The Elusive Solution To 'Poverty'

[rightwinger]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Our poor live better than people did 1000 years ago?

What the hell are they complaining about?

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Our poor live better than people did 1000 years ago?

What the hell are they complaining about?

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

 

[Moonglow]

The reason the solution to poverty is elusive is because one does not exist. "There will be poor always."

That doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to help those who we are truly in need and who we can help.

Let's just say that the solution exists to a far greater extent than the 'solutions' being applied today.

Saying that imperfect human beings are applying imperfect programs to help the poor is not really earth-shattering.

Of course we can - and should continually strive toward - doing things better and more cost effectively.

I didn't say any such thing.

I simply stated a fact: big government has no intention of eliminating poverty.

They need to continue it.


" In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


It would take a very stupid person to believe that that is an accident.

Do you believe it's an accident?

There is no alleviating 100% of poverty, it's a known fact.....The agriculture revolution created more poor than hunter gatherers ever could because of the social structure....Modern humans are greedy, they feel the need to sit upon their thrones of possessions to increase their social value.......Even you my dear, as you try to demean the very nature of this conversation with riddles and insults shows that the only reason for this thread is not to educate, but to humiliate...

 

[Katzndogz]

Poverty is relative. It cannot be eliminated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The reason the solution to poverty is elusive is because one does not exist. "There will be poor always."

That doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to help those who we are truly in need and who we can help.

Let's just say that the solution exists to a far greater extent than the 'solutions' being applied today.

Saying that imperfect human beings are applying imperfect programs to help the poor is not really earth-shattering.

Of course we can - and should continually strive toward - doing things better and more cost effectively.

I didn't say any such thing.

I simply stated a fact: big government has no intention of eliminating poverty.

They need to continue it.


" In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


It would take a very stupid person to believe that that is an accident.

Do you believe it's an accident?

There is no alleviating 100% of poverty, it's a known fact.....The agriculture revolution created more poor than hunter gatherers ever could because of the social structure....Modern humans are greedy, they feel the need to sit upon their thrones of possessions to increase their social value.......Even you my dear, as you try to demean the very nature of this conversation with riddles and insults shows that the only reason for this thread is not to educate, but to humiliate...

I found four glaring errors in just that short post.

Wow.

But...if you feel humiliated by the facts I've posted....that wasn't my aim, but it is a bonus.

 

[Moonglow]

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

'nuff said

Republicans are FAR more charitable than are dimocraps. That has been proven time and again; although I have NO doubt that you will dispute it, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags.

Nobody in the Republican Party that I know of has any qualms about helping those that need help. What we object to is the taking of the money BY FORCE and then, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags, taking anywhere from 30% to 80% off the top for themselves.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

period

We, the GOP hate to have to help the poor if we are forced, which means you don't give freely...

Your black and white thinking exposes your ignorance...and you do on this forum every day.

If only we Americans could come together, rather then wallow in the pig sty that is partisanship.

Again as an uneducated fuck, you fail to see mathematical truths...Why have you not put me on iggy, please...

Thank you for your kind reply.

Could you please outline these 'mathematical truths' you speak of?

When you make a statement, to find if the statement is true, you use the same formula as you would to check a mathematical equation, by reversing the calculation..the same way you would a statement...

 

[Moonglow]

The reason the solution to poverty is elusive is because one does not exist. "There will be poor always."

That doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to help those who we are truly in need and who we can help.

Let's just say that the solution exists to a far greater extent than the 'solutions' being applied today.

Saying that imperfect human beings are applying imperfect programs to help the poor is not really earth-shattering.

Of course we can - and should continually strive toward - doing things better and more cost effectively.

I didn't say any such thing.

I simply stated a fact: big government has no intention of eliminating poverty.

They need to continue it.


" In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


It would take a very stupid person to believe that that is an accident.

Do you believe it's an accident?

There is no alleviating 100% of poverty, it's a known fact.....The agriculture revolution created more poor than hunter gatherers ever could because of the social structure....Modern humans are greedy, they feel the need to sit upon their thrones of possessions to increase their social value.......Even you my dear, as you try to demean the very nature of this conversation with riddles and insults shows that the only reason for this thread is not to educate, but to humiliate...

I found four glaring errors in just that short post.

Wow.

But...if you feel humiliated by the facts I've posted....that wasn't my aim, but it is a bonus.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that I know what your true intentions are...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty is relative. It cannot be eliminated.

Really?

So...you wouldn't care to comment on my historically accurate definition: no home, no heat, no food.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

So the War on Poverty was won by LBJ?

 

[gipper]

Republicans are FAR more charitable than are dimocraps. That has been proven time and again; although I have NO doubt that you will dispute it, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags.

Nobody in the Republican Party that I know of has any qualms about helping those that need help. What we object to is the taking of the money BY FORCE and then, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags, taking anywhere from 30% to 80% off the top for themselves.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

period

We, the GOP hate to have to help the poor if we are forced, which means you don't give freely...

