Murdered DNC staffer was Wikileaks source

[SDBoiler1]

Such juvenile and stupid thinking. What makes people believe complex problems that many smart people have worked on have such simple solutions. I expect this level of thinking uneducated idiots, not a college grad.

Apart from the human dignity aspect of forcing limited choices on people just because they are poor, your system will be more expensive and will not work as well. It is economically less efficient than foodstamps. Let me humor you.

We switch to foodbanks and that will make abuse disappear. how? why? If we define abuse as taking benefits that you really don't need and therefore shouldn't qualify for. What about food banks will change that? A creative fraudstar will just go to the foodbank, collect non-perishable items in bulk e.g. canned foods. He will then proceed to the parking lot of the neighborhood grocery store. And sell those canned foods at half price for cash. He is still making a profit (since he got it for free), and the buyer is still getting a deal, they are buying it cheaper than they would at the grocery store. Basically, all you end up doing is exchanging trade of foodstamps for trade in canned goods. There will still be shady indivually owned corner stores stocking their shelves with food bought from food-bank resellers. You haven't reduced fraud one teeny bit. You have just succeeded in changing the form.

How about the program administration cost? It will definitely increase! How? changing to foodbanks doesn't change the cost of determining who should and shouldn't be eligible for how much. So that part of the cost stays the same. But here is where the increase comes from. For food banks, you have new logistics cost (i.e. the cost of making sure the right goods are available at the right locations at the right time). Right now, grocery stores shoulder the cost of logistics because that's their business. Giving out foodstams means government just doesn't have to do with food logistics. Switching to foodbanks entirely, creates a whole new cost structure.

So recap, we get new additional costs (mostly from logistics) without any decrease in eligibility determination cost, and no tangible decrease in fraud. Basically, a program that does less, costs more and wastes more. What a stupid solution. Go back and think some more. Half-baked idiotic ideas won't cut it.

You continually carp about having intelligent, meaningful discussions on here, but then use a pompous, condescending tone with anyone who disagrees with your liberal point-of-view, as if you're some kind of erudite, intellectual savant (which you aren't). Do you really want to meaningful exchanges on here? Quit acting like your the smartest guy on the board and stop calling anyone who dares to disagree with you "unintelligent", "uninformed", or flat out "dumb".

Just because you think you own some kind of moral high road because of your beliefs, doesn't make you right. I think is some advice I should remember to take myself at times, as well.

 

[TheBoris]

You continually carp about having intelligent, meaningful discussions on here, but then use a pompous, condescending tone with anyone who disagrees with your liberal point-of-view, as if you're some kind of erudite, intellectual savant (which you aren't). Do you really want to meaningful exchanges on here? Quit acting like your the smartest guy on the board and stop calling anyone who dares to disagree with you "unintelligent", "uninformed", or flat out "dumb".

Just because you think you own some kind of moral high road because of your beliefs, doesn't make you right. I think is some advice I should remember to take myself at times, as well.

I reported all of these insults and this name-calling to the mods. If you are a conservative poster who does this crap, you get banned. If a liberal does it, nothing happens. It gets a wink and a silent blessing.

 

[kescwi]

I reported all of these insults and this name-calling to the mods. If you are a conservative poster who does this crap, you get banned. If a liberal does it, nothing happens. It gets a wink and a silent blessing.

You honestly think that's why you got banned? You're conservative? Tell every one what you wrote that got you banned.

 

[atmafola]

You continually carp about having intelligent, meaningful discussions on here, but then use a pompous, condescending tone with anyone who disagrees with your liberal point-of-view, as if you're some kind of erudite, intellectual savant (which you aren't). Do you really want to meaningful exchanges on here? Quit acting like your the smartest guy on the board and stop calling anyone who dares to disagree with you "unintelligent", "uninformed", or flat out "dumb".

Just because you think you own some kind of moral high road because of your beliefs, doesn't make you right. I think is some advice I should remember to take myself at times, as well.

yes I am unapologetically condescending to idiotic ideas - not people. I do appreciate a honest debate. We all have different backgrounds and experiences that shape how we see the world and what our opinions are. That's okay and inherently very valuable. It is however similarly condescending to be arrogant enough to think you've solved complex near-intractable problems with some half-baked ideas. Scroll a few pages back, SDBoiler, I believe we've had some back and forth discussions that had no condescending tone (other than you comparing US to Greece/Venezuela). We don't have to all agree. And that's fine.

By the way, I don't have a moral high ground or claim to do so. Many things are debatable. On some issues though, facts and economics are simply on one side. The other side shouldn't even exist.

