Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If SNAP was about "survival", it would be very limited in the scope of what one can buy.

Everyone agrees, "oh, look at the poor kids." That's why I only donate to children's charities if they (the charity) don't specifically involve literacy (I do donate a fair chuck to adult literacy programs and teach an adult literacy class as well). It's also why I only volunteer at children's programs. I'll never volunteer at a food bank again, but that's a different story. I have all the sympathy in the world for the kids.

However, I'd rather the poor stop having children that "require government programs for survival".

But then again, one of my only extreme viewpoints is that if you're on welfare or other "survival" programs you lose the right to reproduce. Not a popular opinion, I know, but I'll deal with it :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I know, if only those kids from poor families had the internet and a can-do attitude, they wouldn't have to go hungry.

]

Oh, god bless you and your "won't you think of the children" attitudes.

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
well the concept of black people being able to say racist terms for black people, although wrong, is understandable (in the sense that I get it, not that I support it).

I'm just going to copy/paste from the other thread. It is almost like black people took a word meant used to denigrate them and re-appropriated it as a term of affection between one another. It is always strange to me that (usually) white people get so bent out of shape over it. Do you really want to say the word so badly?

 easysauce wrote:
What I dont get, I why black people also get a free pass to use racist terms for white people (and in my experience, asians, ME'terners, ect)

That is some good work painting all black people with the same brush, as well as creating a lie based on limited information. None of the black people I know use that kind of language at all, and wouldn't get a pass for doing so.

I would argue any person (regardless of race) can use taboo words like "[see forum posting rules]" as long as they're capable of using it in a context where it isn't being used to belittle or demean others, it's just easier for black people to use words like uncle tom, [see forum posting rules], etc because most people

assume they're aren't using it demean each other which isn't always obvious with other ethnicities when they use those words. Stuff like "[see forum posting rules]" isn't bad in itself but when put in context with something else it has the potential to be bad.

Don't post things like this on Dakka.

Reds8n

Cheese. Your poor post has so many [see forum posting rules] in it it's kind of hilarious.

 cincydooley wrote:
If SNAP was about "survival", it would be very limited in the scope of what one can buy.

SNAP isn't that wonderful.

Everyone agrees, "oh, look at the poor kids." That's why I only donate to children's charities if they (the charity) don't specifically involve literacy (I do donate a fair chuck to adult literacy programs and teach an adult literacy class as well). It's also why I only volunteer at children's programs. I'll never volunteer at a food bank again, but that's a different story. I have all the sympathy in the world for the kids.

However, I'd rather the poor stop having children that "require government programs for survival".

I'm glad you think it is as easy as that.

But then again, one of my only extreme viewpoints is that if you're on welfare or other "survival" programs you lose the right to reproduce. Not a popular opinion, I know, but I'll deal with it :-)

Yeah, that is actually a rather sickening thought. Here are some of your own words:

cincydooley wrote:I disagree. I think any instance where were attempting to limit the rights of the many to adhere to the (in this case deviancy) of the few it isn't a good thing

You believe that the limiting of rights of people is wrong even if some people, through acts of deviancy, can negatively affect others is inherently wrong. Yet in the same breath, you would be willing to strip the rights of a person to reproduce (a basic biological function, mind you) because of an they are "poor" which is based on an arbitrary metric that you have proposed all in your tiny head? That level of hypocrisy is pants-on-the-head stupid.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm glad you think it is as easy as that.

Remind me what's hard again about not having children?

Yeah, that is actually a rather sickening thought.

IMO the more sickening thought is a single mother with 15 kids from multiple fathers that can't support any of them having more kids.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

We pretty much shut down those terms in the military. Does not matter what race you are and what context you say it in. If its an "unauthorized" word then you get a verbal warning. After that I take it to paper and give them a negative counseling statement. Three more and I press UCMJ via the 1stSGT

Honestly, I'm bothered more than the use of "uncle tom" than I am of any black folks that use the n -word. I can't say I've ever had any real desire to drop the n-word in conversation.

Choice words to stir up drama over an issue

Meh... I don't care much about that word itself...

Just challenging the assertion that Bush and Clinton was never treated badly.

Bash: Because looking at that and hearing that kind of language, that certainly wouldn't be appropriate if it was coming from somebody who was white.

