|
babies havin rabies posted:Last night on NPR some guy (forgive me for not having specifics, it was a 3 mile drive) was talking about how the 50s and 60s are idealized and said that Americans and the media have always been absolutely outraged about some injustice or crisis, perceived or actual, and the country has always had problems even relatively speaking with things like labor rights, inequality, poverty and education. The conclusion is it is pointless or even an outright dishonesty to hold up a single decade in our short history as a golden era. Any time a particular era is held up as a better time I'm instantly reminded of this Daily Show clip: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/even-better-than-the-real-thing "It's because they were 6 years old!"
|
# ? Jan 31, 2012 20:35 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 06:42 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:We will end this No. I sent that so that she would stop talking to me. She believes that the Illuminati is out to get us and her brother is a welfare king, so she is not worth arguing with.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2012 20:39 |
|
quote:The Area Number, the first three digits, is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1973, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the office code in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be in the area where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1973, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, neither prior to 1973, nor since. I'm a little bit confused by the wording here, and I just had twins. Their first 3 digits do not match at all, not even close. So I'm still confused as to what the first 3 numbers are. Residence and mailing address were both the same, what am I missing?
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 00:17 |
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:I'm a little bit confused by the wording here, and I just had twins. Their first 3 digits do not match at all, not even close. So I'm still confused as to what the first 3 numbers are. Residence and mailing address were both the same, what am I missing? They were born after June 25th of last year? If so their numbers were assigned under a new randomization scheme. The first three digits have no significance for them. It is determined randomly now to make identity theft more difficult. http://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 00:42 |
|
So I ended up having a dialog with one of the guys who decided to weigh in on the lovely urinalysis for welfare recipients post I did yesterday. I'm posting it here for a critique of my debate style more than anything, so feel free to let me know if I sucked. I tried to be assertive without being combative, but I can't help feeling like I was too condescending.Facebook posted:
Edit: Got another reply and rebuttal, I'll just add them to the bottom here. TheOtherGuy posted:I hate the terms "progressive" and "regressive" as the connotate that if you aren't called "progressive" then somehow you are "regressive" or "backward." Somehow "progressive" implies good. sofisticated name calling or classification. FYI Social Security is not just for old people. There are many folks who get "compassion" allowances (benefits), and "disability" benefits. SS recently added more "compassion" qualifications.. easier to get. A lot of folks who have run out of unemployment or other government assistance programs have all of a sudden applied for and were approved to receive "disability" benefits. Of course I don't have access to the reasons for applying and being approved, but it seems quite suspicious to me. I don't blame them for applying, but it seems odd to me that they are (now?) really disabled.? If they really are, good for them. A lot of money in SS is spent on other than "old age retirement" benefits. we have known several folks who have been on the poor side.. years ago you "sucked it up" and improved yourself. today they rely too much on aid (opinion). IF they are doing drugs or spending money on what you called "nice things," when those paying the taxes are not living it up with fancy phones, etc, it seems unfair that they should receive subsidies. Get it together. By the way I think 5 years is a long time to receive aid, if that is the current limit. There are multiple programs, and some folks move from to the other when they run out.. illustrated above with social security disability benefits. we have helped other relatives ourselves. where are these folks families? I am tired of paying all the time with no option to opt out. Natas Dog posted:When you take a step backward from the status quo, you are regressing, simple and plain, nothing sophisticated about it. It's not the connotations that should bother you, it's the fact that you're advocating the removal of protections that are in place for very solid reasons that should. If you want to combat fraud and keep better tabs on how that money's being spent, I hate to tell you but there are already ways of doing exactly that, but they vary from state to state. Actual studies of fraud statistics show them to be ridiculously low, and they have been since Clinton's welfare reforms in the 90s. Edit: Yet another endless paragraph and yet another rebuttal. TheOtherGuy posted:it is simple... it is easy to make excuses for why people are "entitled." You can also believe that no one is cheating the system. you can believe the statistics if you want to. fraud is hidden until uncovered, when it becomes a statistic, so to me the studies are not very credible. if they knew where all the fraud was they would stop it. the government is not good at efficiency... pretty simple, and i believe accurate by any measure. I do not trust the government to be effective and efficient... it isn;t their money either, and I am sure that people do take advantage of it. Banks - blame it on greed and the