Friday will be a bad day to be hungry.

[BDBoop]

And you are still poor.
Maybe not financially,
but you are still poor.

That's not your call. I mean, I'd call half the board 'poor' because that's how I perceive them - but that doesn't mean they are, any more than it means he is on your say-so.

I call it the way I see it.

Based on message board posts? Oh yeah; that's valid.

 

[BDBoop]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Listen, I don't know about you lot, but I've been pretty damn poor. And my budget likely would not have done well with "Sorry, but that raise we gave you four years ago? Yeah - we're taking that back."

Hell, I wouldn't do so fine NOW.

Just because you've been poor does not mean you were ever ENTITLED to the largesse of "government."

And if you get over $630.00/month from the government and then get a temporary increase of say $30.00 per month, you aren't actually ENTITLED to that TEMPORARY increase in perpetuity. Sorry, Boopie, but that's neither the way real life works nor is it supposed to be how real life works.

You just took my football point and started playing basketball.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Listen, I don't know about you lot, but I've been pretty damn poor. And my budget likely would not have done well with "Sorry, but that raise we gave you four years ago? Yeah - we're taking that back."

Hell, I wouldn't do so fine NOW.

Just because you've been poor does not mean you were ever ENTITLED to the largesse of "government."

And if you get over $630.00/month from the government and then get a temporary increase of say $30.00 per month, you aren't actually ENTITLED to that TEMPORARY increase in perpetuity. Sorry, Boopie, but that's neither the way real life works nor is it supposed to be how real life works.

You just took my football point and started playing basketball.

No no. I merely demonstrated that, like Oblio, you HAVE no point.

 

[BDBoop]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

And I didn't say suggest or imply that you were.

The use of the word "you," got you all fouled up, didn't it?



You perhaps haven't yet grasped that the word doesn't always refer to you alone. It also has a GENERAL meaning.

 

[Pauli007001]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Listen, I don't know about you lot, but I've been pretty damn poor. And my budget likely would not have done well with "Sorry, but that raise we gave you four years ago? Yeah - we're taking that back."

Hell, I wouldn't do so fine NOW.

Just because you've been poor does not mean you were ever ENTITLED to the largesse of "government."

And if you get over $630.00/month from the government and then get a temporary increase of say $30.00 per month, you aren't actually ENTITLED to that TEMPORARY increase in perpetuity. Sorry, Boopie, but that's neither the way real life works nor is it supposed to be how real life works.

You just took my football point and started playing basketball.

Your football point about a raise on unearned income?
No one should be ENTITLED to anything unless they earned it.
Being born lazy is not "earning" !

 

[Pauli007001]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

So why should others be entitled to rewards for their lazyness?

 

[Bfgrn]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

So why should others be entitled to rewards for their lazyness?

You right wing scum say you love America, it's just all those ******* AmericANS you can't stand. Unless they are your beloved hierarchy.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Pauli and friends...

 

[BDBoop]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

And I didn't say suggest or imply that you were.

The use of the word "you," got you all fouled up, didn't it?



You perhaps haven't yet grasped that the word doesn't always refer to you alone. It also has a GENERAL meaning.

"Just because YOU'VE been poor" followed by my user name?

No. I read you just fine.

 

[alan1]

No, he's not. It's a valid point. Why are you using ad hom to avoid addressing it.

Please tell me what the "valid point" is, because I missed it.
Perhaps you can communicate it in a manner that I can understand.

I can but try.

People on SNAP need to get a job.

Grandma is on SNAP. Therefore, grandma needs to get a job.

I'm pretty sure grandma is on social security, not SNAP.
I guess that's why I didn't understand the point. The point was wrong.
Oddly enough, you understood it. I guess that makes you wrong.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

And I didn't say suggest or imply that you were.

The use of the word "you," got you all fouled up, didn't it?



You perhaps haven't yet grasped that the word doesn't always refer to you alone. It also has a GENERAL meaning.

"Just because YOU'VE been poor" followed by my user name?

No. I read you just fine.

No. You didn't read me very well at all. Not unexpected.

YOU intoned that YOU had been "poor" as though that fact somehow qualified you to pontificate authoritatively. It doesn't.

