Lazy Women Complains She Has No Food For Her Kids

[Vandalshandle]

The hungry children problem. Scientists have, thanks to generous donations from the Family Research Council, developed soylent yellow. Oddly enough, the FRC has, at the same time, reversed their position on abortion....

 

[Againsheila]

Another thing about that article, it says the line outside the Catholic food pantry starts an hour before it opens. The line for our local foodbank starts 2 or 3 hours before it opens. The first in line get the best picks. Catholic charities here wouldn't help us when we were down and out even though my husband was baptized a Catholic. Because my kids and I weren't Catholic, they wouldn't help us at all. Made my friend mad because she's Catholic and told me to call them, certain they would help. Made me feel ashamed and embarrassed. They didn't even bother telling me where I could go for help, I had to find out on my own.

The more I see that article, the more mad I get. I've been through heck and managed to feed my kids, why are they letting theirs go hungry? There is no excuse, none at all.

And that is just wrong. Where is the compassion? I would have thought feeding hungry kids would be more important than the fact someone wasn't a Catholic.

This is all speculation.... and I have no idea why they do what they do...

But let's theorize just for a moment.

Let's say you have a family of four, and you have $200 for food. Now it will be tight, but if you keep all the money reserved for just your family, you can all eat for the month.

But then someone comes and tells you they are starving, and have nothing to eat, and they need your limited resources of $200 to feed them.

Do you feed the stranger first, and let your kids and husband go hungry?

For most people, the answer is absolutely not. If you have extra left over, you might give them that, but you are going to feed your people first. And rightly so I might add.

The church I attend had a basketball court installed. They started a group that met on certain nights, played some games, had a prayer meeting, and then played games after prayer. They also opened the court to the public. A few people showed up and played, and that was great.

Pretty soon though, the court was completely over run with non-memebers, and the prayer group could never find an open court.

So they closed the court. Now members only are allowed on the court, without invitation.

Is that wrong?

I'm guessing that this Catholic charity has limited resources, like all charities. I would guess that they determined with limited resources, and plenty of Catholics in need of help, that they wanted to help their people first, instead of using up all the resources they have on non-catholics, and then having their own people turned away.

And honestly I think we all would do the same if the situations were reversed. If I only had a enough food for my family, I'm going to feed them first before a stranger. That's my duty has a husband.

Now again, this is all speculation. You can believe whatever you want. But that's my guess.

I have to admit, I don't understand this "entitlement to other's compassion" idea comes from. If you get compassion great. But it's not a right. If you ask for help, and someone says 'no', you have not been 'wronged'.

Quite frankly, I am in need of some help right now. I need $1000. Will you give me $1000? Or are you lacking compassion?

I help give out lunches to the homeless at a church that is not mine. We don't ask who they are affiliated with or even if they are Christian. Everyone who wants a lunch gets one until we run out. That's the way all churches should be, and FYI, my husband was baptized Catholic, by their rules, that makes us Catholic.

 

[bendog]

Can't we just find some way to generate power with them? There has to be some useful purpose for them.

 

[Andylusion]

And that is just wrong. Where is the compassion? I would have thought feeding hungry kids would be more important than the fact someone wasn't a Catholic.

This is all speculation.... and I have no idea why they do what they do...

But let's theorize just for a moment.

Let's say you have a family of four, and you have $200 for food. Now it will be tight, but if you keep all the money reserved for just your family, you can all eat for the month.

But then someone comes and tells you they are starving, and have nothing to eat, and they need your limited resources of $200 to feed them.

Do you feed the stranger first, and let your kids and husband go hungry?

For most people, the answer is absolutely not. If you have extra left over, you might give them that, but you are going to feed your people first. And rightly so I might add.

The church I attend had a basketball court installed. They started a group that met on certain nights, played some games, had a prayer meeting, and then played games after prayer. They also opened the court to the public. A few people showed up and played, and that was great.

