If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That if you're poor, somehow you're shiftless and lazy." - OH Governor and confirmed Communist John Kasich   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 224
    More: Hero, John Kasich, war on poverty, GOP  
•       •       •

3110 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 4:48 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-29 11:13:30 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: It says right on the figure 'if we stack on welfare benefits'. The whole thing relies on that, and that's not how it works.


The context is that they stack on all the welfare benefits that a specific income is eliglible for.  If you would have taken the time to actually look at the graph and understand it, you would have seen where some benifits phase in and others phase out.  Not all benefits included that figure are added on top of each other (see the division between CHIP and MA for example).

In fact, the phasing in and out of these benefits is what creates the 'cliffs' in the first place.  Take a look at the graph again and try to understand.  The maxium cliff in this figure is right at the point at which food and housing assistence ends.
 
2013-10-29 11:13:36 PM

HeadLever: But that is an extra step that is not necessary and just reduces the effectiveness of said charitable contributions. Besides, the entire premis of insurance is a pooling of resources in order to take out what is needed when TSHTF. Charity is giving of ones resources to help someone else. Both have thier place, but they are set up on a different premis.


Charity or insurance, both are a single step to receiving/paying for medical care that is necessary for the majority. But one of the two is wildly better at getting medical care for those who need it, whatever their premise. You said point out an area where private charity is failing to work, and unless those 48 million uninsured can all count on private charity to cover their medical costs, it's a very big, very current failing that isn't about to be rectified.
 
2013-10-29 11:18:21 PM
poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:17 PM

skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.


Why did you come back if you're not even trying to have fun?
 
2013-10-29 11:20:55 PM

Fart_Machine: Having a safety net means that the poor will be robbed of the misery incentive and seek to remain poor thus not learning their lesson


It is not that they continue to seek being poor, but the fact that they seek to continue to get free handouts even if they have the ability to work.  It is always good policy to have an incentive to work and to improve your standard of living/income.  With the welfare cliffs identified in that figure above, that is not always the case.
 
2013-10-29 11:22:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.

Why did you come back if you're not even trying to have fun?


that was fun for me. Any time you get to use poor as a noun and in the plural it's GTs
 
2013-10-29 11:25:57 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Charity or insurance, both are a single step to receiving/paying for medical care that is necessary for the majority


Actually, insurance is a bit more than a single step.  Individuals who pay into insurance are covered as a beneficiary and that is not the case for charity.

You said point out an area where private charity is failing to work,

You could have made the point about charity is not currently working very well to build the Bridge to Nowhere and you would have made just as much sense.  For charity to fail, it would need to fail at its intended purpose.  Not for what ever crazy idea you dream up for it.
 
2013-10-29 11:26:06 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It's OK to point out the war on the poor.  Just don't be a high ranking GOP party member when you do it.


No, its totally fine as a high ranking GOP party member. You just have to laugh with your buddies on how so many people bought that trickle down bullshiat and how you're all filthy rich as a result. Reagan started all of this, and from an economic standpoint he was much worse than any other president we've had in the past 30 years. Yes, that includes even Bush Jr. Are Democrats to blame too? Sure, they abandoned any principals they had in favor of going further to the right to win elections.

Republicans started this though, so hopefully we can finally put to rest the myth that Republicans are moral because they are Christians and ultimately financially responsible. You know, because income inequality is totally financially responsible.
 
2013-10-29 11:27:26 PM

HeadLever: Sum Dum Gai: history has shown that one of those simply doesn't work,

Where?  Show your work.


OK lets look at that nice graphic showing how a single mom in pennsyvania is basically being given a free ride, and theres some huge welfare cliff.

Lets just validate it.  Easy one SNAP (ie foodstamps) benefits.  Chart shows it being cut off at 29,000, but with a tiny amount still there until 33,000 or so.