Thompson: "But I'm black."

Bash: That makes it OK?

Thompson: "I mean, you're asking me the question, and I'm giving you a response.

Oh, well. That makes it ok.

--->Do these pants make my butt look big?
<--- No, your butt makes your butt look big. What? You asked me a question so I gave you a response!

----> Do you think my sister prettier than me?
<---- I'd feth your sister in a New York minute. What? You asked me a question so I gave you a response!

 cincydooley wrote:
Remind me what's hard again about not having children?

Nothing, but it is basic human right.

IMO the more sickening thought is a single mother with 15 kids from multiple fathers that can't support any of them having more kids.

Wow, you found one person on a YouTube video. Good job.
This is from an edit a few posts ago:

Here are some of your own words:

cincydooley wrote:I disagree. I think any instance where were attempting to limit the rights of the many to adhere to the (in this case deviancy) of the few it isn't a good thing

You believe that the limiting of rights of people is wrong even if some people, through acts of deviancy, can negatively affect others is inherently wrong. Yet in the same breath, you would be willing to strip the rights of a person to reproduce (a basic biological function, mind you) because of an they are "poor" which is based on an arbitrary metric that you have proposed all in your tiny head? That level of hypocrisy is pants-on-the-head stupid.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You believe that the limiting of rights of people is wrong even if some people, through acts of deviancy, can negatively affect others is inherently wrong. Yet in the same breath, you would be willing to strip the rights of a person to reproduce (a basic biological function, mind you) because of an they are "poor" which is based on an arbitrary metric that you have proposed all in your tiny head? That level of hypocrisy is pants-on-the-head stupid.

If they can't support the kids they have, they shouldn't be having more and expecting the government to pay for them. That's not an "arbitrary metric."

I'm assuming you pulled the quote from the Sterling thread. It isn't relevant here at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Nothing, but it is basic human right.

Its a biological imperative. Calling it a "right" seems strange. As human survival and Darwinism go, if you can't take care of your brood, they die. Now, obviously I don't think we should kill living kids or allow them to die once they're born. But I'm not opposed to preventing them from being born, as opposed to living off of social programs for their entire lives.

 cincydooley wrote:
If they can't support the kids they have, they shouldn't be having more and expecting the government to pay for them. That's not an "arbitrary metric."

I would suggest you seriously educate yourself on how and why the overwhelmingly vast majority of people receive government assistance. It might do you some good.

I'm assuming you pulled the quote from the Sterling thread. It isn't relevant here at all.

Nope, it was a thread about guns. The right to life (and reproduction) is more of a fundamental right that owning a gun. You are still a hypocrite in the highest order.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

So, instead of realizing you made an uneven comparison you just going to deflect and put words in my mouth? Why, I can't believe you would do such a thing. This is shocking. Just shocking.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I would suggest you seriously educate yourself on how and why the overwhelmingly vast majority of people receive government assistance. It might do you some good.

I'm plenty aware. I'd opt out of social security if I could. I've never had welfare, food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid or Medicare. I assume those run the gamut of "vast majority " areas, yes? I do have one student loan through Sallie, which I guess you consider assistance, though the majority of my loans are private.

So yah , plenty educated.

Nope, it was a thread about guns. The right to life (and reproduction) is more of a fundamental right that owning a gun. You are still a hypocrite in the highest order.

Wow. You really did some digging. Well done.

 cincydooley wrote:

If they can't support the kids they have, they shouldn't be having more and expecting the government to pay for them. That's not an "arbitrary metric."

80% of families that receive welfare use it less than 5 years. Your welfare queen stereotype has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.

Enjoy: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Its a biological imperative. Calling it a "right" seems strange. As human survival and Darwinism go, if you can't take care of your brood, they die. Now, obviously I don't think we should kill living kids or allow them to die once they're born. But I'm not opposed to preventing them from being born, as opposed to living off of social programs for their entire lives.

It most certainly is a right. It is a fundamental biological function that you believe should be limited by people you deem unworthy of it using a standard of pure human invention, in this case: money.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Wow. You really did some digging. Well done.