Pretty soon though, the court was completely over run with non-memebers, and the prayer group could never find an open court.

So they closed the court. Now members only are allowed on the court, without invitation.

Is that wrong?

I'm guessing that this Catholic charity has limited resources, like all charities. I would guess that they determined with limited resources, and plenty of Catholics in need of help, that they wanted to help their people first, instead of using up all the resources they have on non-catholics, and then having their own people turned away.

And honestly I think we all would do the same if the situations were reversed. If I only had a enough food for my family, I'm going to feed them first before a stranger. That's my duty has a husband.

Now again, this is all speculation. You can believe whatever you want. But that's my guess.

I have to admit, I don't understand this "entitlement to other's compassion" idea comes from. If you get compassion great. But it's not a right. If you ask for help, and someone says 'no', you have not been 'wronged'.

Quite frankly, I am in need of some help right now. I need $1000. Will you give me $1000? Or are you lacking compassion?

I help give out lunches to the homeless at a church that is not mine. We don't ask who they are affiliated with or even if they are Christian. Everyone who wants a lunch gets one until we run out. That's the way all churches should be, and FYI, my husband was baptized Catholic, by their rules, that makes us Catholic.

That's great. It's pretty easy to give out stuff that's not yours to begin with isn't it? And it's pretty easy to suggest that you know what the rules should be, when it's not rules on your stuff, isn't it?

Again, as for the Catholic stuff......



Am I a Catholic that I know what makes you or makes you not a Catholic?

If you think you have a case, then go to them.

But as far as what benefits Catholics give to whom, that's their choice not yours.

I just find it odd that you have a different standard for another group of people, than you have for yourself or any other group.

In any other area of society, this is normal. If you were in a Condo Association, and the Association had a work out facility that your dues paid for, and they decided to open it up to the public, so that every time you went there it was packed with non-members and you could never use it..... would you not have a problem with that?

Same deal.

Just like if your family has a family property, meant for the benefit of the family, and every time you went there is was full of non-family.... that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

My family on my mothers side, has a cabin way out in the Hills of South Ohio, on a lake, with a private dock and boats and such. It's not a Bill Gates resort, but it's nice. Many relatives have paid in small amounts of money to keep the place well maintained and recently added to. Every Thanksgiving, we have a family reunion at the cabin, and have a great time.

If non-family was there when people showed up, there would be a problem. The property is for our family.

Similarly if you are a AAA member, you get the benefits of AAA.

In all areas of society, people gain the benefits of being members of whatever group they are members of. Whether that's being the member of your immediate family, or the member of a religious group, or member of a private club, or member of anything.

You don't see it as hypocritical to demand that other groups provide benefits to everyone, when you yourself do not? I still need that $1000. I really honestly do.

Now if a group chooses to provide benefits freely to the public, great. But that's their choice. Not ours.

 

[Andylusion]

And that is just wrong. Where is the compassion? I would have thought feeding hungry kids would be more important than the fact someone wasn't a Catholic.

This is all speculation.... and I have no idea why they do what they do...

But let's theorize just for a moment.

Let's say you have a family of four, and you have $200 for food. Now it will be tight, but if you keep all the money reserved for just your family, you can all eat for the month.

But then someone comes and tells you they are starving, and have nothing to eat, and they need your limited resources of $200 to feed them.

Do you feed the stranger first, and let your kids and husband go hungry?

For most people, the answer is absolutely not. If you have extra left over, you might give them that, but you are going to feed your people first. And rightly so I might add.

The church I attend had a basketball court installed. They started a group that met on certain nights, played some games, had a prayer meeting, and then played games after prayer. They also opened the court to the public. A few people showed up and played, and that was great.

Pretty soon though, the court was completely over run with non-memebers, and the prayer group could never find an open court.

So they closed the court. Now members only are allowed on the court, without invitation.

Is that wrong?