Federal Reserve... taking care of themselves (Fed is non-government group of banks)... bailouts, and other tax loopholes - blame the politicians.. they write the tax laws, mostly for their friends benefit. this back and forth could go on for a long time on various facets. I believe that if you have assets, you should use them before asking for assistance. people used to feel some amount shame and reluctance for requiring assistance.. today they are "entitled"...or "owed".... the money comes from the government... Many people continue to accept unemployment payments instead of taking a lower paying or menial job. time for people to accept some responsiblity for their condition. example - taking drugs?... too bad.. no money until you get into a program to clean up.... courts have held that you can't force people work for the government aid... which i think is wrong and I don't understand.. since that is the case, I don;t see a problem having to meet some requirements to receive the aid...., but then again...... why not take it - it isn't their money. unfortunately each of the items believed to be benevolent, and done with a good intention, do get abused and adding them together becomes a lot of real money. Natas Dog posted:Wow, I don't even know where to start. At this point your entire argument seems to be that no one can be trusted and the only moral person is someone who doesn't get government assistance. I, however, feel quite differently. I feel that by holding up the poor as some kind of example of what's wrong with this country is attacking the symptom, not the underlying causes. Most people aren't just content to sit on their butts all day and collect those big fat government checks, most would rather be working if there was work available. Most people realize that the money they get on welfare is terribly inadequate to subsist even at current levels, and there's no way I can see someone sitting there enjoying his steak tartar on the government dole when I know how little they actually get in assistance. Natas Dog posted:Again, sorry if I missed any of your points. You're kind of going off on a rant with these endless paragraphs full of ellipses, so I'm having a hard time zeroing in on your underlying points. Edit Again: And the parting salvos from both sides! He somehow made his way around to blaming the fed and god knows what else. I like how he closed with l8r, I have to imagine he's a bit older since his wife works in a school cafeteria; but I can't tell because his FB portrait is just the stock background you get when you make an account. TheOtherGuy posted:Federal Reserve (is not part of the government) is a cartel/conspiracy among member banks to have the taxpayer subsidize their losses.... and we do.... and still are paying TAP and Twist, and the rest of the money printing. Check it out. The Federal government is trying to be all powerful and IS generally incompetent financially. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent. hmmmmmmm. keep spending. check out the value of the fiat dollar over the past 50 years... straight down. those two facts show the incompetence. Obamacare while well intentioned shows the desire of the government to be all powerful. so back to spending on welfare and the like, i have no problem setting the bar high to qualify, so we can start getting some of the spending under control.... many other things could be cut or eliminated as they bring no real value, like Energy Dept, which was created by Jimmy Carter with a mission to reduce our reliance on imported oil... a failure, and all powerful regulator...they do some worthwhile things, but have way too many people... but these are topics for another day. l8r Natas Dog posted:I've always wondered what it looked like seeing someone go off the deep end on facebook. Somehow you took a post about forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests and managed to find your way all the way around to blaming the Fed for conspiring with banks. This is a common tactic when someone can't debate the issue at hand and instead wants to change the subject to catch his opponent off guard; you see it all the time in Primary debates. By meandering so far from the point we've moved from a constructive dialog to what we see in the post above mine. Edit: And a round of congratulations! Not sure if anyone learned anything, but at least there's no hard feelings. Original Posta posted:It was quit interesting to read the posts...glad I could be of assistance. TheOtherGuy posted:I can be amusing sometimes OP. tons of fun. ;-) Natas Dog posted:Up until it went off topic it was pretty entertaining, glad I could be your verbal sparring partner for a day. NatasDog fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 2, 2012 |
# ? Feb 1, 2012 18:42 |
|
That was fabulously well-written and even if you may have started out a little harsh, I hope that this person actually does critically analyze his own beliefs. You didn't remark on one of the more interesting parts of his writing which is his insistence that suffering is necessary for those on welfare. I'm not sure where it comes from but there's this mentality that in order to succeed we must suffer and if we're not suffering then we're meant to feel guilty about it. It might come from being American, it might come from being Christian or it might come from being a capitalist. It ties in very well with the old chestnut of the rich being the hardest workers and the poor being lazy since the rich suffer through their hard work and the poor must have chosen not to work hard since they're obviously not successful.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 19:36 |
|