 

[SDBoiler1]

yes I am unapologetically condescending to idiotic ideas - not people. I do appreciate a honest debate. We all have different backgrounds and experiences that shape how we see the world and what our opinions are. That's okay and inherently very valuable. It is however similarly condescending to be arrogant enough to think you've solved complex near-intractable problems with some half-baked ideas. Scroll a few pages back, SDBoiler, I believe we've had some back and forth discussions that had no condescending tone (other than you comparing US to Greece/Venezuela). We don't have to all agree. And that's fine.

By the way, I don't have a moral high ground or claim to do so. Many things are debatable. On some issues though, facts and economics are simply on one side. The other side shouldn't even exist.

Sure could have fooled me. Just because you think an idea is idiotic, due to your biases, doesn't mean it's so.

Thank you at least for having the intellectual honesty to allow that others, even <GULP> Republicans can have valid points. And even DOUBLE <GULP> Trump supporters can have valid points.

I don't agree with everything Trump says and does, but at least he's trying to fix things in this country that need to be fixed, unlike the great majority of Establishment Republicans and Establishment (Progressive) Democrats. Many of these politicians are willfully, blissfully ignorant to the problems facing this country, or they are so bought and paid for by special interests that they don't care anymore.

It is unbelievable that CNN and NBC could have 93% negative coverage of Trump so far (Harvard study). CBS was 91%. They try to blow up every little thing he says and does into a major issue. They are so in the tank for the Democrats now, they don't even try to hide their incredible bias. Obama and HRC almost always good, Trump almost always bad. They have a serious case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome" now, and much of America is tuning them out.

They deserve to be called out. They are nothing but cheerleaders for the left now. In fairness, Fox News is more of a cheerleader for Trump, but they are nearly 50-50. Maybe they are "fair and balanced" after all?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/h...s-a-huge-anti-trump-bias-in-mainstream-media/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...y_extraordinary_media_bias_against_trump.html

 

[atmafola]

Sure could have fooled me. Just because you think an idea is idiotic, due to your biases, doesn't mean it's so.

Thank you at least for having the intellectual honesty to allow that others, even <GULP> Republicans can have valid points. And even DOUBLE <GULP> Trump supporters can have valid points.

I don't agree with everything Trump says and does, but at least he's trying to fix things in this country that need to be fixed, unlike the great majority of Establishment Republicans and Establishment (Progressive) Democrats. Many of these politicians are willfully, blissfully ignorant to the problems facing this country, or they are so bought and paid for by special interests that they don't care anymore.

It is unbelievable that CNN and NBC could have 93% negative coverage of Trump so far (Harvard study). CBS was 91%. They try to blow up every little thing he says and does into a major issue. They are so in the tank for the Democrats now, they don't even try to hide their incredible bias. Obama and HRC almost always good, Trump almost always bad. They have a serious case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome" now, and much of America is tuning them out.

They deserve to be called out. They are nothing but cheerleaders for the left now. In fairness, Fox News is more of a cheerleader for Trump, but they are nearly 50-50. Maybe they are "fair and balanced" after all?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/h...s-a-huge-anti-trump-bias-in-mainstream-media/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...y_extraordinary_media_bias_against_trump.html

by the way I disagree that its my bias that makes some things idiotic. Some things are just idiotic. And Trump does shoot himself in the foot a lot, often unnecessarily. In my opinion, he has serious personality flaws that makes him not suitable for the job. He promises way too many fairy tales. I'm also starting to wonder if there's really something to the Russian thingy. I used to dismiss as just partisan politics.

Personally, i only debate areas I have very good knowledge in and usually focus on issues where there is an objective data. For me, that usually ends up being economics. Even within economics, there are things that even the experts still debate. And there are things they agree on, e.g. the stimulus helped the economy, tax cuts in Trumps proposed budget won't pay for themselves, getting 3% GDP growth will be tough. What really rankles me though is when someone wades in spews partisan crap that has no basis in reality and sounds like it is coming straight from an empty tv talking head. Those things may make good soundbites when talking to your base but are honestly just bs that shouldn't ever be used a debating point. Or the person risks looking uninformed.

I donate to democratic party, someone will call my phone for donation and start with similar idiotic partisan things too. So I'm forced to call him out too. I am not an idiot. I am not motivated by outlandish chicken-little crap. I disagree with specific things about the other side. That's all. And often times the disagreement just boils down to everyone is self-serving. I can't fault people for that. I am too.

