Food Stamps OK For Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, both of you just be quiet with this "no separation" bullshit. You're wrong, the concept IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing. Honest adults with only slightly lower than average-range IQs have the reading comprehension skills to detect that concept in the first amendment. Dishonest trolls like you two, do not.

1. "IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing."
Only in your imagination.

Of course you can't provide same, as you are the typical propagandized moron to whom research is as much a custom as wearing a cross is to a vampire.

As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.


2. As the Constitution refers to religion via both its non-establishment by the government, and to its free exercise, the latter alone is the refutation of theme of your comment. And this, in the very words of the document!


3. With the landmark decision of Everson v. Board of Education, Jefferson was subtly and erroneously attributed with the remark ‘high and impregnable’ wall. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former Ku Klux Klan member, Justice Hugo Black: The ‘high and impregnable’ wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Justice Hugo Black built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. The full quote by Justice Hugo Black is, ‘The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.’


a. “[Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state.

"Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve ‘the sacred constitutional rights' of ‘free public schools' and ‘separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish."
Hamburger, ‘Separation of Church and State’, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463


I am certain that even reading the above is beyond you, and doubly certain that, should your read same, absorbing the information will prove less than possible.

It's in the constitution...it's just INVISIBLE!

You have to have a super spy eyeglass to see it!

So.....how many box-tops are necessary to get the super spy eyeglass?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's in the constitution...it's just INVISIBLE!

You have to have a super spy eyeglass to see it!

It's not invisible. All you need is to have some basic common sense and a 5th grade reading level.

Actually, what is necessary is to be both ignorant and a bigot.

Looks like you've got it covered.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Lentils and rice is a complete protein, and as such is perfectly acceptable.

I fed my family of 3 a roast dinner last night for about $10...and that also provided us lunch today. So two meals for about $11 (I'll add on a dollar for bread/mustard) for 3 people. Three meals if we had had fried mashed potatoes for breakfast....

I can take a $10 package of pork chops or chicken and feed my family dinner for a week on it.

We had spaghetti dinner a couple of nights ago. $4 for italian sausage, $.95 for sauce, $1 for bread, we'll say $.50 for cheese. $6.45 for a family of 3 for one night...

Except we had enough for 2 more meals. So less than $3 per meal. Even with milk to drink.

You feed your family pork chops and call yourself koshergrl? Go figure.

 

[koshergrl]

I know, it's incredible...I'm not actually kosher.

Are you really Dick Tuck? Or is that just your hobby?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What an interesting and insightful post, InTheMuzzle.....

....now I'll go back to flipping quarters.

What a coincidence - he's going to go back to flipping quarter pounders... (with cheese.)

 

[JoeB131]

1. Since you will not be able to document that I have said the fabrications you present, here:
"Joe McCarthy was a wonderful human being and we treated native Americans totally humanely and not in a genocidal way..."

...that re-validates your reputation as a fibber.

Documenting your batshit crazy would be full time job...

2. "Why not a system that makes sure every able-bodied person has a job?"

"...makes sure...."

a. There is that element of coercion without which you might lose your totalitarian creds....

Funny, when I was growing up, we called it the "Christian Work Ethic".

b. The unspoken assumption is that everyone wants to work...and even one as "Erroneous" as you wouldn't, I'm certain, propound that theory.

So....another vapid post from 'Erroneous Joe, the prevaricator.'

Too bad you lost that job in Sadat's Security Detail....

I'm not even sure where you are going with the "Sadat Security Detail...." That sounds weird even for you... maybe need to adjust your meds.

It isn't a matter of what people want. If you want to do nothing, you are free to do so... if you have the means to do so. The rest of us shouldn't pay for it.

But we also shouldn't have a situation where we keep a large chunk of people desperate and hungry so that a few rich douchebags can put the screws to them getting them to work for less.

Full work, full renumeration... sounds reasonable and fair and dare I say, even "Christian".

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, ok.

Anyway...I'm interested in the parts of the constitution that aren't actually in the constitution.

Could you link those please?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, the thread title and thus the thread topic is a LIE.

You can't legally use your food stamp EBT to buy non-food items.

The Daily Caller is getting worse than WorldNet Daily.

Nice duck..

Actually, pretty pathetic.

Is this you winning?

Yes, because it's a fact and the OP is a lie. EBT cards are set up to keep account of food stamps and/or cash assistance. The card will not let someone buy ineligible items out of one's food stamp allowance.

Of course it's a lie. It's PC, it's who she is; it's what she does.

Does she even dispute it?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Mario Batali Food Stamp Challenge

The chef, his wife and their two teenage sons are eating for a week on the equivalent of a food stamp budget in protest of potential cuts pending in Congress to the benefit program used by more than 46 million Americans.

That's $31 per person for the week, or about $1.48 per meal each.

Goodbye restaurants, free nibbles on his talk show "The Chew" and all the luxe offerings at Eataly, the high-end New York City market he co-owns. Hello Trader Joe's, Jack's Dollar Store, Gristedes and Western Beef, a low-cost supermarket chain.

"I'm (expletive deleted) starving," said Batali, who's on the board of the food relief agency Food Bank for New York City, which issued the challenge to celeb pals like Batali and anybody else who wants to know what it's like.

