Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?
Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
Food Stamps should cover what those of us forced to fund them say they should cover. I don't know what that list is but I've expressed why.
So you just have a vague idea that you should be micromanaging those damned poor people, with no clear picture of what you have in mind, other than making them toe the line, any line.
Got it.
Next.
Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?
I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.
Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.
Not only do we not get gratitude, we get demands from leeches about the stuff they get for nothing not being enough. It's one thing to rely on someone else for what should be provided by that person to that person, it's another when those getting it whine about the amount.
Of course we don't get gratitude. Of course we get demands. Still not addressing the point, though, which is any putative value to further controlling and micromanaging people's lives.
So your answer is to ignore those that would bitch about not getting someone else's money and let them do as they wish with what you earned? There's a simple concept they need to understand. If they don't like the conditions, don't ask for the money. If they ask, shut the fuck up when those of us forced to provide it to them expect to have a say it how it's spent.
My boss pays me, therefore, when I'm doing what he pays me to do, he dictates what I do and when I do it.
Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.
So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?
I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.
Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.
Well, that was suitably pointless, kneejerk, and time-wasting.
What's wrong with expecting people to support themselves? The wastes are those that demand someone else do it then bitch when they aren't handed as much as they want. To them I say what my dad told me as a kid when I said I wanted more. He said want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker. There's an idea. Let them shit in their hands then eat it.
The real issue is someone even getting a dime of another person's money forced by the government. Anything related to it is also real.Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.
Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.
Not only do we not get gratitude, we get demands from leeches about the stuff they get for nothing not being enough. It's one thing to rely on someone else for what should be provided by that person to that person, it's another when those getting it whine about the amount.
Of course we don't get gratitude. Of course we get demands. Still not addressing the point, though, which is any putative value to further controlling and micromanaging people's lives.
So your answer is to ignore those that would bitch about not getting someone else's money and let them do as they wish with what you earned? There's a simple concept they need to understand. If they don't like the conditions, don't ask for the money. If they ask, shut the fuck up when those of us forced to provide it to them expect to have a say it how it's spent.
My boss pays me, therefore, when I'm doing what he pays me to do, he dictates what I do and when I do it.
No, my answer would be to focus on the REAL issue and not concede the leftists' perception as reality before I ever even start arguing.
By the way, your jerking knee is really distracting.
Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?
I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.
Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.
Well, that was suitably pointless, kneejerk, and time-wasting.
What's wrong with expecting people to support themselves? The wastes are those that demand someone else do it then bitch when they aren't handed as much as they want. To them I say what my dad told me as a kid when I said I wanted more. He said want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker. There's an idea. Let them shit in their hands then eat it.
See above re: jerking knee.
I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.
See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)
I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.
So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?
Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
Food Stamps should cover what those of us forced to fund them say they should cover. I don't know what that list is but I've expressed why.
So you just have a vague idea that you should be micromanaging those damned poor people, with no clear picture of what you have in mind, other than making them toe the line, any line.
Got it.
Next.
The idea of why is very clear. The idea of what can be discussed. I have a very good picture in mind. If you demand someone else's money in order to live, expect those funding it to have a say in what you do.
Seems your idea is to leave someone alone who demands another person's money in order to live. Tell you what. When they quit demanding, I'll quit saying.
You don't need govt. vouchers to buy T-Bone Steaks from a Save A Lot store near you for 20% less than Walmart sells hamburger for.
Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance. They outsourced a significant chunk of their labor costs to the taxpayer. Plus “Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.”
We should ban any company who has employees on the government dole from profiting from employees on the government dole. Walmart clearly marks up profits on items poor workers buy most with government food-stamps. This is why they sell Hamburger for 20% more than T-Bone Steak. Prior to the economic meltdown, Hamburger sold at an 80% discount to T-Bone Steaks. Forcing food-stamps recipients to buy certain foods will greatly increase retailers fleecing of taxpayers & underpaid workers. This is why "Consumer Staples Stocks" prices soared during economic market crash, pay cuts, increasing UE & expansion of food-stamps.
I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)
I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.
So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?
Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.
So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.
So again, WHAT was limited?
She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.
So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.
So again, WHAT was limited?
She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.
So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.
So again, WHAT was limited?
Nice graph.
Is there a point you wanted to make, since the graph supports what I said?
I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.
She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.
So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.
So again, WHAT was limited?
Nice graph.
Is there a point you wanted to make, since the graph supports what I said?
What you said was not in English. The graph shows the result of the welfare reform act vs. the act of throwing the rules in the act out the door.
You seem to be having temporal problems. I can't help you if you can't think over ranges of time.She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.
So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.
So again, WHAT was limited?
Nice graph.
Is there a point you wanted to make, since the graph supports what I said?
What you said was not in English. The graph shows the result of the welfare reform act vs. the act of throwing the rules in the act out the door.
Your graph disproves your claim that anything has been reduced or limited. It clearly shows that despite the laws passed, we continue to spend more and more on welfare.
You seem to be having temporal problems. I can't help you if you can't think over ranges of time.
So you don't know how to read even a basic chart? Did you have some sort of head trauma?You seem to be having temporal problems. I can't help you if you can't think over ranges of time.
Dude, the Heritage graph shows Welfare continuing to rise with no change after Clinton. Welfare reform was a farce.
So you don't know how to read even a basic chart? Did you have some sort of head trauma?
And Diabetes.If you don't mind rickets...You can stock up a wagon of cereals on your welfare and eat healthy.I think someone telling me buying processed cheese is ok but real meat is not is an idiot.