 

[miksta]

Sure could have fooled me. Just because you think an idea is idiotic, due to your biases, doesn't mean it's so.

Thank you at least for having the intellectual honesty to allow that others, even <GULP> Republicans can have valid points. And even DOUBLE <GULP> Trump supporters can have valid points.

I don't agree with everything Trump says and does, but at least he's trying to fix things in this country that need to be fixed, unlike the great majority of Establishment Republicans and Establishment (Progressive) Democrats. Many of these politicians are willfully, blissfully ignorant to the problems facing this country, or they are so bought and paid for by special interests that they don't care anymore.

It is unbelievable that CNN and NBC could have 93% negative coverage of Trump so far (Harvard study). CBS was 91%. They try to blow up every little thing he says and does into a major issue. They are so in the tank for the Democrats now, they don't even try to hide their incredible bias. Obama and HRC almost always good, Trump almost always bad. They have a serious case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome" now, and much of America is tuning them out.

They deserve to be called out. They are nothing but cheerleaders for the left now. In fairness, Fox News is more of a cheerleader for Trump, but they are nearly 50-50. Maybe they are "fair and balanced" after all?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/h...s-a-huge-anti-trump-bias-in-mainstream-media/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...y_extraordinary_media_bias_against_trump.html

Hilarious that you try to call out others for having a "condescending tone."

 

[TheBoris]

by the way I disagree that its my bias that makes some things idiotic. Some things are just idiotic. And Trump does shoot himself in the foot a lot, often unnecessarily. In my opinion, he has serious personality flaws that makes him not suitable for the job. He promises way too many fairy tales. I'm also starting to wonder if there's really something to the Russian thingy. I used to dismiss as just partisan politics.

Personally, i only debate areas I have very good knowledge in and usually focus on issues where there is an objective data. For me, that usually ends up being economics. Even within economics, there are things that even the experts still debate. And there are things they agree on, e.g. the stimulus helped the economy, tax cuts in Trumps proposed budget won't pay for themselves, getting 3% GDP growth will be tough. What really rankles me though is when someone wades in spews partisan crap that has no basis in reality and sounds like it is coming straight from an empty tv talking head. Those things may make good soundbites when talking to your base but are honestly just bs that shouldn't ever be used a debating point. Or the person risks looking uninformed.

I donate to democratic party, someone will call my phone for donation and start with similar idiotic partisan things too. So I'm forced to call him out too. I am not an idiot. I am not motivated by outlandish chicken-little crap. I disagree with specific things about the other side. That's all. And often times the disagreement just boils down to everyone is self-serving. I can't fault people for that. I am too.

By your standard, these people in Montana are idiots...

http://www.bigskyfoodbank.org/2013/01/food-bank-myths-vs-reality/

 

[SDBoiler1]

Hilarious that you try to call out others for having a "condescending tone."

Touche'. From earlier in the thread I said:

Just because you think you own some kind of moral high road because of your beliefs, doesn't make you right. I think is some advice I should remember to take myself at times, as well.

 

[atmafola]

By your standard, these people in Montana are idiots...

http://www.bigskyfoodbank.org/2013/01/food-bank-myths-vs-reality/

of course there are local food banks everywhere. Many are privately ran by churches and charities. I have volunteered at some, both in Indiana and CT. But like I explained to you in details earlier, it is mathematically impossible for food banks to effectively replace food stamps program nationally at a lower cost. They will cost more, cover less and waste more.

If you like foodbanks so much, nothing is stopping you from starting yours. heck, I will be there to volunteer if you invite me.

 

[TheBoris]

of course there are local food banks everywhere. Many are privately ran by churches and charities. I have volunteered at some, both in Indiana and CT. But like I explained to you in details earlier, it is mathematically impossible for food banks to effectively replace food stamps program nationally at a lower cost. They will cost more, cover less and waste more.

If you like foodbanks so much, nothing is stopping you from starting yours. heck, I will be there to volunteer if you invite me.

You do not know what you are talking about. Virtually all of the food banks that I propose would be within the grocery stores that the food stampers shop in right now. You simply have a limited number of designated items that they can receive: eggs, sacks of potatoes, bread, cheese, FF&V, canned soup, etc. No prepared foods such as pizza. No steaks, soda pop or candy. No deli meats. No fried chicken.

Each recipient would have a designated allotment each week based upon family size, income status and special needs (e.g. infants). Those with limited transportation could have their weekly allotment delivered at their homes.