So go to the pennsylvania food stamp website here:

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/foradults/supplementalnutritionassistance pr ogram/snapincomelimits/

And its 2069-I.E. $24,828/yr.  Whats that?  hmmmm...so some truth stretching...because notice its higher if the household contains an elderly or disabled member.  ahhh...then its 31,000.  Got it...but wait..that chart goes to 33K...hmmmm close enough for government work right?

So a single mom of a disabled child right?  Small added detail.

But wait...the maximum they get....367 dollars a month...ie 4,404/year.  But...wait...look at that chart, it shows..about 6,500 at the 0 income level!  Hmmm...maybe the chart is lying there....Imagine that.

Now lets look at that chart again.  How about that child care one.  ok at 0 it looks like a 16.5K benefit.

Now think this through....0 income...and 16.5K in childcare?  uhmmm......ok maybe looking for work right?  lets just go with that.  I mean hey, who expects them to use actual averages-they already used the disabled kid card....

Heres the childcare link:
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/forchildren/childcareearlylearning/childc ar eworkssubsidizedchildcareprogram/

OK maximum yearly income for a family of 2 to receive child care is...31,020.  Huh....weird..that graphic shows it up to 45K  So its wrong again.  and this time...its NOT close enough for government work.

Now lets look at the amount.  That seems more plausible.  Right?  Uhmmm...no.  at 40 hrs/week that would be....16,500/52/40= $7.9/hr.  uh huh.  But wait...go look at that page.  notice something?  Theres a family co-pay as well for the childcare.  Soo...maybe not.  But wait..maybe if we assume the child is severely handicapped and requires a 1-1 specialized help right?

Yeah...no the charts still lying in too many other ways.

Critical thinking and research is your friend.  There.  I even showed my work-something you were unwilling to do to back up your demonstrably false claim.
 
2013-10-29 11:28:29 PM

HeadLever: The context is that they stack on all the welfare benefits that a specific income is eliglible for.


Well that's even dumber. People want to work. There are no goddamn jobs. Dependency is a myth.
 
2013-10-29 11:33:46 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HeadLever: The context is that they stack on all the welfare benefits that a specific income is eliglible for.

Well that's even dumber. People want to work. There are no goddamn jobs. Dependency is a myth.


Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.  And then turn around and say in an income disparity thread "Walmart and McDonald's aren't meant to be careers!"
 
2013-10-29 11:37:17 PM

chimp_ninja: Another simple example:

Low-income housing (oh, so shockingly) tends to be constructed with no regard to energy efficiency.  Crappy insulation, leaky everything, the works.  So they're cheap in terms of rent, but the all-in cost of living there is actually pretty steep for what you get.

How most of the US handles it now: Poor people in cities rack up massive energy bills despite living in small spaces with few appliances.  The bills get unreasonable, so we pay them through the tax system in the form of subsidies and poverty assistance.  This continues forever.
What is starting to be done in your smarter cities:  Pay teams of minimally-trained people to visit low-income housing, particularly large apartment complexes where every unit is more or less the same, so figuring out how to fix up one unit makes the rest very easy.  Patch, seal, insulate, tighten, etc.  Put in all the goofy one-dollar fixes that pay off over time (inject foam into leaky spots, weatherstrip doors/windows, wrap exposed hot water pipes, gasket outlets, put aerators on bathroom sinks, tighten up plumbing, etc.) and teach the residents (if they give a crap) as you're doing it.  Lower their bills, therefore lower the amount of assistance needed.  Along the way, the minimally-trained people build a resume that can get them into general contracting and construction.

But apparently, we couldn't hire 100,000 people for a year or two to do this nationally, because socialism and therefore.


Our electric company does this. Everyone with a WMECO bill pays a metered surcharge (sliding-scale customers pay at a discounted rate, but they still pay in) to the company's Community Action fund, which works alongside established fuel assistance programs to inspect and update houses/apartments. They do the usual "replace CFLs and caulk around the windows" things, but they'll do more robust stuff if the situation warrants and their budget allows. Certain refrigerators they'll just replace for you, free. They'll blow in insulation if you need it. They service furnaces. It's a smart thing for the power company to do, especially if 500 new fridges is cheaper than upgrading the grid to accommodate 500 old fridge's worth of electricity.
 
