• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Louisiana Food Stamp Abusers Will Lose Benefits Over Wal-Mart Free For All

Perhaps the store manager erred on the side of caution and employee safety, being concerned something like this might happen...

Shocking robberies inside sports stores - CNN.com Video

many stores limited or shut down EBT purchases without incident. And the mere chance of something happening does not justify any action to prevent it. In fact, there is a chance the next person you meet on the street may try to kill you, but that in no way justifies you using force to subdue them
 
An irrational fear, considering other places across the country, including places in that very area, didn't face any such "robberies". They allowed it to happen.
Do you think the incident shown in that video is a new occurrence or even rare? Do you believe the store manager was thinking "awesome!!! Im going to make the Waltons SO MUCH MONEY today"? Or do you think the store manager was thinking..."well...****...Im not sure what to do...just...ring them up"? NONE of which excuses the very obvious intent of the people that went to WalMart that day with the ABSOLUTE INTENT to commit fraud, as testified to when they ran out of the store and left their baskets in place as soon as the system came up.
 
many stores limited or shut down EBT purchases without incident. And the mere chance of something happening does not justify any action to prevent it. In fact, there is a chance the next person you meet on the street may try to kill you, but that in no way justifies you using force to subdue them
But the fact is you dont KNOW the store managers intent, any more than I do. However...we ABSOLUTELY know the thieves intent, dont we.
 
not to sound too much like an ass, but I seriously doubt that the system being down for a couple of hours would mean anyone on foodstamps couldn't eat.

I haven't looked into this event in depth... but it seems to me that the extent of the fraud being discussed here couldn't have occurred within a couple of hours.
 
Come on Chuckles - what's my political motivation here? You make the accusation, spill it out.

that you don't like people on assistance and will find them at fault and excuse walmart regardless of the rhetorical acrobats required. Duece is much the same way, just approaching the topic from the opposing side.

All I'm doing is pointing out that Walmart has this gigantic "hit me" sign painted on their backs and regardless what they do they get bashed. As I said, if they didn't allow people to shop, they'd be charged with being racist haters of the poor - you know it's true - why do you bend over backwards to claim Walmart is just like any other business when you know full well that only a Walmart would be criticized because they are an easy media target. And we are talking Louisiana here, where looting is a regular passtime.

Yet we had walmarts shut down EBT purchases that day without such charges being made. Which directly disprove your claim. And this has been pointed out to you numerous times ....

It's clear you just don't want to acknowledge that

And to be clear, you're the only one who wants to identify victims here. I never once said Walmart was a victim

No, you just continually portray them as such.


So, save your naive championing of the "good citizens" of Louisiana and your bashing of that evil empire known as Walmart for someone who's just fallen off the turnip truck and hasn't quite regained intelligence.

who championed anyone? I've been rather clear, since our original discussion on the topic, that these people are scumbags(I even say as much here). But again, this is something you continually refuse to recognize as you paint your dogmatic political narrative
 
But the fact is you dont KNOW the store managers intent, any more than I do. However...we ABSOLUTELY know the thieves intent, dont we.

Playing your game, we could theorize they were in fear of a total social breakdown and zompocalipse level disorder...

See how stupid your line of logic is now and how it can be used to justify anything?
 
Playing your game, we could theorize they were in fear of a total social breakdown and zompocalipse level disorder...

See how stupid your line of logic is now and how it can be used to justify anything?
Yes...OF COURSE...and THATS why they were sending texts to one another telling them they could go and get whatever they wanted becasue the system was down, and why they ran like rats when it was announced the system came up. No...we dont have to speculate about THEIR intent. We have record as to their intent. On the other hand ALL you have is speculation w/ regard to the store managers intent.
 
I haven't looked into this event in depth... but it seems to me that the extent of the fraud being discussed here couldn't have occurred within a couple of hours.

From what I've read, the system was down for less than 12 hours. I know around here, they only had the signs up saying they couldn't take EBT cards for 4-5 hours.
 
I support it. It's a good life lesson that some actions have consequences.
 
Do you think the incident shown in that video is a new occurrence or even rare? Do you believe the store manager was thinking "awesome!!! Im going to make the Waltons SO MUCH MONEY today"? Or do you think the store manager was thinking..."well...****...Im not sure what to do...just...ring them up"? NONE of which excuses the very obvious intent of the people that went to WalMart that day with the ABSOLUTE INTENT to commit fraud, as testified to when they ran out of the store and left their baskets in place as soon as the system came up.