I know, I barely scratched the surface of you unabashed hypocrisy.

 cincydooley wrote:
I do have one student loan through Sallie, which I guess you consider assistance, though the majority of my loans are private.

If you had a more can-do attitude, you wouldn't need a loan from anyone. It's that easy, right?

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

So, instead of realizing you made an uneven comparison you just going to deflect and put words in my mouth? Why, I can't believe you would do such a thing. This is shocking. Just shocking.

Uneven comparison?

Just google-fu all the democrats shouting "Bush lied, people died"... inferring that he's a murder.

Or that Clinton was unfit for Presidency for committing for perjury... can't imagine how partisan that was huh?

And yet, a looney black Representative labeling any criticism against Obama is racist, without any fething evidence of such...

You know what?

Nevermind.

So we all agree the term "Uncle Tom" needs to be removed from our vocabulary eh?

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

So, instead of realizing you made an uneven comparison you just going to deflect and put words in my mouth? Why, I can't believe you would do such a thing. This is shocking. Just shocking.

Uneven comparison?

Just google-fu all the democrats shouting "Bush lied, people died"... inferring that he's a murder.

Or that Clinton was unfit for Presidency for committing for perjury... can't imagine how partisan that was huh?

And yet, a looney black Representative labeling any criticism against Obama is racist, without any fething evidence of such...

You know what?

Nevermind.

Are you saying nevermind because you realized the problem with what you posted (again) and how silly it is or because you would rather dismiss then figure something out? Maybe you need a little help. If you can find where I said it that it was ok, please share. You won't be able to because I didn't, nor did I come close to it. What I did say was that you created a false equivalency between actors and congressmen. As usual instead of dealing with the issue you fall back on "but look what others did!"

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

So, instead of realizing you made an uneven comparison you just going to deflect and put words in my mouth? Why, I can't believe you would do such a thing. This is shocking. Just shocking.

Uneven comparison?

Just google-fu all the democrats shouting "Bush lied, people died"... inferring that he's a murder.

Or that Clinton was unfit for Presidency for committing for perjury... can't imagine how partisan that was huh?

And yet, a looney black Representative labeling any criticism against Obama is racist, without any fething evidence of such...

You know what?

Nevermind.

Are you saying nevermind because you realized the problem with what you posted (again) and how silly it is or because you would rather dismiss then figure something out? Maybe you need a little help. If you can find where I said it that it was ok, please share. You won't be able to because I didn't, nor did I come close to it. What I did say was that you created a false equivalency between actors and congressmen. As usual instead of dealing with the issue you fall back on "but look what others did!"

I'm saying nevermind... I disagree with your false equivalance... but, we're getting sidetracked with the topic on hand...

The issue is that for some people, it's okay that Rep. Thompson, feels no shame in his ignorant remarks. Indeed, he believes that, because of the color of his skin, he’s entitled to make them.

When CNN reporter Dana Bash noted that the term [Uncle Tom] wouldn’t be appropriate if used by someone who is white, Thompson replied, “But I’m black.”

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

80% of families that receive welfare use it less than 5 years. Your welfare queen stereotype has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.

I haven't once propagated a welfare queen stereotype. I simply pointed out that the outliers like that are far scarier to me than putting some implanon In someone's arm (don't worry, it's covered my Medicare!) for that short period of time. I'm aware it's an extreme viewpoint, but I'd take that over abortions, and I'd certainly take that over more unfit parents having kids they can't afford or support.

It most certainly is a right. It is a fundamental biological function that you believe should be limited by people you deem unworthy of it using a standard of pure human invention, in this case: money.

No. They can't take care of their kids. They can't provide for their kids. It's that simple. And I never disagreed that having children was a right. I simply think it's odd to call it a right as it's, like I said, a biological imperative.

.

If you had a more can-do attitude, you wouldn't need a loan from anyone. It's that easy, right?

I'm over halfway done paying them off, which is ahead of schedule. When I got laid off from my full Time job I took two part time jobs so I could continue paying off my loans. I paid for my grad school in cash and we're going to be finished paying for my wife's grad school in cash this summer. So yes, you're right. It is that easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what Scooty, I took a gak and thought about it, and I'm going to relent a fair amount, because you're right: it IS hypocritical of me to say we should take away the rights of the many for the indeacrwtions of the few.