2013-10-29 11:38:14 PM

Greywar: So go to the pennsylvania food stamp website here:

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/foradults/supplementalnutritionassistance pr ogram/snapincomelimits/

And its 2069-I.E. $24,828/yr.


Correction, the example is a single mom with 2 kids - the cutoff per your link is 31,260 (Gross)

Your assumption of family size is off - Try again.
 
2013-10-29 11:41:58 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Well that's even dumber. People want to work.


Why is that dumb?  You only get what your income allows.  That makes perfect sense.  If you have an EI of 26K per this example, you will be eligible for CHIP but not MA.  Why is that dumb.  Different programs serve different needs.  It really makes sense if you think about it.

Also, the fact that people want to work is addressed in this graph by the earned income line.
 
2013-10-29 11:45:24 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Having a safety net means that the poor will be robbed of the misery incentive and seek to remain poor thus not learning their lesson

It is not that they continue to seek being poor, but the fact that they seek to continue to get free handouts even if they have the ability to work.  It is always good policy to have an incentive to work and to improve your standard of living/income.  With the welfare cliffs identified in that figure above, that is not always the case.


I take it you've never heard of the working poor. Most of these folks do work but get supplemental benefits because they don't earn enough money.
 
2013-10-29 11:45:37 PM

IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.


They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.
 
2013-10-29 11:48:20 PM

Fart_Machine: I take it you've never heard of the working poor. Most of these folks do work but get supplemental benefits because they don't earn enough money.


Sure I have.  See that cliff figure?  You can see how benefits and income of the working poor stacks up.
 
2013-10-29 11:50:14 PM
Hey lets look at housing next.  a 12.5K benefit for this family of two all the way up to a income of about 27K it looks like.  Lets look....
from here:

"the family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live "

and:" The housing voucher family must pay 30% of its monthly adjusted gross income for rent and utilities, and if the unit rent is greater than the payment standard the family is required to pay the additional amount. By law, whenever a family moves to a new unit where the rent exceeds the payment standard, the family may not pay more than 40 percent of its adjusted monthly income for rent.  "

But wait....at 27K the housing benefit seems to be worth 5K...so at 27K they pay...8,100, and the state gives them 5K of it...so this family is renting plus utilities at 1,091 a month.  huh...so lets see..big cities are probably the most expensive.  2 bedrooms in pittsburg...several at 675........so maybe....if they spend another 400 on rent and utilities.

So the new requirement is...disabled kid, AND living in a city.  Well...wait..ah ha.  a city called Frederick...rents are higher there.  There we go.  (where the heck is frederick, and why is it higher then pittsburg?)...anyways.  there we go.  that could get that expensive.

but wait a second...that also means the family income must be 50% of the median...ok now were talking!  So..no they cant live in pittsburg, cause the median income there is only 35K, and the cutoff is 54K.  so they must live somewhere more expensive with a higher income.hmm pennsyvania median is 50K...so nope...still got to be in the better part of pittsburg-NOT the average or the places here the majority of folks get help....

See what I mean?  this whole graph keeps falling apart.
 
2013-10-29 11:55:36 PM
LOL, ok lets try with 2 kids.  STILL 31K not 33K.....
 
2013-10-29 11:56:17 PM

HeadLever: You only get what your income allows.


You only get what you apply and get approved for. Not everyone applies, not everyone gets approved. Not everyone uses every program available. Can we please stop punching down. The takers are the top.
 
2013-10-29 11:56:20 PM

Greywar: Hey lets look at housing next. a 12.5K benefit for this family of two


When does 2+1=2?  Are you that bad at math?  Or just playing dumb.
 