I'm guessing that this Catholic charity has limited resources, like all charities. I would guess that they determined with limited resources, and plenty of Catholics in need of help, that they wanted to help their people first, instead of using up all the resources they have on non-catholics, and then having their own people turned away.

And honestly I think we all would do the same if the situations were reversed. If I only had a enough food for my family, I'm going to feed them first before a stranger. That's my duty has a husband.

Now again, this is all speculation. You can believe whatever you want. But that's my guess.

I have to admit, I don't understand this "entitlement to other's compassion" idea comes from. If you get compassion great. But it's not a right. If you ask for help, and someone says 'no', you have not been 'wronged'.

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?

Quite frankly, I am in need of some help right now. I need $1000. Will you give me $1000? Or are you lacking compassion?

If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

This is all speculation.... and I have no idea why they do what they do...

But let's theorize just for a moment.

Let's say you have a family of four, and you have $200 for food. Now it will be tight, but if you keep all the money reserved for just your family, you can all eat for the month.

But then someone comes and tells you they are starving, and have nothing to eat, and they need your limited resources of $200 to feed them.

Do you feed the stranger first, and let your kids and husband go hungry?

For most people, the answer is absolutely not. If you have extra left over, you might give them that, but you are going to feed your people first. And rightly so I might add.

The church I attend had a basketball court installed. They started a group that met on certain nights, played some games, had a prayer meeting, and then played games after prayer. They also opened the court to the public. A few people showed up and played, and that was great.

Pretty soon though, the court was completely over run with non-memebers, and the prayer group could never find an open court.

So they closed the court. Now members only are allowed on the court, without invitation.

Is that wrong?

I'm guessing that this Catholic charity has limited resources, like all charities. I would guess that they determined with limited resources, and plenty of Catholics in need of help, that they wanted to help their people first, instead of using up all the resources they have on non-catholics, and then having their own people turned away.

And honestly I think we all would do the same if the situations were reversed. If I only had a enough food for my family, I'm going to feed them first before a stranger. That's my duty has a husband.

Now again, this is all speculation. You can believe whatever you want. But that's my guess.

I have to admit, I don't understand this "entitlement to other's compassion" idea comes from. If you get compassion great. But it's not a right. If you ask for help, and someone says 'no', you have not been 'wronged'.

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?

Quite frankly, I am in need of some help right now. I need $1000. Will you give me $1000? Or are you lacking compassion?

If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

So as I sit back and watch this thread I can't help but ask...

Now that you have derailed the conversation, let's see where you think you are going with this ...

I have heard you ask for money several times now, you have offered no explanation why you need it or why we should help with it.

You speak of us being compassion less because we simply don't offer the money with out questions.

I doubt you really need the money, will the $1000 mean life or death for you?? Of course not, it's not like you want get that much needed open heart surgery without it.

Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile.

Do you really have a need in your life other than attention??

 

[Andylusion]

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?



If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

So as I sit back and watch this thread I can't help but ask...

Now that you have derailed the conversation, let's see where you think you are going with this ...

I have heard you ask for money several times now, you have offered no explanation why you need it or why we should help with it.

You speak of us being compassion less because we simply don't offer the money with out questions.

I doubt you really need the money, will the $1000 mean life or death for you?? Of course not, it's not like you want get that much needed open heart surgery without it.

Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile.

Do you really have a need in your life other than attention??

Great! Let's roll with that. Let's demand that people explain why they need food stamps and welfare, before we hand it out!

Can we ask that welfare recipients get tested for drugs before collecting tax money give outs?

What you just said, was my whole point.

"Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile."​

Same is true of those on welfare. It's not compassion that drives leftists to take money from OTHERS to give to those who demand it.

Nor is it a lack of compassion on our part, that we don't want to randomly hand out our confiscated money to every individual who demands it without giving a reason.

Thank you sir. You finally gave me exactly the response I was looking for. That was the whole entire point of everything I've said on this thread.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

So as I sit back and watch this thread I can't help but ask...