Mr. Banana Grabber posted:You didn't remark on one of the more interesting parts of his writing which is his insistence that suffering is necessary for those on welfare. I'm not sure where it comes from but there's this mentality that in order to succeed we must suffer and if we're not suffering then we're meant to feel guilty about it. It might come from being American, it might come from being Christian or it might come from being a capitalist. It ties in very well with the old chestnut of the rich being the hardest workers and the poor being lazy since the rich suffer through their hard work and the poor must have chosen not to work hard since they're obviously not successful. All of the above, see: Protestant work ethic.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 19:39 |
|
Mr. Banana Grabber posted:That was fabulously well-written and even if you may have started out a little harsh, I hope that this person actually does critically analyze his own beliefs. Thanks, English was never a strong subject for me, and I dropped out in the 11th grade so I'm way behind the curve when it comes to my composition skills. He ended up replying to my last posting, so I came up with a quick rebuttal as well. It touched on the suffering issue you brought up, and I added it to the above post.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 19:44 |
|
Sarion posted:They were born after June 25th of last year? If so their numbers were assigned under a new randomization scheme. The first three digits have no significance for them. It is determined randomly now to make identity theft more difficult. Ah thanks, yeah they were born on Jan 1st of this year.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 20:58 |
|
I don't even know why you even bother - especially over Facebook. It comes down to people (who post here) that want to engage in dialogue utilizing quantitative/qualitative arguments versus people (who post uninformed poo poo on facebook) that want to spout incoherent talking points using ambiguous terms. For instance, you assert a logical argument such as "The reality of the situation is that roughly 2% of welfare recipients would be excluded by this policy. At a cost of roughly 50 dollars per urinalysis, it would cost more to administer the tests than you save in payments" and what you get in return is "There are too many people who depend on this aid, that should not."
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:08 |
|
KillerBean posted:I don't even know why you even bother - especially over Facebook. It comes down to people (who post here) that want to engage in dialogue utilizing quantitative/qualitative arguments versus people (who post uninformed poo poo on facebook) that want to spout incoherent talking points using ambiguous terms. On that note, he came back with another rant and I came back with another measured rebuttal.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:14 |
|
NatasDog posted:On that note, he came back with another rant and I came back with another measured rebuttal. Keep us posted! I use stuff I read in this thread to stay sane during family events.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:16 |
|
KillerBean posted:For instance, you assert a logical argument such as "The reality of the situation is that roughly 2% of welfare recipients would be excluded by this policy. At a cost of roughly 50 dollars per urinalysis, it would cost more to administer the tests than you save in payments" and what you get in return is "There are too many people who depend on this aid, that should not." His argument is that aid is inherently bad and anyone who uses it is also bad, he's not saying the numbers themselves are wrong (though there's a good chance they do think that). What needs changed is the idea that people receiving aid are monsters who just want to get free gold-plated lobster abortions on your paycheck. The poor are completely demonized that it's not uncommon to hear people say poo poo like that they'd happily spend a million dollars to stop a thousand dollars in fraud, since fraud = criminal = completely irredeemable "human." It's a moral argument for these people, and it needs addressed as such. Countblanc fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Feb 1, 2012 |
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:25 |
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Ah thanks, yeah they were born on Jan 1st of this year. No problem. As for NatasDog's stuff: I haven't been able to read everything, but part caught my eye. Fake gold tooth cap: $7 Set of fake nails: $7 Yeah, they're rolling in it And how does his wife working in the HS Cafeteria know how they got that stuff anyways. Maybe they got it with money from Christmas. Or maybe they weren't always so poor and bought that stuff before they qualified for free lunches. Which leads into something else that annoys me. This idea that its gotten easier to qualify so that's why more kids are getting free lunches. Do they not understand that income is not static, nor does it only ever increase? More people are on food stamps and free school meals because of the economy. A parent loses a job, or their parent's job cuts back hours, etc. Qualifying hasn't gotten easier, more people meet the same requirements.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:26 |
|
His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:32 |
|
Bombadilillo posted:His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you. How would the kids even know the lunch was free instead of just their parents putting money on their account? Maybe poor people and their kids should have to wear a symbol on their clothes so we know they are poorer than us. Then they can feel that shame all day long.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:41 |
|
Bombadilillo posted:His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you. I propose we install an electronic monitor that tracks enzymes and chemicals in the bodies of all people who receive government aid. If we detect that they may be experiencing happiness, love, excitement or anything like that we can terminate their benefits instantly. If they take MY TAX DOLLARS, they need to feed sad, hopeless and ashamed.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 21:50 |