I think any such things are rare, especially considering how many people shop throughout this country every day and how many customers any store sees any given day.

I think the store manager was thinking it was simply easier to do this than implement the policy that was agreed upon, as almost every single other WalMart that was affected that day implemented. It was laziness or failure on the part of the manager to simply take responsibility for a decision that he was supposed to make (in reality, it was I think two managers/two stores though). But yes, it was the manager's fault for not doing what was supposed to be done, limit the EBT purchases to agreed upon amounts and if he didn't know about this, than he is a sorry excuse for a manager (and that goes for if it was really a "she" manager too).
 
Yes...OF COURSE...and THATS why they were sending texts to one another telling them they could go and get whatever they wanted becasue the system was down, and why they ran like rats when it was announced the system came up. No...we dont have to speculate about THEIR intent. We have record as to their intent. On the other hand ALL you have is speculation w/ regard to the store managers intent.

dude, i was pointing to the fact that you tried to justify it based on total speculation that riots would ensue. That chance of such happening is extremely unlikely and slime, just like the assumption that "social order is collapsing, so for the greater good I need to secure food items".

It's not meant to be a serious argument, it's meant to highlight how completely idiotic your line of logic is, since it was based on an extremely unlikely events and using that to define the motivation of the various perpetrators, without supporting evidence.
 
that you don't like people on assistance and will find them at fault and excuse walmart regardless of the rhetorical acrobats required. Duece is much the same way, just approaching the topic from the opposing side.



Yet we had walmarts shut down EBT purchases that day without such charges being made. Which directly disprove your claim. And this has been pointed out to you numerous times ....

It's clear you just don't want to acknowledge that



No, you just continually portray them as such.




who championed anyone? I've been rather clear, since our original discussion on the topic, that these people are scumbags(I even say as much here). But again, this is something you continually refuse to recognize as you paint your dogmatic political narrative

"Dogmatic political narrative"? Please - did you major in drama in highschool?

So, because I think people who abuse their "gift" of foodstamps should be punished for that abuse, I'm painted by you as "not liking people on assistance". Glad to see you don't have any dogmatic political narratives to push in this regard.

And let's be clear as well - from the original thread and this one - you've been beating a dead horse claiming that Walmart purposely was defrauding the government, effectively colluding with welfare scammers, to pump up sales. Glad to see you don't have any dogmatic political narratives to push in this regard.

Finally, just because your dogmatic political narrative requires you to believe that I'm claiming Walmart is a victim, doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you ignore evidence to the contrary. Glad to see you don't have any dogmatic political narratives to push in this regard.

You have to stop standing in front of mirrors so much - you're beginning to see in other what you hate in yourself.
 
"Dogmatic political narrative"? Please - did you major in drama in highschool?

No, just calling a spade a spade

So, because I think people who abuse their "gift" of foodstamps should be punished for that abuse, I'm painted by you as "not liking people on assistance".

No, because as is obvious from this discussion and the one previous to it I fully endorse punishing such individuals, as well. What paints you as not liking people on assistyence is your need to make them totally at fault here, turning more balanced perspectives into attempts to excuse them 9as you did here), and your need to paint walmart as a victim


Glad to see you don't have any dogmatic political narratives to push in this regard.

Well, besides a reasonable and balanced perspective ...

And let's be clear as well - from the original thread and this one - you've been beating a dead horse claiming that Walmart purposely was defrauding the government, effectively colluding with welfare scammers, to pump up sales. Glad to see you don't have any dogmatic political narratives to push in this regard.

Yeah, and I see the welfare moops as intentionally trying to defraud a system. What is your point? That I am granting neither side the benefit of doubt?

Finally, just because your dogmatic political narrative requires you to believe that I'm claiming Walmart is a victim, doesn't make it so

Of course not, that is acomplished by your constant characterization of them as victims


You have to stop standing in front of mirrors so much - you're beginning to see in other what you hate in yourself.

your empty platitude isn't an argument and rests on you ignoring what has actually been stated and pointed out to you numerous times
 
No, just calling a spade a spade



No, because as is obvious from this discussion and the one previous to it I fully endorse punishing such individuals, as well. What paints you as not liking people on assistyence is your need to make them totally at fault here, turning more balanced perspectives into attempts to excuse them 9as you did here), and your need to paint walmart as a victim




Well, besides a reasonable and balanced perspective ...