2013-10-30 12:00:09 AM
nah, im used to thinking of these charts as being how many kids, not family size.  mea culpa.  even so..the math doesn't work for the chart presented.
 
2013-10-30 12:02:38 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: You only get what you apply and get approved for


So? Usually signing up for these programs is one stop shopping.  Not that hard.  In fact, there are vendors and solicitors that sell these.  Approval is based mostly on income, so that is pretty much a given.

Are there some that leave money on the table?  Sure.  I would bet that it is likely that these are in the minority, though.
 
2013-10-30 12:03:09 AM

HeadLever: Greywar: Hey lets look at housing next. a 12.5K benefit for this family of two

When does 2+1=2?  Are you that bad at math?  Or just playing dumb.


PS.  I also hold my head in shame for making the error.  not dumb, just distracted is my defense.
 
2013-10-30 12:07:08 AM

Greywar: ..the math doesn't work for the chart presented


Here is the background assumptions (Slide 6) (pdf).  Though, there is not supporting data, it will give you the supporting assumptions.
 
2013-10-30 12:08:15 AM

HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]


That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.

1) It doesn't calculate the specific subsidy correctly (it's a tax break (not credit) on money earned, yet people with 0 income get a larger tax break then they even earned - mathematically impossible)
2) The tax break doesn't end at $42,000 (or wherever it stops in that chart), the percentage deductions just stops decreasing at that point.

Without that yellow bar, the chart is fuking bullshat, and the yellow bar is patent flat out fuking Republican lie.
 
2013-10-30 12:08:53 AM

Greywar: . I also hold my head in shame for making the error. not dumb, just distracted is my defense


Meh, we all do it from time to time.  I stick my foot in my mouth on a regular basis as well.

And with that I need to get to bed.  Night folks.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:56 AM
WTH happened between 2001 and 2004 to make pennsylvanias welfare jump by 20%?  Thank you for the link....
 
2013-10-30 12:14:27 AM

impaler:
HeadLeve
r: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]
---------------------------
That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar..


HeadLever: And with that I need to get to bed.  Night folks.


Runaway brave sir knight.
 
2013-10-30 12:33:52 AM

skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.


Ah, hello Mr. Galt! I didn't see you in the corner, sir. How's the railroad coming along?
 
2013-10-30 01:01:27 AM

HeadLever: IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.

They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.


When minimum wage was created it was meant to support a family and capitalism didn't collapse. Fark you.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-30 01:02:00 AM

HeadLever: You could have made the point about charity is not currently working very well to build the Bridge to Nowhere and you would have made just as much sense. For charity to fail, it would need to fail at its intended purpose. Not for what ever crazy idea you dream up for it.


It makes just as much sense because charity is a terribly inefficient way to get anything done, whether it be providing medical care or building a bridge. I can see the view you're taking, one that you'll technically (the best kind) never be wrong at, that as long as charities are performing their stated purpose, they cannot have failed no matter how ineffectual they are in solving any particular problem. That is neither what Sum Dum Gai nor I meant, but you probably know that, too.

I think he'd already said that if private charity were sufficient to solve these problems, there would be no need for a social effort.
 
2013-10-30 01:04:14 AM

Fizpez: Kasich screwed the pooch SO HARD when he went to step one of the Koch Brothers playbook and tried to destroy every single civil service union in the state at the same time within months of getting elected.  Had he just tried the teachers he probably would have won, but in a similar shiatstorm like Scott Walker got involved in.

Instead he pissed off just about everyone but the tea party-lite Republicans down in southern Ohio and got his ass handed to him on Issue 5.  He's laid incredibly low the past 18 months but is basically still the same douchbag who championed all that shiat not that long ago.


This, thissity, this, this, this.
 
2013-10-30 01:27:15 AM

HeadLever: IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.

They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.


For some, they are the only jobs they are likely to get. The service sector makes up a huge part of the workforce now, and is still growing with the consumer-based economy we've built for ourselves. The western way of life runs on the shelves being fully stocked, coffee/donuts/burgers being served, and TV's being upsold to home theatre systems. These things require people, at least until corps go full-dystopia and decide automation is more cost-effective.
 
