then be: Do not step on other's toes.

The limits should not be: Size and style limitations on shoes. Waiting periods for shoes. Required safety classes and licensing for walking and a ban on all close dancing.

Not to belabour the point, but that only works in a perfect world where everyone respects each other's toes..

But we DO respect other's toes, for the most part. Social norms and morals have worked for centuries where laws left off.

The point is, stepping on toes is illegal, therefore everyone will respect each other's toes. Just as murder is illegal, and, for the most part, everyone respects human life.

Passing MORE laws and limiting MORE freedoms in an attempt to keep people from breaking already existing laws results in nothing more than lost freedoms and more people in jail. Meanwhile, the same number of people are breaking the original law as before.

The War on Drugs and gun control are two perfect examples.

The Department of Justice and the American Academy of Sciences now agree, gun control laws don't do jack.

 

[SuperTool]

We already have socialized food in terms of farm subsidies and foodstamps.

 

[bigal40]

Originally posted by: Amused
Think about it. Many here support socialized healthcare and feel it should be a "right" since it is often required to live.

Well, in ALL cases food is required to live. So by that standard, shouldn't food be socialized as well?

Should Our entire food industry be socialized and food be free to all?

I would not support socialized anything. I've always been of the mindset that socialism is the first sep to communism.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)

Having lived through Government food and medical (military) I think they could make even sex bad

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)

Having lived through Government food and medical (military) I think they could make even sex bad

I agree with you on the medical but I have to say I never complained about the food. We actually looked forward to them running out of the packaged bread on the carrier because that was when we started getting the fresh baked stuff. Of course that was also about the time the fresh milk ran out and it was the powdered garbage, BLECH, or slightly less blech "bug juice'.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

So some taxes are needed to provide saftey and freedom. We just differ on how much and what we should spend it on. And no matter where you put this limit some will say it's wrong, IMHO there's no universal point of right and wrong. It's probably best if it moves back and forwards from time to time, so more get happy at some time.

No. The difference is all equally benefit from a common defense. All do NOT equally benefit from sin taxes, welfare and socialized medicine.

the people at the top of the social structures benefit more from the common defense than the people at the bottom.

 

[everman]

I for one welcome our government nanny state food overloards!

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Aye, I wholeheartedly support this plan. This way no children will go hungry at night while their parents struggle to make it in life.

In regards to people going hungry, I heard something interesting on the news the other day. They were talking about the commercials where they mention how many children go to bed hungry in America. You want to know how the FDA determines if a child is "hungry?" If I recall correctly, I believe the child had to miss ONE meal in a twenty-eight day period to be classified as "hungry."

I guess I spent my entire childhood in hunger.

Haha, yeah, it's ridiculous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

So some taxes are needed to provide saftey and freedom. We just differ on how much and what we should spend it on. And no matter where you put this limit some will say it's wrong, IMHO there's no universal point of right and wrong. It's probably best if it moves back and forwards from time to time, so more get happy at some time.

No. The difference is all equally benefit from a common defense. All do NOT equally benefit from sin taxes, welfare and socialized medicine.

the people at the top of the social structures benefit more from the common defense than the people at the bottom.

Really? so their lives are worth more? Their freedoms and rights are worth more?

The idea that the wealthy have more to lose in times of war or when facing death or the loss of right is simply ludicrous.