Now that you have derailed the conversation, let's see where you think you are going with this ...

I have heard you ask for money several times now, you have offered no explanation why you need it or why we should help with it.

You speak of us being compassion less because we simply don't offer the money with out questions.

I doubt you really need the money, will the $1000 mean life or death for you?? Of course not, it's not like you want get that much needed open heart surgery without it.

Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile.

Do you really have a need in your life other than attention??

Great! Let's roll with that. Let's demand that people explain why they need food stamps and welfare, before we hand it out!

Can we ask that welfare recipients get tested for drugs before collecting tax money give outs?

What you just said, was my whole point.

"Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile."​

Same is true of those on welfare. It's not compassion that drives leftists to take money from OTHERS to give to those who demand it.

Nor is it a lack of compassion on our part, that we don't want to randomly hand out our confiscated money to every individual who demands it without giving a reason.

Thank you sir. You finally gave me exactly the response I was looking for. That was the whole entire point of everything I've said on this thread.

So if not compassion for others then what GREED??

Why do you folks feel the need to TAKE from others by whatever means??
What happens when they come to confiscate YOUR poor meager possessions, to give others??

Glad you like my points, you are looking just as I intended ....

 

[Andylusion]

So as I sit back and watch this thread I can't help but ask...

Now that you have derailed the conversation, let's see where you think you are going with this ...

I have heard you ask for money several times now, you have offered no explanation why you need it or why we should help with it.

You speak of us being compassion less because we simply don't offer the money with out questions.

I doubt you really need the money, will the $1000 mean life or death for you?? Of course not, it's not like you want get that much needed open heart surgery without it.

Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile.

Do you really have a need in your life other than attention??

Great! Let's roll with that. Let's demand that people explain why they need food stamps and welfare, before we hand it out!

Can we ask that welfare recipients get tested for drugs before collecting tax money give outs?

What you just said, was my whole point.

"Compassion comes from those who have the ability to empathize with others, to simply state a need for money and then claim lack of compassion as the motive why no one is giving makes you look like an imbecile."​

Same is true of those on welfare. It's not compassion that drives leftists to take money from OTHERS to give to those who demand it.

Nor is it a lack of compassion on our part, that we don't want to randomly hand out our confiscated money to every individual who demands it without giving a reason.

Thank you sir. You finally gave me exactly the response I was looking for. That was the whole entire point of everything I've said on this thread.

So if not compassion for others then what GREED??

Why do you folks feel the need to TAKE from others by whatever means??
What happens when they come to confiscate YOUR poor meager possessions, to give others??

Glad you like my points, you are looking just as I intended ....

You ARE taking my meager possessions. I only made $18K last year. You leftists confiscated $3,000 of my income to give to others, like this lady who isn't working.

I get up at 3 AM every morning to work for a living, and you have confiscated 17% of the little income I get, and give me NOTHING. But the leftists want votes, and stealing from me, to give to people like her, makes a full fledged Democrap voter.

It's not compassion or greed, but political power that motivate the left.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I am not taking crap dunce, you seem to have me on the opposite side of the fence than what my sentiments advocate ....

Why do people jump in, in the middle of the thread and go to writing stupid shit, without ever reading what has already been written.

For those of us who have been in this thread from the start, you are looking pretty stupid right about now.

You might want to go back and read up, oh and apparently your comprehension skills are lacking also....

 

[Againsheila]

This is all speculation.... and I have no idea why they do what they do...

But let's theorize just for a moment.

Let's say you have a family of four, and you have $200 for food. Now it will be tight, but if you keep all the money reserved for just your family, you can all eat for the month.

But then someone comes and tells you they are starving, and have nothing to eat, and they need your limited resources of $200 to feed them.

Do you feed the stranger first, and let your kids and husband go hungry?

For most people, the answer is absolutely not. If you have extra left over, you might give them that, but you are going to feed your people first. And rightly so I might add.