...

A worth it article, from someone who really knows food and business.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I know, it's incredible...I'm not actually kosher.

Are you really Dick Tuck? Or is that just your hobby?

No I'm not. I just admire his style.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please don't resort to gibberish.

Son, your abject lack of reading comprehension doesn't make the words "gibberish."

You're now saying that the American system of government assistance to the poor isn't actually socialism, since we know it actually helps the poor.

America helps our poor in hundreds of ways. We have government assistance, which are routinely the least effective means. We have churches and private charities, which are highly effective.

You look at what America does to help our needy and compare that to ANY socialist country and it becomes real clear who actually cares. And it ain't you guys. You care about using the poor as pawns to gain power.

After all, PoliticalChic says we don't have any poor people in the US.

Poor is a relative term. It has no meaning outside of context. We have no poverty in the U.S. Poverty has meaning, the real risk of death from starvation and/or exposure. And what she says is true, there is no poverty in the USA.

Is she full of shit, or is she admitting that the War on Poverty has been a remarkable triumph, contrary to the fictitious propaganda of the mainstream right?

The "war on poverty" is and was a scam, a means of the left to gain power. It has done very little to help needy people. Safety net programs existed long before Johnson started buying off poverty pimps and expanding government.

Tell me this, out of each dollar spent on social welfare in this country, how much goes into the hand of the person intended to be helped?

$.90?
$.75?
$.50?
$.25?
$.10?
<$.10?

If you knew that it was less than ten cents from every dollar, would you call that "success?"

Fact is, the REAL welfare recipients are the public employees sucking more than ninety cents out of every dollar, not the food stamp or AFDC recipient.

The administrative cost of the food stamp program is about 14% according to a Brookings institute study.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, ok.

Anyway...I'm interested in the parts of the constitution that aren't actually in the constitution.

Could you link those please?

Um... when did this become a discussion about the constitution?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I know the conservatives here don't care about this, but to the rest of you,

PoliticalChic is lying.

The EBT card does not allow non-food purchases out of one's food stamp benefit. The EBT cards cover food stamps and/or cash assistance, and the computers track your food stamp balance and you will only be able to buy non--food off your card if you have a cash assistance balance.

You know, that's really irrelevant. Even cash assistance benefits should be limited to necessities. Tats, drugs, tobacco, and such like are not necessities, despite liberal contention to the contrary.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, ok.

Anyway...I'm interested in the parts of the constitution that aren't actually in the constitution.

Could you link those please?

Um... when did this become a discussion about the constitution?

When people started talking about it.

Try to keep up.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, ok.

Anyway...I'm interested in the parts of the constitution that aren't actually in the constitution.

Could you link those please?

Um... when did this become a discussion about the constitution?

When people started talking about it.

Try to keep up.

Well, it usually helps when you quote whatever you are responding to...

So do coherent arguments, but I'm going with baby-steps for you here.... One thing at a time.

 

[Too Tall]

I don't think this is in every state though.

Only in states that want to bundle other assistance or benefits on the EBT cards. The answer is simple. Stop states from doing this.

Do you suggest that the Federal Government do that? Of course you do, silly me.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, ok.

Anyway...I'm interested in the parts of the constitution that aren't actually in the constitution.

Could you link those please?

Um... when did this become a discussion about the constitution?

This is when it caught MY eye:

Quote: Originally Posted by Inthemiddle

Oh, both of you just be quiet with this "no separation" bullshit. You're wrong, the concept IS INDEED in the constitution, it's just the words that are missing. Honest adults with only slightly lower than average-range IQs have the reading comprehension skills to detect that concept in the first amendment. Dishonest trolls like you two, do not.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Really? And what is the socialist program in India that feeds the poor?

I believe that the great idol of the left, Josef Stalin, coined the term "useless eaters."

Socialism rarely helps anyone but the 1% ruling caste. It's kind of the point of socialism.

There's always a 1%, isn't there. That fact is totally ignored by the libturd left. They seem to think that by endorsing their favored 1% they will somehow benefit.

 

[JoeB131]

I know the conservatives here don't care about this, but to the rest of you,

PoliticalChic is lying.

The EBT card does not allow non-food purchases out of one's food stamp benefit. The EBT cards cover food stamps and/or cash assistance, and the computers track your food stamp balance and you will only be able to buy non--food off your card if you have a cash assistance balance.

You know, that's really irrelevant. Even cash assistance benefits should be limited to necessities. Tats, drugs, tobacco, and such like are not necessities, despite liberal contention to the contrary.

I don't disagree in principle.

But here's the point. Food Stamps, Welfare, Section 8 housing have one purpose. To keep poor people pacified.

Because honestly, they aren't going to quietly starve to death or freeze to death if we don't give them these things. They'll riot.

Okay, once we've established that. We aren't going to let people starve because starving people tend to really mess things up. Just ask the Bourbons or the Romanovs.

So now that we aren't going to do that, what's next.

You establish a work ethic. You get food stamps, you get section 8, but you do something constructive in return.

Maybe you can't be saved, but your kids will see it.

 

[koshergrl]

Please link me to where it says, anywhere, that food stamps, welfare adn section 8 housing exist to "pacify" the people.

In other words, it isn't established. Leftist loon.