Remember when Obama...

[Underhill]

The conservatives I know care as much about the poor as me liberal friends.
But the remedy to poverty differs. The former would make opportunity for self
sufficiency. Liberals would give largesse (with strings attached.
Both methods see some success & failure. The folly among liberals is
some believe that only they care, because only their solution is righteous.

I'm sorry but that is just conservative propaganda. Liberals support more work programs historically than conservatives. NYS, the most liberal state in the country outside of California, has had numerous attempts at pushing people to work or educate themselves. This notion that liberals just want to give everything away is a complete fabrication.

The problem is that most of those programs have not been particularly successful for one reason or another.

I don't think only liberals care. But I do think only liberals care enough to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry but that is just conservative propaganda.
Liberals support more work programs historically than conservatives. NYS, the most liberal state in the country outside of California, has had numerous attempts at pushing people to work or educate themselves. This notion that liberals just want to give everything away is a complete fabrication.

The problem is that most of those programs have not been particularly successful for one reason or another.

I don't think only liberals care. But I do think only liberals care enough to put their money where their mouth is.

This is just liberal propaganda.
(See.....2 can use that barb, bub.)
Programs designed to micro-manage their lives, & encourage
remaining on the dole bespeak a very perverse flavor of generosity.
It looks more like patronizing to curry favor for votes, ie, put them in
a condition encouraging Democratic voting, & keep them that way.

 

[Underhill]

This is just liberal propaganda.
(See.....2 can use that barb, bub.)
Programs designed to micro-manage their lives, & encourage
remaining on the dole bespeak a very perverse flavor of generosity.
It looks more like patronizing to curry favor for votes, ie, put them in
a condition encouraging Democratic voting, & keep them that way.

It would if you didn't actually bother to educate yourself and simply listened to right wing propaganda. The truth is very different.

Employment and Training Services

This is a list of the stuff the state offers those trying to get back into the workforce today. There are few states that match NYS on this front.

They have also had programs just in the last 20 years that required those on services to work after 90 days on the dole (they would be sent to work at state, county and local government facilities for 25 hours a week). There have been other attempts as well.

The problem is the programs end up costing more than they saved so they were dropped.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would if you didn't actually bother to educate yourself and simply listened to right wing propaganda. The truth is very different.

You imagine you know my sources.
So I'll imagine yours.....
MSNBC, Huff Po, Alternet

Try mine.....
NYT, NPR, PBS, Cato, etc.
With a little diversity, you can escape that echo chamber.

Employment and Training Services

This is a list of the stuff the state offers those trying to get back into the workforce today. There are few states that match NYS on this front.

Contrary examples do not disprove the general picture.
The results show failure.

 

[Stevicus]

The conservatives I know care as much about the poor as me liberal friends.
But their remedy to poverty differs. The former would make opportunity for
self sufficiency. Liberals would give largesse (with strings attached).
Both methods see some success & failure. The folly among liberals is
that some believe only they care, because only their solution is righteous.

I think conservatives and liberals also differ in their perceptions of why there are poor and disadvantaged in the first place. It's because they have different views on the source of the problem that they differ in the kinds of remedies they offer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As far as personally helping the poor by going to each one individually no. I do not have the resources to make a determination of who they are and their actual needs. We, rely on charities like the local food banks and the local Salvation Army, to name just a couple, that we support through our actions. But I guess some of you do not consider that "personally" helping a poor person; That's fine I understand your hostility and ignorance.

There's no need to get vitriolic. I simply asked how many families you help, personally, and you said "none". Don't blame me for misrepresenting you when you never explained your position in any detail when your response was so blunt and came with a deliberately confrontational "got a problem with that".

If you feel you DO help people personally through charitable donations, then you should have said THAT instead of making your childish, macho posturing. Don't get all indignant when people call you on your nonsense just because you're doing a poor job at representing yourself. That's YOUR fault.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I took offense to what I considered a hostile question and answered in a hostile manner.

So, in other words, you took a perfectly sensible, straight-forward question and interpreted it in a hostile fashion and reacted in a childish fashion.

Sometimes frustrations can cause one to respond with other than facts.

So your response to being frustrated is to lie for no good reason?

 

[Underhill]

You imagine you know my sources.
So I'll imagine yours.....
MSNBC, Huff Po, Alternet

Try mine.....
NYT, NPR, PBS, Cato, etc.
With a little diversity, you can escape that echo chamber.

90% NPR, some PBS and BBC. Very little else.

But it's obvious that regardless of the source, you have bought the republican talking points on this. And those talking points are espoused by guest on NPR, PBS and even BBC America.

Contrary examples do not disprove the general picture.
The results show failure.