|
SmuglyDismissed posted:I propose we install an electronic monitor that tracks enzymes and chemicals in the bodies of all people who receive government aid. If we detect that they may be experiencing happiness, love, excitement or anything like that we can terminate their benefits instantly. If they take MY TAX DOLLARS, they need to feed sad, hopeless and ashamed. And perhaps give a similar device to the 1%, so that any time they are feeling at all down about having to drive a Benz instead of a Bentley they get an instant tax cut and a shot of cocaine? We must appease the job creators after all.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 22:12 |
|
http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention Liberty University Presents: Purity Bear
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 22:17 |
|
I can't wait for the parody videos where the bear mauls them and/or fucks them.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2012 22:33 |
|
Careful viewers will note that the [strike]harlot[/strike] girl was trying to lure him in the back door, both literally and symbolically. Also, are they about to gently caress right there on the altar? That seems like pretty blatant sacrilege, regardless of your beliefs. Edit: And that bear sounds like Steven Wright
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 00:09 |
|
Bombadilillo posted:His problem was the kids weren't ashamed. He wants children to be ashamed that they have free/discounted lunches because they are poor. How is it the kids fault at all? Hang your head little Timmy, I want some return for those fishstick I bought you. Seriously why even talk to this guy when he is angry that children are not ashamed of their parents?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 00:14 |
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:16 |
|
yaoi prophet posted:Both had an affair with Marylin Monroe? Are you sure this isn't a joke. E: NM it is. Lincoln's middle name was "Bay of Pigs" and he feared nuclear war with the Soviet Union...
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:42 |
|
That goddamn urinalysis picture is popping a lot up on my previously-strangely-clear-of-right-wing-bullshit Facebook wall.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:42 |
|
Sarion posted:Both had an affair with Marylin Monroe? Are you sure this isn't a joke. It pretty clearly is a joke, and a funny one at that.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:43 |
|
RPZip posted:It pretty clearly is a joke, and a funny one at that. Yeah, I didn't read it all, I just skipped around and read a few before I posted. It is pretty good
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:44 |
|
Dr Christmas posted:That goddamn urinalysis picture is popping a lot up on my previously-strangely-clear-of-right-wing-bullshit Facebook wall. Someone on mine posted that if you fail the drug test you should not be allowed to vote and he was serious...
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:45 |
|
Sarion posted:Yeah, I didn't read it all, I just skipped around and read a few before I posted. It is pretty good I'm pretty sure that's what everybody who sees the picture (including me) does.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:46 |
|
yaoi prophet posted:Oh god, that is brilliant. I was full of mirth by the end.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:47 |
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention All that is needed is Harold and Kumar, in a weed induced stupor, laughing hysterically at the end of this.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 01:49 |
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 02:52 |
|
Soviet Commubot posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most or all of that is either wrong or irrelevant. Edit: Oh hey, at least one of them is almost sorta in the same universe! Too bad it's completely irrelevant. Politifact posted:Catherine McCormick-Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama, told us via e-mail that Michelle Obama's staff is now closer to 25 people. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/04/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-first-lady-michelle-obama-has-43-h/ King Dopplepopolos fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Feb 2, 2012 |
# ? Feb 2, 2012 03:12 |
|
Oh no, endorsed by the communist party That might mean something
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 03:20 |
|
The medical and college records of elected officials should be public knowledge! The President has no right to any type of privacy! The President is invading my privacy! Get the government out of my medical and college records!
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 03:45 |
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention Oh, hey Kirk Cameron.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 03:47 |
|
myron_cope posted:Oh no, endorsed by the communist party That might mean something
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 03:57 |
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:http://www.wset.com/story/16618896/day-of-purity-video-getting-international-attention Why Valentine's day and not prom night?
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 04:16 |
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Why Valentine's day and not prom night? It's targeted at College students I think.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 05:18 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 06:42 |
|
Gotta love Birther arguments, evidently I am deceived because I can cite caselaw. I'm sure she completely digested a 20 page opinion and found it lacking in under 3 minutes. Link to the case is here in case anyone needs it: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
|
# ? Feb 2, 2012 06:23 |