The church I attend had a basketball court installed. They started a group that met on certain nights, played some games, had a prayer meeting, and then played games after prayer. They also opened the court to the public. A few people showed up and played, and that was great.

Pretty soon though, the court was completely over run with non-memebers, and the prayer group could never find an open court.

So they closed the court. Now members only are allowed on the court, without invitation.

Is that wrong?

I'm guessing that this Catholic charity has limited resources, like all charities. I would guess that they determined with limited resources, and plenty of Catholics in need of help, that they wanted to help their people first, instead of using up all the resources they have on non-catholics, and then having their own people turned away.

And honestly I think we all would do the same if the situations were reversed. If I only had a enough food for my family, I'm going to feed them first before a stranger. That's my duty has a husband.

Now again, this is all speculation. You can believe whatever you want. But that's my guess.

I have to admit, I don't understand this "entitlement to other's compassion" idea comes from. If you get compassion great. But it's not a right. If you ask for help, and someone says 'no', you have not been 'wronged'.

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?

Quite frankly, I am in need of some help right now. I need $1000. Will you give me $1000? Or are you lacking compassion?

If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

No, it proves that people are smart and don't buy into your bologna. BTW, when a kid in Africa wanted me to give him money for his school tuition, I said to have the school send me a letter on their letter head. I would research the school and if he truly did need the money for tuition, I would get it for him if I had to go door to door to get enough to provide it for him. No letter ever came. And yes, I'd already talked to my friends and we were prepared to donate, providing his claim proved to be true, or as true as we could ascertain.

I have taken in no less than 3 homeless men. Two of them for 2 years, one for 6 months. Don't give me the crap about not being compassionate. I have raised 2 autistic sons. I helped parents of other special needs kids deal with the school district. I was a community liaison for Parents are Vital in Education. I didn't get paid a dime. I give of my time every week to help the needy. I donate my time to the local theater. What the hell have you done to help anybody, other than come up with excuses why the Catholics didn't give anything to help us in our time of need?

 

[Pogo]

This is all speculation.... and I have no idea why they do what they do...

But let's theorize just for a moment.

Let's say you have a family of four, and you have $200 for food. Now it will be tight, but if you keep all the money reserved for just your family, you can all eat for the month.

But then someone comes and tells you they are starving, and have nothing to eat, and they need your limited resources of $200 to feed them.

Do you feed the stranger first, and let your kids and husband go hungry?

For most people, the answer is absolutely not. If you have extra left over, you might give them that, but you are going to feed your people first. And rightly so I might add.

The church I attend had a basketball court installed. They started a group that met on certain nights, played some games, had a prayer meeting, and then played games after prayer. They also opened the court to the public. A few people showed up and played, and that was great.

Pretty soon though, the court was completely over run with non-memebers, and the prayer group could never find an open court.

So they closed the court. Now members only are allowed on the court, without invitation.

Is that wrong?

I'm guessing that this Catholic charity has limited resources, like all charities. I would guess that they determined with limited resources, and plenty of Catholics in need of help, that they wanted to help their people first, instead of using up all the resources they have on non-catholics, and then having their own people turned away.

And honestly I think we all would do the same if the situations were reversed. If I only had a enough food for my family, I'm going to feed them first before a stranger. That's my duty has a husband.

Now again, this is all speculation. You can believe whatever you want. But that's my guess.

I have to admit, I don't understand this "entitlement to other's compassion" idea comes from. If you get compassion great. But it's not a right. If you ask for help, and someone says 'no', you have not been 'wronged'.

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?

Quite frankly, I am in need of some help right now. I need $1000. Will you give me $1000? Or are you lacking compassion?

If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

It proves nothing except that logic is clearly not your strong suit.

You need $1000? Sell that computer you're on and give up the internet. We all win.

 

[Meathead]

The hungry children problem. Scientists have, thanks to generous donations from the Family Research Council, developed soylent yellow. Oddly enough, the FRC has, at the same time, reversed their position on abortion....