I then turned to your rather silly thesis.

When I directed my attention to THAT, it DID change the use of the word "you." Thus, as is often the case, YOU got confused. You MUST be used to that by now. You clearly have had a lifetime's worth of experience being totally confused. Still, you said what you said and it was lame.

Now, back to reality:

I don't care about whether you've been poor or not. That factor is irrelevant to the thesis you are offering.

If the government funds (rounding off the numbers here) a "poor" family of four a maximum of about $630.00 per month for food but, then, ADDS roughly $30.00 per month to that allotment on an allegedly temporary basis, THEN it is not CUTTING the amount GIVEN to the poor to terminate the TEMPORARY additional allotment at the end of the "temporary" time-period established at the outset.

The government didn't GIVE a "raise." The government granted a TEMPORARY increase --

and then, as the word "temporary" itself actually denotes, the increase terminated.

There has LONG been a debate about the wisdom of making "the poor" dependent on the dole. But putting that part of the discussion on a back burner, I am just throwing the flag on YOUR own OP argument.

Granting a hand-out of "X" dollars per month -- plus a temporary "Y" dollars per month -- does NOT constitute a "cut" when the period for the temporary additional amount of "Y" dollars per month comes to its predesignated end.

 

[BDBoop]

Please tell me what the "valid point" is, because I missed it.
Perhaps you can communicate it in a manner that I can understand.

I can but try.

People on SNAP need to get a job.

Grandma is on SNAP. Therefore, grandma needs to get a job.

I'm pretty sure grandma is on social security, not SNAP.
I guess that's why I didn't understand the point. The point was wrong.
Oddly enough, you understood it. I guess that makes you wrong.

You're pretty sure? You are probably wrong. A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP. Therefore and ergo - no. You're wrong, again/still/some more.

 

[alan1]

Please tell me what the "valid point" is, because I missed it.
Perhaps you can communicate it in a manner that I can understand.

The valid part of the point is that religion teaches us to take care of our elderly and in-firmed. The invalid part is forcing people into labor, taking their income from them, to force them at gun point to take care of the elderly and in-firmed whether they want to or not.

I can relate to this. The Council of Aged came to my house with my mother, and with loaded weapons, and told me that if I did not put her in my spare bedroom and give her 3 squares a day, plus access to the TV during Wheel of Fortune" that they would be back with Vito whose specialty is breaking legs....

When it comes to you, Vito needs to up his game.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is truly ironic, you right wing scum like to call liberals 'Marxists', yet it was Marx, Engel and Stalin who were big believers in your social Darwinism.

You don't even know what social Darwinism is, do you?

Social Darwinism
the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.

It was? Can you explain why, if it is conservative in nature, it was uniformly condemned by Christians, and still is?

 

[BDBoop]

"We have calls all the time, ‘I'm without food. Can you help me a little bit this week; I have nothing to eat.' We had a lady in the office last week saying she needed food. We cover up, we fixed her a basket of food enough to hold her over a couple of weeks," said Council member Brenda Pointer.

Officials at the Council also expect a higher demand on their daily meal program, especially as the temperatures continue to drop. Pointer said often seniors must cut back on their heating expenses in order to afford food.

Elderly SNAP recipients turn to food banks after cuts - WAFF-TV: News, Weather and Sports for Huntsville, AL

 

[alan1]

I can but try.

People on SNAP need to get a job.

Grandma is on SNAP. Therefore, grandma needs to get a job.

Yep ... Just like the stories of old people being forced to eat dog food, because they cannot afford real food and medicine at the same time ... When any idiot knows that dog food costs more than a bag of beans or rice.
The only people pushing Granny off a cliff ... Feeding her dog food ... Making her get a job to supplement Social Security ... Or floating her out to sea on an iceberg ... Are damn Progressive Liberals with their stupid vitriolic propoganda.

.

The liberal progressives are more idiotic than that.
It's a wonder that they can tie their own shoelaces.
Then, we let them vote.

 

[BDBoop]

And I didn't say suggest or imply that you were.

The use of the word "you," got you all fouled up, didn't it?



You perhaps haven't yet grasped that the word doesn't always refer to you alone. It also has a GENERAL meaning.