The majority of the welfare recipients aren't the problem. Temporary government assistance is a good thing. But it has to be temporary. Personally, I think 2 years is that threshold, but I'd hope you'd agree that 5 years is certainly longer than temporary. At that point the person is living off government assistance. And at that point I don't think it's fair or responsible to support them having more children.

 streamdragon wrote:


You all do understand that there are numerous children who depend on things like SNAP, Headstart, and WIC to eat right? Or that for many kids from poor families, the meals they get at school are generally the only meals that they get? Some schools even provide backpacks of food to send home with kids on the weekends.

So yes, some people do actually depend on these programs for literal survival.

Child hunger is one of the biggest and saddest things there is and should be addressed for now. Im talking about young adults. The ones who say they have no choice nore ability to do anything beyond sling drugs. Those who droop out from school because they dont like it.
Im actually thinking abut this thesis of mine called "Culture of Class" In which different classess in america expect different things from kids. Poor kids may not be expected to be educated or move on from the ghetto. That is their place. On article I read said they take pride in that. Working and lower middle may expect more with education. Its a work in progress. But it is something I think I want to learn about.

 cincydooley wrote:
You know what Scooty, I took a gak and thought about it, and I'm going to relent a fair amount, because you're right: it IS hypocritical of me to say we should take away the rights of the many for the indeacrwtions of the few.

Thank you for admitting that. Honesty can be hard to come by when emotions are involved and I appreciate it.

The majority of the welfare recipients aren't the problem. Temporary government assistance is a good thing. But it has to be temporary. Personally, I think 2 years is that threshold, but I'd hope you'd agree that 5 years is certainly longer than temporary. At that point the person is living off government assistance. And at that point I don't think it's fair or responsible to support them having more children.

I don't think people should make a living off the system either because that isn't what it was designed for. I think everyone, regardless of station or political leaning, would agree to that. But like I said, you cannot punish the many for the faults of the few (just like with guns!).

Are all, or perhaps a majority of, government benefit programs in the US limited in terms of time or would child related benefits last for as long as they are still classed as a "child"? For example I believe you guys limit your "out of work" benefits to a year? (I'm not sure if that's right, just something that I think I heard)

Honest Answer? It depends on the state and program.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

So, instead of realizing you made an uneven comparison you just going to deflect and put words in my mouth? Why, I can't believe you would do such a thing. This is shocking. Just shocking.

says the guy who claimed I was jealous that only black people get to say the n word....

Unemployment last about six month at $800+ every two weeks

But you have to apply for like two jobs at least, interview, job class or something a week along that line to get the funding

So record two job application
Interviews
Classes
because you might have to provide dates, places, and names.

Though I have heard people ride that out by applying for jobs they do not qualify for
Showing up at interviews half ass dresses
Play around with a recruitment for the military


That's admin by the state.

The Federal offers funds to extend that but from what I understand its centered mostly on the Vet's

Edit

Forgot to add the Federal extends it another six month

 Jihadin wrote:
So we all agree the term "Uncle Tom" needs to be removed from our vocabulary eh?

What if I have an uncle, whose name is Tom?


Seems to me, there is yet another double/triple standard here. See, the representative, going ON AIR, on a radio/web program of, rather dubious nature (depending on your views) and saying racist things is going to get a free pass on this, and yet a racist D-bag who happens to be a million/billionaire who owns a professional sports team, made some comments in PRIVATE and is getting fried for them.

Guess that it shows, at least in my eyes, that people who work in elected office in Washington (meaning Senate/Congress) really are a different "class" of citizen.

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He must have been asleep at the wheel during the Bush years...

Or maybe he was referring to other congressman and not Hollywood actors, of which that list was almost entirely composed of. I agree that there wasn't a lot of respect for Bush by Congress but your attempt at equivalency is pretty gakky and rings hollow.

Riiiight...

So, you're saying it's okay that he said that?

So, instead of realizing you made an uneven comparison you just going to deflect and put words in my mouth? Why, I can't believe you would do such a thing. This is shocking. Just shocking.

says the guy who claimed I was jealous that only black people get to say the n word....

That isn't even remotely what I said. You have to be either fairly dense or purposefully obtuse to get that from what was stated.