Hungry children? Last time I was in the states the "hungry children" were the fattest kids I'd ever seen.

 

[Andylusion]

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?



If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

No, it proves that people are smart and don't buy into your bologna. BTW, when a kid in Africa wanted me to give him money for his school tuition, I said to have the school send me a letter on their letter head. I would research the school and if he truly did need the money for tuition, I would get it for him if I had to go door to door to get enough to provide it for him. No letter ever came. And yes, I'd already talked to my friends and we were prepared to donate, providing his claim proved to be true, or as true as we could ascertain.

I have taken in no less than 3 homeless men. Two of them for 2 years, one for 6 months. Don't give me the crap about not being compassionate. I have raised 2 autistic sons. I helped parents of other special needs kids deal with the school district. I was a community liaison for Parents are Vital in Education. I didn't get paid a dime. I give of my time every week to help the needy. I donate my time to the local theater. What the hell have you done to help anybody, other than come up with excuses why the Catholics didn't give anything to help us in our time of need?

Stop stop stop.... You are suggesting that the other person needs to do something, in order to get your charity. You created a qualification to get your resources, and you were not going to give it unless he met your determine requirements.

That's all I'm saying. Right there.

Yes, I have done things. Many things. I'm not going to list you what they are, what charities they were with, or how much money, or time I have put in. This is not about me, nor am I going to go around telling people how amazing I am, nor am I looking down on anyone else if they don't do anything. I'm not here to play the "holier than thou" card.

Nor by the way, am I here to say what the Catholics are doing, is good or bad. Not my place.

The only thing I am suggesting is that everyone has qualifications for getting charity and welfare. Everyone does, including you. The only difference is that your qualifications are different than the Catholics qualification. Why you think your requirements are morally superior is beyond me.

 

[Andylusion]

You're actually comparing hunger with choice of religion?? You're actually trying to make the case that somebody who's not of your chosen religion is less in need than one of your own faith who's equally hungry? You're actually comparing hunger with playing basketball?



If you're paid for this kind of logic, I can see why you're in a hole...

​

I'm not trying to make any case for what I myself believe.

An intelligent thoughtful person, would consider what other people behavior may indicate.

You yourself, would do the same thing, in the same position. You are lying if you say otherwise. All of us would.

With limited resources, we would talk take care of our own families first.

Again, I need $1,000 dollars. I really do right now. Are you compassionate enough to help me?

See the fact no one will, proves exactly what I'm talking about.

It proves nothing except that logic is clearly not your strong suit.

You need $1000? Sell that computer you're on and give up the internet. We all win.

So even you require that others sell off what they have in order to get charity?

Why does this only apply to people you disagree with? Why not this lady on welfare?

 

[Andylusion]

I am not taking crap dunce, you seem to have me on the opposite side of the fence than what my sentiments advocate ....

Why do people jump in, in the middle of the thread and go to writing stupid shit, without ever reading what has already been written.

For those of us who have been in this thread from the start, you are looking pretty stupid right about now.

You might want to go back and read up, oh and apparently your comprehension skills are lacking also....

Well your posts failed to clearly define your points then. Nevertheless, you certainly made my point. The fact you instantly resorted to personal insults, reflects poorly on you, not me.

 

[Clementine]

How A Government Computer Glitch Forced Thousands Of Families To Go Hungry

WAKE FOREST, N.C. -- Janette Simon has four chicken legs and five kids to feed.

Her freezer is bare. And her latest trip to the food pantry yielded little else for dinner this night: a bag of day-old croissants, a box of Corn Flakes, and some canned goods.

She slathers barbecue sauce on the chicken, slides the pan in the oven, and begins her nightly ritual of distracting her five children from hunger.

The 44-year-old single mother often skips dinner herself. She hides Ramen noodle packets in her closet to ration food. She tells her two youngest kids to play outside “so they ain’t thinking about eating.”