Here's what is idiotic: the current system of giving these obese losers a debit card to buy whatever they want. If they were capable of making good choices in life, they wouldn't be on food stamps.

 

[atmafola]

You do not know what you are talking about. Virtually all of the food banks that I propose would be within the grocery stores that the food stampers shop in right now. You simply have a limited number of designated items that they can receive: eggs, sacks of potatoes, bread, cheese, FF&V, canned soup, etc. No prepared foods such as pizza. No steaks, soda pop or candy. No deli meats. No fried chicken.

Each recipient would have a designated allotment each week based upon family size, income status and special needs (e.g. infants). Those with limited transportation could have their weekly allotment delivered at their homes.

Here's what is idiotic: the current system of giving these obese losers a debit card to buy whatever they want. If they were capable of making good choices in life, they wouldn't be on food stamps.

What you are now trying to suggest but can't fully articulate is not food bank. It's just placing restrictions on what food stamps can buy. It is not economically idiotic like your original plan.

Let's analyze your new plan, It will cost the same to administer as the current program. Eligibility determination costs will be the same. Logistics cost will still be borne by grocery stores. There is a minimal one time cost to grocery stores to code in the restrictions. It won't do anything to fraud, it might on the net increase it slightly. It will certainly lead to more food waste (since you are forcing people to buy what they may not want or need). It may/may not do anything to combat obesity (this will require more detailed analysis). Then there's the human dignity part too (which it seems you could care less about).

So recap of your new plan, costs about the same after the initial cost of coding restrictions, wastes more food, does nothing about fraud, may/may not impact obesity. Overall, (if I Ieave out the unclear obesity effects), it is economically less efficient than the current program. Economics aside, your plan is less humane and more paternalistic. That bothers people like me, but I'm sure that's exactly what you like best about the plan. Either way the economics is not favorable enough to justify the negative human impact.

Politically, you can sell this plan to a segment of the population. My guess is that are people out there like you willing to pay slightly more if it means they get to control what the poor can or can not do.

 

[TheBoris]

What you are now trying to suggest but can't fully articulate is not food bank. It's just placing restrictions on what food stamps can buy. It is not economically idiotic like your original plan.

Let's analyze your new plan, It will cost the same to administer as the current program. Eligibility determination costs will be the same. Logistics cost will still be borne by grocery stores. There is a minimal one time cost to grocery stores to code in the restrictions. It won't do anything to fraud, it might on the net increase it slightly. It will certainly lead to more food waste (since you are forcing people to buy what they may not want or need). It may/may not do anything to combat obesity (this will require more detailed analysis). Then there's the human dignity part too (which it seems you could care less about).

So recap of your new plan, costs about the same after the initial cost of coding restrictions, wastes more food, does nothing about fraud, may/may not impact obesity. Overall, (if I Ieave out the unclear obesity effects), it is economically less efficient than the current program. Economics aside, your plan is less humane and more paternalistic. That bothers people like me, but I'm sure that's exactly what you like best about the plan. Either way the economics is not favorable enough to justify the negative human impact.

Politically, you can sell this plan to a segment of the population. My guess is that are people out there like you willing to pay slightly more if it means they get to control what the poor can or can not do.

No no no. There are no food stamps with my plan. There is no debit card that can be sold to someone else or used to buy beer at the local convenience store.

Those eligible for the program will be allocated a weekly quota of food. They must be registered in the program, then go to the grocery store/food bank and show a picture ID. Then they will be given their allotment. They choose their food from a limited but adequate selection of healthful, nutritious items.

Costs will plummet. First of all, many of the "poor" will refuse to eat basic, healthful, nutritious food. The truly needy will eat it but the abusers won't so you'll see the enrollment drop sharply. Secondly, basic food like 10# of potatoes ($3), gallon of milk ($1.50), loaf of bread ($1.50) and a dozen eggs ($0.69 at Aldi's) costs far, far less than the crap these people are now buying with their food stamps.

What I have outlined here is a SNAP program that will reduce costs by ~75% and provide a more nutritious and healthful diet to the needy than the food stamp program is providing right now.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You do not know what you are talking about. Virtually all of the food banks that I propose would be within the grocery stores that the food stampers shop in right now. You simply have a limited number of designated items that they can receive: eggs, sacks of potatoes, bread, cheese, FF&V, canned soup, etc. No prepared foods such as pizza. No steaks, soda pop or candy. No deli meats. No fried chicken.

Each recipient would have a designated allotment each week based upon family size, income status and special needs (e.g. infants). Those with limited transportation could have their weekly allotment delivered at their homes.

Here's what is idiotic: the current system of giving these obese losers a debit card to buy whatever they want. If they were capable of making good choices in life, they wouldn't be on food stamps.

You know there are enlisted soldiers and their families on food stamps, right? The way you talk about other humans -Muslims and the poor in particular - is as though they were dogs.

 

[TheBoris]

You know there are enlisted soldiers and their families on food stamps, right? The way you talk about other humans -Muslims and the poor in particular - is as though they were dogs.

Enlisted soldiers shouldn't be on food stamps. They should be getting supplemental nutrition at the USDA food bank within the commissary.

 

[atmafola]

No no no. There are no food stamps with my plan. There is no debit card that can be sold to someone else or used to buy beer at the local convenience store. Those eligible for the program will be allocated a weekly quota of food. They must be registered in the program, then go to the grocery store/food bank and show a picture ID.

so basically a card (ID) that let's someone go to grocery story to pick up food items meant for that person paid for by the government. You can call it whatever you want, it is for all practical purpose just a food stamp card with a picture on it. So your genius solution is to replace a food stamp card with some other food stamp card.

As for fraud, it will reduce at first. But will eventually pick up, and will end up at the same or higher level fore reasons stated later. There will still be fraud People will pick up non-perishable foods and just trade it in for cash. It's not as convenient as trading debit cards for cash. But it is certainly what will happen. If yo don't believe that can happen. read this article
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/food-stamps-are-tickets-fraud-pop-train.
instead of pop, it would be some other non-perishable food items.

Costs will plummet. First of all, many of the "poor" will refuse to eat basic, healthful, nutritious food. The truly needy will eat it but the abusers won't so you'll see the enrollment drop sharply. Secondly, basic food like 10# of potatoes ($3), gallon of milk ($1.50), loaf of bread ($1.50) and a dozen eggs ($0.69 at Aldi's) costs far, far less than the crap these people are now buying with their food stamps.

Forcing people to buy what they don't feel they need/require is for sure going to lead to waste. The net effect will be to force a black market where people trade what they get but don't need for what they feel they need but don't get. You get more waste and more diversion.

What I have outlined here is a SNAP program that will reduce costs by ~75% and provide a more nutritious and healthful diet to the needy than the food stamp program is providing right now.

When i call your plan and math idiotic, people will accuse me of being mean again. You sound like Trump's budget with projections made with magical numbers pulled from you know where. I thought you were finally getting somewhere by proposing something reasonable. But no, you just have to back to spewing semi-intelligent rubbish with a healthy dose of disdain for the less fortunate.

So recap, your latest solution is foodstamps (but called another name), that severely limits choices and is distributed weekly regardless of the recipients actual needs. I don't see any cost/fraud savings anywhere there.

 

[TheBoris]

so basically a card (ID) that let's someone go to grocery story to pick up food items meant for that person paid for by the government. You can call it whatever you want, it is for all practical purpose just a food stamp card with a picture on it. So your genius solution is to replace a food stamp card with some other food stamp card.

As for fraud, it will reduce it marginally at first. But there will still be fraud People will pick up non-perishable foods and just trade it in for cash. It's not as convenient as trading debit cards for cash. But it is certainly what will happen.



Forcing people to buy what they don't feel they need/require is for sure going to lead to waste. The net effect will be to force a black market where people trade what they get but don't need for what they feel they need but don't get. You get more waste and more diversion.



Per the part in bold, when i call your plan and math idiotic, people will accuse me of being mean again. You sound like Trump's budget. His budget has similar asterix and projections made with magical numbers pulled from you know where. I thought you were finally getting somewhere by proposing something reasonable. But no, you just have to back to spewing semi-intelligent rubbish. Pointing out what that makes your projections and calculations stupid will take all day.

But I will bite.. so let's analyze your plan

Clearly, you lack the intellect to analyze my plan. There are no food stamps/debit cards. People are not going to stand in the parking lot selling gallons of milk and loaves of bread if they are truly needy and have hungry children. SNAP should be a safety net, not a gourmet buffet line.

Let's take just one sentence of your rant above. "Forcing people to buy what they don't feel they need/require is for sure going to lead to waste." We aren't forcing anyone to do anything. They aren't buying anything, they're being given food. If they don't need it or require it, they won't bother to pick it up. Are you saying the losers will come to the grocery store, pick up food they don't need or want and then run outside to dump it in trash cans? The reality is that if they don't need it or want it, they'll stop coming to get it.

 

[atmafola]

TheBoris, there is one sure way to wring savings out of foodstamps without going through all this expensive and ineffective work around. It's called a good economy that improves wages at the bottom. As the economy has continued to improve (not quickly enough for some of you), the number of people and the total amount spent on food stamps has continued to decline. Maybe we should just focus on what works, rather than all these half-baked ideas you keep coming up with.

 

[atmafola]

Clearly, you lack the intellect to analyze my plan. There are no food stamps/debit cards. People are not going to stand in the parking lot selling gallons of milk and loaves of bread if they are truly needy and have hungry children. SNAP should be a safety net, not a gourmet buffet line.

Let's take just one sentence of your rant above. "Forcing people to buy what they don't feel they need/require is for sure going to lead to waste." We aren't forcing anyone to do anything. They aren't buying anything, they're being given food. If they don't need it or require it, they won't bother to pick it up. Are you saying the losers will come to the grocery store, pick up food they don't need or want and then run outside to dump it in trash cans? The reality is that if they don't need it or want it, they'll stop coming to get it.

you can call it whatever. It is still a card that qualifies somebody to get goverment paid for food. It may be a driver's license, ID or whatever. But for all practical purposes, it is still a food stamp card.
You underestimate people ingenuity to trade what they don't want/need but have in excess for what they want/need and don't have enough of. They will come pick it up and find a way to trade it for what they want. You can put some dollars into policing that also. But that will just add cost. That's the fatal flaw in your idea. It ignores basic human behavior.

 

[TheBoris]

TheBoris, there is one sure way to wring savings out of foodstamps without going through all this expensive and ineffective work around. It's called a good economy that improves wages at the bottom. As the economy has continued to improve (not quickly enough for some of you), the number of people and the total amount spent on food stamps has continued to decline. Maybe we should just focus on what works, rather than all these half-baked ideas you keep coming up with.

You believe these losers are willing to work???? If they were, they wouldn't be on food stamps right now.

A good economy isn't going to help the elderly, children living in poverty, the handicapped. We need to focus upon helping those people, not gang members, welfare queens, drug addicts, panhandlers and the unwashed goons who spend their days sleeping in the public library..

 

[atmafola]

You believe these losers are willing to work???? If they were, they wouldn't be on food stamps right now.

A good economy isn't going to help the elderly, children living in poverty, the handicapped. We need to focus upon helping those people, not gang members, welfare queens, drug addicts, panhandlers and the unwashed goons who spend their days sleeping in the public library..

why then is the number of people on foodstamps decreasing as the economy improves, particularly wages at the bottom end? What part of your borderline racist narrative explains that simple phenomenon? Not like we didn't know what your motivations were. But thanks all the same for explicitly stating them.

 

[TheBoris]

why then is the number of people on foodstamps decreasing as the economy improves, particularly wages at the bottom end? What part of your borderline racist narrative explains that simple phenomenon? Not like we didn't know what your motivations were. But thanks all the same for explicitly stating them.

Ah, the mindless knee-jerk response that liberals are always atwitchin' to pull the trigger on: "racist".

 

[atmafola]

Ah, the mindless knee-jerk response that liberals are always atwitchin' to pull the trigger on: "racist".

this may come as a surprise to you, but some people really do earn the moniker. They are hardly ever self aware enough to realize why.

 

[TheBoris]

this may come as a surprise to you, but some people really do earn the moniker. They are hardly ever self aware enough to realize why.

Gr8 called me a racist because I don't kissy-huggy the Muslims. Kindly explain that one to me.

 

[SKYDOG]

why then is the number of people on foodstamps decreasing as the economy improves, particularly wages at the bottom end? What part of your borderline racist narrative explains that simple phenomenon? Not like we didn't know what your motivations were. But thanks all the same for explicitly stating them.

I have read through this discussion and have no idea why racism was brought into the mix. There is no reason to bring it up so why?

 

[atmafola]

I have read through this discussion and have no idea why racism was brought into the mix. There is no reason to bring it up so why?

my bad. Things can only be racist when we use the n-word, right? Mot that I have called anyone that on this thread, but like I said earlier, somebody people do work hard to earn that moniker and they seldom are self-aware enough to figure why.
To be honest, I would rather focus on the economic feasibility of his half-baked ideas than dwell on whatever may be motivating them.

 

[TheBoris]

To be honest, I would rather focus on the economic feasibility of his half-baked ideas than dwell on whatever may be motivating them.

To be honest, you are incapable of either.

 

[atmafola]

To be honest, you are incapable of either.

got any more half-baked ideas for us to analyze?