"Just because YOU'VE been poor" followed by my user name?

No. I read you just fine.

No. You didn't read me very well at all. Not unexpected.

YOU intoned that YOU had been "poor" as though that fact somehow qualified you to pontificate authoritatively. It doesn't.

I then turned to your rather silly thesis.

When I directed my attention to THAT, it DID change the use of the word "you." Thus, as is often the case, YOU got confused. You MUST be used to that by now. You clearly have had a lifetime's worth of experience being totally confused. Still, you said what you said and it was lame.

Now, back to reality:

I don't care about whether you've been poor or not. That factor is irrelevant to the thesis you are offering.

If the government funds (rounding off the numbers here) a "poor" family of four a maximum of about $630.00 per month for food but, then, ADDS roughly $30.00 per month to that allotment on an allegedly temporary basis, THEN it is not CUTTING the amount GIVEN to the poor to terminate the TEMPORARY additional allotment at the end of the "temporary" time-period established at the outset.

The government didn't GIVE a "raise." The government granted a TEMPORARY increase --

and then, as the word "temporary" itself actually denotes, the increase terminated.

There has LONG been a debate about the wisdom of making "the poor" dependent on the dole. But putting that part of the discussion on a back burner, I am just throwing the flag on YOUR own OP argument.

Granting a hand-out of "X" dollars per month -- plus a temporary "Y" dollars per month -- does NOT constitute a "cut" when the period for the temporary additional amount of "Y" dollars per month comes to its predesignated end.

If you'd been properly educated, you would know that you should have used the word "one" rather than "you." All this could have been easily averted if you spoke proper English.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Just because YOU'VE been poor" followed by my user name?

No. I read you just fine.

No. You didn't read me very well at all. Not unexpected.

YOU intoned that YOU had been "poor" as though that fact somehow qualified you to pontificate authoritatively. It doesn't.

I then turned to your rather silly thesis.

When I directed my attention to THAT, it DID change the use of the word "you." Thus, as is often the case, YOU got confused. You MUST be used to that by now. You clearly have had a lifetime's worth of experience being totally confused. Still, you said what you said and it was lame.

Now, back to reality:

I don't care about whether you've been poor or not. That factor is irrelevant to the thesis you are offering.

If the government funds (rounding off the numbers here) a "poor" family of four a maximum of about $630.00 per month for food but, then, ADDS roughly $30.00 per month to that allotment on an allegedly temporary basis, THEN it is not CUTTING the amount GIVEN to the poor to terminate the TEMPORARY additional allotment at the end of the "temporary" time-period established at the outset.

The government didn't GIVE a "raise." The government granted a TEMPORARY increase --

and then, as the word "temporary" itself actually denotes, the increase terminated.

There has LONG been a debate about the wisdom of making "the poor" dependent on the dole. But putting that part of the discussion on a back burner, I am just throwing the flag on YOUR own OP argument.

Granting a hand-out of "X" dollars per month -- plus a temporary "Y" dollars per month -- does NOT constitute a "cut" when the period for the temporary additional amount of "Y" dollars per month comes to its predesignated end.

If you'd been properly educated, you would know that you should have used the word "one" rather than "you." All this could have been easily averted if you spoke proper English.

If obama supporters had been properly educate they would not be supporting obama.

 

[Pauli007001]

Well then, neither did you. Because I wasn't on public assistance when I was painfully poor.

So why should others be entitled to rewards for their lazyness?

You right wing scum say you love America, it's just all those ******* AmericANS you can't stand. Unless they are your beloved hierarchy.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Pauli and friends...

Get a job, loser!!

 

[Pauli007001]

I can but try.

People on SNAP need to get a job.

Grandma is on SNAP. Therefore, grandma needs to get a job.

I'm pretty sure grandma is on social security, not SNAP.
I guess that's why I didn't understand the point. The point was wrong.
Oddly enough, you understood it. I guess that makes you wrong.

You're pretty sure? You are probably wrong. A great many elderly people's SS income is supplemented by SNAP. Therefore and ergo - no. You're wrong, again/still/some more.

Why didn't they plan ahead when they were, let's say, in their 40s?
Did the stupid, selfish old twats not realise that one day they would be old?