“That’s what I have to worry about,” she says. “I gotta look at these kids with their sad faces and no food.”

How A Government Computer Glitch Forced Thousands Of Families To Go Hungry

Good to see that taxpayers got a break from having to feed this lazy black woman and her bastard kids for a few months. I'm sure she's missing all the steak and lobster every night because of this. Fuckin lazy people.

What bugs me is that no matter how many times those on the right say they are all for helping those in need, but would like more measures in place to encourage people to elevate and to limit the amount of fraud, waste and abuse, the left still acts like the right doesn't want to help people.

It's asinine and this is just another example of how they assume what people feel. If someone is going without, they automatically assume that the right will call them lazy, so the title reflects that flawed thinking.

No one denies help to those in need. Many do have a problem with young people being encouraged to go that route, thinking it'll be a good way to live. Allowing illegals to take welfare and allowing scammers, like the drug dealers, to take food stamps is just wrong. There could be more safeguards in place, but government is very bad at overseeing any of their programs. Look at the billions that are unaccounted for in the State Dept. And people should be expected to finish school and actively look for a job if they are able. It's not mean. It's all about really truly helping people by making their lives better in the long run rather than keeping them on the doles and at the mercy of government.

 

[Pogo]

How A Government Computer Glitch Forced Thousands Of Families To Go Hungry

WAKE FOREST, N.C. -- Janette Simon has four chicken legs and five kids to feed.

Her freezer is bare. And her latest trip to the food pantry yielded little else for dinner this night: a bag of day-old croissants, a box of Corn Flakes, and some canned goods.

She slathers barbecue sauce on the chicken, slides the pan in the oven, and begins her nightly ritual of distracting her five children from hunger.

The 44-year-old single mother often skips dinner herself. She hides Ramen noodle packets in her closet to ration food. She tells her two youngest kids to play outside “so they ain’t thinking about eating.”

“That’s what I have to worry about,” she says. “I gotta look at these kids with their sad faces and no food.”

How A Government Computer Glitch Forced Thousands Of Families To Go Hungry

Good to see that taxpayers got a break from having to feed this lazy black woman and her bastard kids for a few months. I'm sure she's missing all the steak and lobster every night because of this. Fuckin lazy people.

What bugs me is that no matter how many times those on the right say they are all for helping those in need, but would like more measures in place to encourage people to elevate and to limit the amount of fraud, waste and abuse, the left still acts like the right doesn't want to help people.

It's asinine and this is just another example of how they assume what people feel. If someone is going without, they automatically assume that the right will call them lazy, so the title reflects that flawed thinking.

No one denies help to those in need. Many do have a problem with young people being encouraged to go that route, thinking it'll be a good way to live. Allowing illegals to take welfare and allowing scammers, like the drug dealers, to take food stamps is just wrong. There could be more safeguards in place, but government is very bad at overseeing any of their programs. Look at the billions that are unaccounted for in the State Dept. And people should be expected to finish school and actively look for a job if they are able. It's not mean. It's all about really truly helping people by making their lives better in the long run rather than keeping them on the doles and at the mercy of government.

You're quite correct that blanket statements about entire political sides are bullshit. But within this thread, that kind of intolerance is EXACTLY what's going on. From the beginning several posters have jumped in with grand assumptions about these women they don't even know, right down to fabricated marriage histories and even sex lives. Fabrications they have absolutely no basis for.

And that's bullshit too.

So those that are here representing the right are feeding that very fallacy you're lamenting here. To the extent that the right gets blame for what you note above, you can thank these dishonest posters.

 

[JakeWIlls92]

I do not think it is nice to label the unfortunate lazy or parasites. I have been taught to respect all people.

 

[Meathead]

I do not think it is nice to label the unfortunate lazy or parasites. I have been taught to respect all people.

Unfortunate people are unfortunate, lazy people are lazy and parasites are parasite. How can you argue with tautologies?