2013-10-30 01:31:37 AM

fusillade762: I'll just leave this here.

Lies of Plutocracy: Exploding Five Myths that Dehumanize the Poor


Naming your snap card "Oregon Trail" is a dark humor I wasn't expecting....
 
2013-10-30 01:34:08 AM

HeadLever: Dusk-You-n-Me: You only get what you apply and get approved for

So? Usually signing up for these programs is one stop shopping.  Not that hard.  In fact, there are vendors and solicitors that sell these.  Approval is based mostly on income, so that is pretty much a given.

Are there some that leave money on the table?  Sure.  I would bet that it is likely that these are in the minority, though.


Um it's not "one stop shopping". You don't sign up for one program and get everything. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-10-30 01:41:24 AM
A rare moment of lucidity, yes.  But he's no hero.
 
2013-10-30 02:01:12 AM

impaler: HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]

That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.

1) It doesn't calculate the specific subsidy correctly (it's a tax break (not credit) on money earned, yet people with 0 income get a larger tax break then they even earned - mathematically impossible)
2) The tax break doesn't end at $42,000 (or wherever it stops in that chart), the percentage deductions just stops decreasing at that point.

Without that yellow bar, the chart is fuking bullshat, and the yellow bar is patent flat out fuking Republican lie.


Oh yeah, I just looked it up.  It's the usual American Enterprise Institute bullshait.
 
2013-10-30 02:36:38 AM

Fart_Machine: impaler: HeadLever: For me it is not a war on the poor but a reform to always incentive work and a return to the normal workforce.  Most of these folks work just as hard (or harder) than your normal Joe.  Most of us don't have any issue with these folks needing a hand up.  However, we should get rid of the welfare cliffs and do what you can to keep the lazy from sucking up more than they should.   [www.humanevents.com image 480x359]

That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.

1) It doesn't calculate the specific subsidy correctly (it's a tax break (not credit) on money earned, yet people with 0 income get a larger tax break then they even earned - mathematically impossible)
2) The tax break doesn't end at $42,000 (or wherever it stops in that chart), the percentage deductions just stops decreasing at that point.

Without that yellow bar, the chart is fuking bullshat, and the yellow bar is patent flat out fuking Republican lie.

Oh yeah, I just looked it up.  It's the usual American Enterprise Institute bullshait.


What do you expect with Koch heads?
 
2013-10-30 03:03:43 AM
Concern about the poor from a Republican governor?  That's very unusual.  Let's see if he takes actions to fit his words.
 
2013-10-30 03:24:27 AM

HeadLever: Talondel: You.  The individual.

Yep, charity with other folks money is not charity at all.


Those are the "Paul" democratics.
 
2013-10-30 03:28:36 AM

Talondel: It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."   You.  The individual.


That's repugnant to Judaism:
Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.

/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.
// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.
 
2013-10-30 04:24:29 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Talondel: It's not a loophole.  It's the teaching of Christ.  Christ said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Matthew 19:21.  He didn't say "If you want to be perfect, go vote to raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor." or "If you want to be perfect, go ask your neighbors to help care for the poor."  He said "sell your possessions and give to the poor."   You.  The individual.

That's repugnant to Judaism:
Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.

/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.
// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.


Except Samaritans.
 
2013-10-30 04:30:05 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: No. Certain people are lazy and have no interest in improving their community or working for a living. You know which people I mean, right? *wink, wink*

No I don't. Do tell.


He means you. He's talking about you, man. Are you gonna let him get away with that?
I thought you were a badass, and didn't afraid of anything, and had lotsa guns.
 
2013-10-30 04:31:21 AM

Alphax: Concern about the poor from a Republican governor?  That's very unusual.  Let's see if he takes actions to fit his words.


He's a scared rabbit smelling a coming storm on the wind.
 