Your black and white thinking exposes your ignorance...and you do on this forum every day.

If only we Americans could come together, rather then wallow in the pig sty that is partisanship.

Again as an uneducated fuck, you fail to see mathematical truths...Why have you not put me on iggy, please...

Thank you for your kind reply.

Could you please outline these 'mathematical truths' you speak of?

When you make a statement, to find if the statement is true, you use the same formula as you would to check a mathematical equation, by reversing the calculation..the same you would a statement...

Okay...and how does this have anything to do with Rs and Ds?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's just say that the solution exists to a far greater extent than the 'solutions' being applied today.

Saying that imperfect human beings are applying imperfect programs to help the poor is not really earth-shattering.

Of course we can - and should continually strive toward - doing things better and more cost effectively.

I didn't say any such thing.

I simply stated a fact: big government has no intention of eliminating poverty.

They need to continue it.


" In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


It would take a very stupid person to believe that that is an accident.

Do you believe it's an accident?

There is no alleviating 100% of poverty, it's a known fact.....The agriculture revolution created more poor than hunter gatherers ever could because of the social structure....Modern humans are greedy, they feel the need to sit upon their thrones of possessions to increase their social value.......Even you my dear, as you try to demean the very nature of this conversation with riddles and insults shows that the only reason for this thread is not to educate, but to humiliate...

I found four glaring errors in just that short post.

Wow.

But...if you feel humiliated by the facts I've posted....that wasn't my aim, but it is a bonus.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that I know what your true intentions are...

With hardly any effort I've reduce you to whining.

Tissue?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's quite a spectacle to see someone who doesn't work, and yet has a life of plenty, pontificate on poverty.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is no solution to poverty in a system where capitalism is used. Capitalism means there's going to be poverty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

So the War on Poverty was won by LBJ?

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation, pretending to misunderstand, and changing the subject.


Today it's Trick #2 on display:

 

[Moonglow]

It's quite a spectacle to see someone who doesn't work, and yet has a life of plenty, pontificate on poverty.

Saying that imperfect human beings are applying imperfect programs to help the poor is not really earth-shattering.

Of course we can - and should continually strive toward - doing things better and more cost effectively.

I didn't say any such thing.

I simply stated a fact: big government has no intention of eliminating poverty.

They need to continue it.


" In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


It would take a very stupid person to believe that that is an accident.

Do you believe it's an accident?

There is no alleviating 100% of poverty, it's a known fact.....The agriculture revolution created more poor than hunter gatherers ever could because of the social structure....Modern humans are greedy, they feel the need to sit upon their thrones of possessions to increase their social value.......Even you my dear, as you try to demean the very nature of this conversation with riddles and insults shows that the only reason for this thread is not to educate, but to humiliate...

I found four glaring errors in just that short post.

Wow.

But...if you feel humiliated by the facts I've posted....that wasn't my aim, but it is a bonus.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that I know what your true intentions are...

With hardly any effort I've reduce you to whining.

Tissue?

need a needle to deflate you ego?

 

[Moonglow]

Is no solution to poverty in a system where capitalism is used. Capitalism means there's going to be poverty.

In Capitalism, someone must lose, it creates an imbalance of resources going to few instead of the many......

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's quite a spectacle to see someone who doesn't work, and yet has a life of plenty, pontificate on poverty.

Interesting how you try every way to pry into my life.....

You reek of the odor of jealousy.

 

[rightwinger]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Our poor live better than people did 1000 years ago?

What the hell are they complaining about?

I gave the real definition of 'poor.'


Did you have to step over any in your rush to the keyboard?

And a damned good one too

Your OP sounds like the official GOP definition of "poor". Thanks for finally posting it

You're welcome.

I like it

Republicans can use it as an excuse to keep down wages
Hey....you got central heat and running water

Quit your bitching

 

[Moonglow]

The main reason for poverty is greed.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's quite a spectacle to see someone who doesn't work, and yet has a life of plenty, pontificate on poverty.

I didn't say any such thing.

I simply stated a fact: big government has no intention of eliminating poverty.

They need to continue it.


" In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


It would take a very stupid person to believe that that is an accident.

Do you believe it's an accident?

There is no alleviating 100% of poverty, it's a known fact.....The agriculture revolution created more poor than hunter gatherers ever could because of the social structure....Modern humans are greedy, they feel the need to sit upon their thrones of possessions to increase their social value.......Even you my dear, as you try to demean the very nature of this conversation with riddles and insults shows that the only reason for this thread is not to educate, but to humiliate...

I found four glaring errors in just that short post.

Wow.

But...if you feel humiliated by the facts I've posted....that wasn't my aim, but it is a bonus.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that I know what your true intentions are...

With hardly any effort I've reduce you to whining.

Tissue?

need a needle to deflate you ego?

Ego???

Moi???