They disprove your assertion about liberals. We aren't talking about a person, but a state. One of the largest and certainly among the most liberal.

As for results,It depends on what you look at. I would say the fact that people aren't starving on the streets points to success even if the system isn't perfect.

 

[metis]

Yes, the government was hunting for the leak. Rather than look for it there with his own people, Obama's DOJ decided it was okay to offer to throw Rosen in jail, follow him and violate his civil rights.

Therefore, your own links undermine your story as the DoJ has the full right to possible security violations, as does Congress, and Rossen didn't end up in jail or prison. So, what "civil rights" were supposedly violated, and please be specific? An investigation in and of itself is not intrinsically a civil rights violation.

My guess is that you get most of your "news" from the Fox Propaganda Channel because the above fish story sounds like them.

 

[metis]

Contrary examples do not disprove the general picture.

And that's coming from the guy who uses more "false equivalencies" than anyone else on these boards.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think conservatives and liberals also differ in their perceptions of why there are poor and disadvantaged in the first place. It's because they have different views on the source of the problem that they differ in the kinds of remedies they offer.

Aye, & too often each side misses the diversity of causes,
instead focusing upon some stereotypical view.

 

[Revoltingest]

But it's obvious that regardless of the source, you have bought the republican talking points on this.

There's a problem with your tactic of making it so partisan, &
disregarding my perspective as not my own. It's just as easy
to accuse you of parroting Democratic propaganda.
You could stop doing that. It would be more interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that's coming from the guy who uses more "false equivalencies" than anyone else on these boards.

An accusation from a guy who doesn't know what the "false equivalency" fallacy even is.
It is not the mere criticism of both sides for a similar failing.
But I forgive you.....I know your sources train for denial of any comparison with the right.

I urge caution about your tendency to make things personal.
I'm a mischievous jerk, & not above responding in kind.
You know where this leads...
...you get mad, & put me on <ignore> for a few months.
We should avoid that.

 

[esmith]

So, in other words, you took a perfectly sensible, straight-forward question and interpreted it in a hostile fashion and reacted in a childish fashion.


So your response to being frustrated is to lie for no good reason?

only to those that I feel have an alternative objective

For your edification, you asked me how many of the poor do I support personally.
If you would care to consider the word "personally", the definition is:
from: the definition of personally
adverb

1. through direct contact; in person; directly:
I will thank him personally.

So in actuality I do not "personally" support a poor person since there is no direct contact.

 

[metis]

An accusation from a guy who doesn't know what the "false equivalency" fallacy even is.
It is not the mere criticism of both sides for a similar failing.

Nice try, but you were to use one iota of logic, you would well know that there can be and are more than just one way somethings can be considered "false equivalency". You said this: "Contrary examples do not disprove the general picture", which deals with the issue of "false equivalencies".

The fact is that you use them a lot, and then you get down on someone who posits what you claim is a "false equivalency".

 

[Revoltingest]

Nice try, but you were to use one iota of logic, you would well know that there can be and are more than just one way somethings can be considered "false equivalency". You said this: "Contrary examples do not disprove the general picture", which deals with the issue of "false equivalencies".

The fact is that you use them a lot, and then you get down on someone who posits what you claim is a "false equivalency".

Bless your heart.

 

[Underhill]

There's a problem with your tactic of making it so partisan, &
disregarding my perspective as not my own. It's just as easy
to accuse you of parroting Democratic propaganda.
You could stop doing that. It would be more interesting.

You could, except what you are claiming about liberals is completely off base. From what I have seen most programs designed to get people back to work do not come from the republican side of the aisle. Even if I am wrong by a matter of multiples it certainly isn't true that liberals simply want people to sit on social services. That is republican nonsense through and through.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

is pizza, french fries, hamburgers, hot dogs, macaroni and cheese bad?

Depends. How big are the portions? How often? What are they being made with? It is hard to ignore the nitrates in hot dogs though, and they don't provide much nutrition, if any at all. Hot dogs are about as quick and easy as it gets on a really bad day, and they're fun with friends around a campfire, but for school I expect better. Whole chicken when compared to chicken nuggets isn't much of a question. Not providing fresh fruit is something we should all be questioning. Whole grain real bread that is actually nutritional and filling. And even a pie every once in awhile is fine, but I would much rather prefer they serve real cream and not petroleum byproducts.

 

[metis]

is pizza, french fries, hamburgers, hot dogs, macaroni and cheese bad?

According to my cardiologist, ya.

 

[esmith]

According to my cardiologist, ya.

Yeah, but aren't you a "senior citizen" not a 12 year old kid. However, due to the sedentary lifestyle of a lot of today's youngsters I would probably guess it wouldn't be good for them. When I was a kid I would probably burn-up anything you fed me and still need more fuel