2013-10-30 05:12:56 AM
*taps microphone*

Check, check, can you hear me now?  Here's the answer:

STOP . FARKING . HAVING . CHILDREN . NOW

Unless you're a hard-core Mormon or somebody who has the delusion that you have superior genes (Nation of Islam, Ku Klux Klan, other chauvinists and supremacists, I'm looking your way), stop having babies, folks.  Take it from a professional shmuck:  the overwhelming majority of you shmucks out there who will ultimately become parents are going to become parents by accident.  Y'know, when you've drank the entire 12 cans of cheap domestic ale and are too farking lazy to put on a prophylactic, or when practice Vatican Roulette like so many billions of parents before you.  Just farking get a vasectomy already.  Then your error in judgment won't cost you a quarter million bucks (and that's before college), you'll never have to apologize to your children for forcing existence upon them, and you might have a glimmer of a comfortable life even when the Gates of Hell and All-You-Can't-Eat Buffet own 99.9999999% of everything.

This is the main tactic that the 1% who own 99% have used since the dawn of civilization to keep the other 99% under control.  Show me a guy who's willing to toil 12 hours a day in the shiat mines for a dollar a day, and I'll show you some shmuck who's had a dozen kids starving in some shotgun shack simply because the Jeebus Monster (TM) told you personally to multiply and foul the Earth or else you'll burn in the Eternal Shiat Mines for all eternity.  Stop being a brainless tool and just get a farking snip job already.

What sucks is that the majority of people who opt out of the gene pool are the among the smartest.  My experience is that Welfare Queens and religious nuts are the ones who are most likely to pop until they drop.  Maybe H.G. Wells was right in "The Time Machine" and it's obvious who's going to become the Eloi and you bet your booties that the Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures that own just about everything are going to end up becoming the Morlocks.  But I digress...back to my herb and back to catching some Slack from my latest gig...
 
2013-10-30 05:33:19 AM

Serious Black: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Serious Black: The Bible can be used to justify all kinds of things, It's a blank canvas upon which we impose our own worldview.

It's one of the reasons that I learned that it's futile for atheists to try to debate scripture. There are just so many different ways for people to interpret it (even if they claim to be literalists) that it's impossible to nail anything down. The moment you try, you're told that you're either misinterpreting it or ignoring "context".

That's why I stick to non-scriptural arguments like The Problem of Evil.

I've tried arguing with Evangelicals about what the Bible says using explicit quotes from the book, from religious scholars, and from clergy members (primarily my uncle who is a Catholic priest of about 40 years now). You're exactly right; they inevitably say I am not reading the Bible right, am ignoring context that somehow proves my point is wrong, and that I should stop talking about shiat that I don't believe.


I've been told that since I am a non-believer everything I say regarding religion is invalid.
 
2013-10-30 07:42:14 AM

NotoriousW.O.P: Lenny_da_Hog: Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat

This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.

Probably, but not the way you might think. Kasich's actually a Pittsburgh native, and the community where he grew up (McKees Rocks) has become fairly distressed since deindustrialization.

/Youngstown native
//Born three weeks before Black Monday
///Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do


Youngstown, represent.

An ogligatory mention in any discussion about the death of steel in the U.S.

/Where the hell is Jim Traficant when you need him?
 
2013-10-30 07:43:37 AM

HeadLever: IlGreven: Here's where they pull the "there's plenty of jobs at McDonald's and Walmart!" card.

They are starter or second jobs that may or may not lead to bigger and better things.  I have no problem with those that work here.


...and this response is why I already have you on Ignore.  You gave the second part of my response...and then you cut it out as though I didn't say it.
 
2013-10-30 08:30:30 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: poors are not lazy and shiftless. They're just morally inferior. Worthy of pity and extermination to end their misfortune, really.

Ah, hello Mr. Galt! I didn't see you in the corner, sir. How's the railroad coming along?


Stop looking at my engine!
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report