Yeah, and I see the welfare moops as intentionally trying to defraud a system. What is your point? That I am granting neither side the benefit of doubt?



Of course not, that is acomplished by your constant characterization of them as victims




your empty platitude isn't an argument and rests on you ignoring what has actually been stated and pointed out to you numerous times

There's no debating with someone who insists on putting words in your mouth and labelling you as something you're not. I'm used to it with liberals - I had thought you were better - I was wrong. You're just one step away from slinging the racism slime, so I'll leave you to it.

Have a good day.
 
There's no debating with someone who insists on putting words in your mouth and labelling you as something you're not. I'm used to it with liberals - I had thought you were better - I was wrong. You're just one step away from slinging the racism slime, so I'll leave you to it.

Have a good day.

I didn't accuse you of racism for the same reason I didn't accuse deuce of it: i see no evidence of it. What I see from you two is dogmatic political views that justify totally vilifying one party while bending over backwards to excuse the other
 
There's an emergency protocol in place where they're supposed to limit EBT transactions to $50 while the system is down. Strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

Stopping sales entirely while the system is down means people like me can't eat.

No one who is on the program is going to starve to death when one store experiences a short term technical glitch.

I've gone to the store and the system is down which prevents me from using check or credit - it was a nuisance, but nothing more. By the next day, they had it fixed.
 
I didn't accuse you of racism for the same reason I didn't accuse deuce of it: i see no evidence of it. What I see from you two is dogmatic political views that justify totally vilifying one party while bending over backwards to excuse the other

Noted, and dismissed.

I have no idea what the political leanings are of the thieves who stole from the government - liberals like to point out frequently that white people receive the largest portion of foodstamps in the country and it's well known that poor white people generally vote conservative. So I guess you're accusing me of using my political views to vilify people with the same political views, is that it? Because you did say, very clearly, that I must hate all people on assistance - you were categorically sure you knew everything about me in that regard, right?

Hate to disappoint you, but wrong is wrong regardless of what political flag someone carries and some issues have zero to do with politics and/or ideology. You can't slot me so easily to fit your narrative.
 
Noted, and dismissed.

Dismissing what I wrote and addressing it are not the same thing

I have no idea what the political leanings are of the thieves who stole from the government

I'm not sure how that is relevent when you issue revolves around the fact they get assistence. Just like Deuce's revolves around it being walmart

So I guess you're accusing me of using my political views to vilify people with the same political views, is that it?

No, I was quite clear about you vilifying people on assistance ...


Because you did say, very clearly, that I must hate all people on assistance - you were categorically sure you knew everything about me in that regard, right?

I'm not following

[quoted]Hate to disappoint you, but wrong is wrong regardless of what political flag someone carries and some issues have zero to do with politics and/or ideology. You can't slot me so easily to fit your narrative.[/QUOTE]

you slotted yourself, mate. Deuce did the same thing
 
Dismissing what I wrote and addressing it are not the same thing



I'm not sure how that is relevent when you issue revolves around the fact they get assistence. Just like Deuce's revolves around it being walmart



No, I was quite clear about you vilifying people on assistance ...




I'm not following

[quoted]Hate to disappoint you, but wrong is wrong regardless of what political flag someone carries and some issues have zero to do with politics and/or ideology. You can't slot me so easily to fit your narrative

you slotted yourself, mate. Deuce did the same thing

Yawn - have a good day
 
Because he's going after an abuse like this?

No - because it's a chance to paint a Republican as abusive towards the poor.

Thats a stupid claim CP. 99% of people, regardless of politics, will support this move.

:) well, we're going to get a chance to find out.
 
well, we're going to get a chance to find out.

In the original thread the overwhelming majority tended to view one side or the other being totally at fault, with that being almost universally dependent on their political lean. It was actually rather comical to watch
 
Well, he's probably protected by being Indian from being accused of racism. But there is definitely a belief out there that it is morally appropriate to get everything out of government that you can. Stripping people who "need help" simply because they did so, therefore, will be seen as needlessly cruel. The most likely line will probably be that he is trying to appeal to the crueler, Randian elements of the Tea Party Base in order to line up for 2016, and he's willing to hurt these poor people to do it.

He'll be dubbed a "white" Indian.
 
:( That is all too common. Smartphones, too.

Oh god the "filthy poors with smartphones" meme.

You know you can get an iphone for free, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom