Greatest Country In The World Votes To Cut Food Stamps To Poor

When a poster says that he thinks it's peachy for a judge to start telling women to have abortions, they have crossed a line. Their demeanor doesn't matter at that point. That is quite a Nazi-ish thing to propose, and I will not let it go. And when people drop lines like that or suggest the liquidation of libertarian thinking, that is *NOT* a civil discussion. And I won't let it pass unanswered.

You should know by now. I will always call you guys out for what you really are. I suspect that's why I get under your skin so easily.

 

I'm not sure you understand what civil is. Calling for the outlawing of the libertarian party can certainly be done civilly. It isn't something I agree with, and it would certainly be unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean it isn't civil.

Also saying it's okay for judges to suggest abortion isn't really Nazi-ish. It would be authoritarian but not necessarily Nazi-ish.

It's odd that in your mind you're calling people out for what they really are. Again, there seems to be a certain detachment from reality.

 

No you didn't. I didn't say that services would be cut off, I said that they'd be cut, which they will. Even according to what you posted there will be cuts to those people.

No, I'm not okay with helping drug users by more drugs. Maybe the food stamps helps drug users spend their money on seeking the treatment they need. But even if it doesn't the drug users who are enabled by this are a far smaller number than those that would be hurt by the cuts to the food stamps. Drug abuse is a different problem. It has different solutions such as treatment program, monitoring etc.

If you didn't whole groups of people traitors, Nazis, and other names, there wouldn't be angst to focus on. People would either be forced to deal with issues you bring up, or not, but there would be no focus on your personal attacks at all. Also as has been pointed out people ignoring questions from you doesn't always mean they don't have answers. It may mean that your questions are based on something that isn't true.

No, I don't. That's your misunderstanding, and amazing ability to take offense at things that weren't directed towards you or groups that you belong to.

I don't have any problem with you staying. Great. If you leave for whatever reason you feel is necessary, I'll be okay with that too. I certainly won't put any effort to getting you to leave. That isn't a goal of mine.

 

Ah yes. So you are civil until someone posts something you disagree with. That sounds about right - at least you admit it.

You might be the thinnest skinned poster here based on your ability to be offended. At least we know bigtexxx and others are just trolling when they act offended. You actually do get offended at just about anything.

I think you get under people's skins because you're basically an ass that's incapable of having a discussion without insults, despite having a long history of being wrong about virtually everything you post, going back over a decade.

 

Pretty much. Accordingly, not much point in replying so...maybe ya'll should try ignoring him?

 

Let them starve. Problem solved

 

He's back!!!



And he impales the entire thread's crotch on an electrical tower!

 

I agree on people like bigtexxx and basso. They have no interest in a rational discussion and are just there to troll. treeman is different - I think he wants to have one. I just don't think he's able to do it. I'm not sure why, but I appreciate that he at least wants to discuss things, even if I think he's wrong. But yes, I'm close to giving up because every discussion he's in goes downhill very quickly.

We need to figure out a way to get more justtxyanks, juicystreams, and Refmans here to have better discussions with conservatives (I'm sure there are others that I missed). For all the talk about how everyone throws around insults, those 3 regularly manage to have good discussions with people on the left without anything devolving on either side.

 

So if I call someone a douchebag, but my tone and demeanor translate calm and no indication that I am looking for argument, does that mean I am being civil? Er, no.

Ideas can be very uncivil. And anyway, tone is not what is important - on a message board.

Uh... Really? Forced abortions were very much a Nazi thing. Read up on your history.

BTW, are you also saying it's peachy keen for a judge to tell a woman to abort her baby? If so, two thoughts: 1) you NEVER get to argue that you are in favor of women's rights again, and 2) yes, I am going to call you a Nazi, too.

Detachment from reality? Says the man who doesn't think it's Nazi-ish for judges to start ordering women to abort their babies? Um... OK.

 

I'd like to read the ruling, it probably says something like this:

which has somehow been translated into judges ordering women to have abortions (lol)

but then again, maybe you're a judge who has aborted someone, who knows.

 

Oh, OK, so let me get this straight. We are discussing potential cuts to food stamps, most of which involve cutting food stamps to people who are 1) on drugs or 2) refuse to work or look for work and want to remain on food stamps for the rest of their lives. I ask you why you think it's a good idea to give food stamps to those people. Crickets, because those are not relevant questions? if you can't answer those questions - which are central to the debate - then you are not here to debate. You are here to tell people like me that we just want to starve millions of children to death.

You just said that you didn't have a problem with it. So do you have a problem with it or not? Unless you changed your mind on that question within the last 24 hours, you do NOT get to have it both ways. I will call you out on it. I am.

Those questions are central to the debate, and your refusal to address them tells me that you have no good answer and aren't really interested in debating.

Daaayauuuummmmmm! Ya gotz me!!!

How fu^king old are you, dude?

Seriously, answer those two questions or you have no leg to stand on in this debate. Don't, and you are just here to troll.

