- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I did answer his question, skippy.
You didn't answer mine... zippy.
I did answer his question, skippy.
That is entirely untrue.
well, my mother married a no good alcoholic man, and had five kids. we are catholic. she finally divorced him before he killed her. we were then poor and needed assistance for a time.That's not even close to an accurate assessment of the issue. "In a lot of cases" does not give any quantifying data to work with. It's too general. Also, what constitutes a "bad decision"? Got anything more than subjectivity?
I did answer his question, skippy.
Stop changing the subject and answer the question tough guy. I offered solutions, you ignore them. I ask for a defitiion, you accuse me of not keeping up. You're the troll pal, not me.
I'll respond when you can put something that's above a 3rd grade level - until then, have a nice day.
That's not even close to an accurate assessment of the issue. "In a lot of cases" does not give any quantifying data to work with. It's too general. Also, what constitutes a "bad decision"? Got anything more than subjectivity?
You can dodge the issue with semantics all you want, but you know as well as I do that not all poor people are poor because they're disabled and can't provide for themselves, or they got ****ed over by the man. There are poor people out there that are poor because they don't have the gumption to improve their station in life.
Name calling does not make up for a weak arguement.....rof
That's not name calling. And when I take up the habit of getting debate tips from the weakest debator here at DP, I'll be sure to ask you or ockham.
Yeah for about a month. And then who solves the problem of mom not having money next month because she cant get to work?
You guys act like the answer is so simple. "Oh well...derrrrrr...just stop being poor."
It's asinine fantasy approach to a real problem.
Sure it is.......
& from the weakness of your position, I'd say you need all of the help you can muster....
That did not answer a thing I asked. Try again.
I do commend you for attempting to be civil where ockham couldn't be bothered.
education is key as well.How about Obama do something for Jobs so they can by food. Welfare is not the answer jobs is.
You started the insults, not me. You dodge the issue, not me. You name call me as a troll. Then you accuse me of not being civil. You accuse me of not providing solutions, I pointed out your mistake where I did. One day, I'm hoping you'll actually discuss the topic and grow up. Not sure what pissed you off today, but it's not me. So go kick someone else's dog.
Back to the topic before such a rude / ignorant interruption:
If the system is broken at the State level, there's not much the Fed can do about it. It's up to the States and I'd argue that it's in the States best interest to NOT continue to throw money or food in this case, at the problem, but to address it as I stated: Cut off a portion of the aid and motivate those with REAL problems to solutions with educational tools, skill building tools etc... those who are simply parasites on the system should be cut off and join the rest of society. That may not work well with the politics or morality of some, but it's a road to reducing hunger and a potential solution to lifting people out of poverty.
education is key as well.
I have only presented one position so far and that's that those on public assistance should be required to drug test.
Can you try arguing that or presenting a position or are you just here to troll with your buddy Ockham?
By all means, Partisan...show us these great debate skills you seem to have been hiding away since day one...
i didn't expect you would.I thought food was the topic. I don't understand your point here
If you are going to waste man hours & money on drug tests, you might as well just give them food......:roll:
I thought food was the topic. I don't understand your point here
I said nothing about not giving them food. Were you making a point?
It's broader than just food... kids won the lunch program are a symptom of a larger issue which is the level of poverty. I suggest cutting the lunch program but the support for getting the family on their feet must be part of that cut or else we'll just be kicking poor people when they're down. Give them tools to better themselves so kids food or foodstamps no longer is the issue and will no longer be needed.
Cuts and identifying parasites shouldn't be carried out unless we can help those who want the help, out of their predicament.
One thing I have never understood is why we don't have more daycare assistance programs for mothers with young children and more "workfare" type programs that could be used to boost income for families on public assistance while simultaneously creating a source of labor for infrastructure projects.
I must have missed that amongst, "blah, blah, blah, troll, troll, troll".....:roll:
Yes, I do believe what you missed was a point to make.
Look, if you're gonna contribute something, do it. If you're gonna bring another of your basement hissy fits upstairs, then let's just go ahead and report it now and get it out of the way.
Am I being clear?
:alertVEGAS RULE VIOLATION:alert.............:2wave:
You're the one 'hissy fitting' anyway.....