 

Go away NS, you don't even know what we were talking about. The poster called pouhe said in the CPS thread that he felt that judges should "suggest" to drug-addicted women that they abort their babies. In the interest of preserving the babies' rights. How anyone could not think that idea is beyond jacked up in so many ways is beyond me.

It's a very utilitarian view of things. The Nazis were very utilitarian, too.

 

someone's sensitive.

"Boo freaking hoo. Cry to someone who cares."

You know who else is utilitarian. stuart MILLS

probably, Big Bird too.

I don't see how the hell you managed to get all riled up about the statement of one person, but I guess if that's your whole notion of being civil---carry on. Something about how Dems are all traitors too. I suppose that's because of---well, don't let me ruin your irrational meltdown. Suggest vs order. well then, emotional over-statement is probably the least of your concerns when your emotions are on such a wire.

Toodles.

 

Blah blah blah. You're going to ask how I got all riled up when Deckard and Major have anointed themselves the Civility Police over me questioning someone accusing me of wanting to starve millions of children?

Like I said, get with the convo or move along. Of course if you want to stay and add to the filth flying around here that is of course your prerogative... It's not like this discussion is ever getting back on track at this point. But please, at least try and keep up. Yesterdays sh^t smells different than today's does.

 

here's a bone for you to chew on that might verge you away from hyperbole and derailing another thread to the substance at hand.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/64675/food-stamp-cuts-2013-we-re-missing-the-point-about-snap

so those very invidious and evil people looking for food for the wrong reasons (lol) are going to be only increasing in number. The cuts are actually contrary to your stated objectives. After all, cutting what was already a strained department cuts the legs out of initiatives designed to screen applicants.

Another bone: you are forcing those who need food to "work". hoorah for your bravado, but there are about um, A WHOLE LOT OF JOBS missing ever since one of the greatest recessions of our time. But of course, getting rid of the safety net (a net that feeds potential applicants, and keeps the economy in check) is the way to go. A common right-wing fallacy: remove the umbrella as it's raining, because nobody has gotten wet in a while, or in this case, because everybody is drowning, so might as well.

A nice thing to know:

 

what two questions? I never said it was a good idea to give people abusing drugs benefits. You are just making stuff up.

You are acting like a kid by declaring "if you don't answer my bizarre questions where I assume a position on your part that's not true or relevant than you must be in agreement".

Fact is you want to cut funding to a program - doing which will increase fraud. You haven't posted any facts about how the cuts will be applied or used, or what the impact it will have. Fact is SNAP feeds millions of children, and these cuts will indeed cause some of them to go hungry.

 

Oh, for fart's sake NS, that bolded quote was laughable.

With Obama’s increased funding for SNAP, SNAP fraud decreased by 57% and SNAP trafficking dropped from 3.8 cents per SNAP dollar to 1.8 cents for every SNAP dollar.

Do you not understand that there is *absolutely no way* for them to measure the actual fraud? They cannot audit every single case, and the portion of fraud that they catch - which is the only thing that they can measure - is always going to be a miniscule proportion of the actual fraud that is occurring. The metrics are almost completely useless. As is your conclusion.

My objective is to cut costs by cutting dead weight. That means cutting benefits to people who are using drugs (if they can afford drugs than they can afford food in the place of drugs) and people who refuse to work or look for work, and who simply want to live off of the dole for the rest of their lives. Instituting drug tests and more strict work requirements (they are pretty lax in most states right now) would go a long way in achieving that.

And again, to put this in actual perspective, this is NOT a massive cut to 85% or whatever recipients that is going to starve millions of children. That is idiotic hyperbole. It is a 5% cut spread across 10 years in an $80bn program that has grown by over 70% in the past 5 years. THAT is the truth. Make those cuts and no one is going to starve, because none of these people were starving when we were spending $76bn on it. The sky is NOT falling, and no one is starving. This would be a TINY step towards responsible governance. And we can't even to that.

Whatever comes out of conference will probably be a 1% cut, maybe 1.5%. But probably even less than that... Hey, didja know the Dems in the Senate voted on a package that made $400 million in cuts to SNAP? The HORROR! How many kids could we have saved with $400 million worth of food? Murderers!

See how this stuff works?

 

Oh, really? What, like I can't copy and paste?

Post #135: As for drug testing, I thought you were against the mommy state? Why should we spend MORE MONEY on something that won't save money. That's just moronic to the core. SNAP is the most effective entitlement program, there's no need to screw with it.

No big deal, not worth spending a penny on. Let the druggies keep their benefits. Or did you mean something else? Please, do explain.

Which is a patently absurd idea. Cutting money to people who are fraudulently taking advantage of the system will increase fraud? Really?

Oh really? So they were all starving to death when we were spending $76bn on the program instead of $80bn?

We were spending alot less than we are now 6 years ago and they weren't starving. So why will they starve now? This is the hysterical mouthbreathing argument that started this whole row in the first place... How soon before you again accuse me of trying to starve millions of children?

 

I feel like we're getting back on track... Odds of getting derailed again: 100%.