EvilMonkey

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) I take it you didn't even read my post. More like you didn't read his. Your whole post just dismisses his claims as invalid because he is rich and has benefited from some sort of government help. It ignores the fact that him and others like him are the ones that hire people and create jobs. It doesn't matter if he made $100 or $100 million dollars, HE made it and wants to keep it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 20, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) Nope, instead we should do the exact opposite - allow a "panel" to decide when someone is poor without even doing any investigation to see if they'd actually qualify: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...0,6804492.story Until she retired last year, my mother ran the office of the grade school where we grew up. 60% of the school was on 'free lunch'. 80% of the entire student body spent money buying 'extra' stuff with their free lunch, so much so that the school almost made money on it. To qualify for the free lunch they had to just fil out a form, with NO verification. The form asked if they worked, all said no. Yet most had a work phone number for emergencies. The problem with government social programs is that the workers will do whatever they can to create the least hassle for themselves. Only time they will get complaints is if they deny someone a service or benefit because they dont deserve it. So they do as little as possible in the way of denying people to avoid those complaints. If you drop your kids off at school in a new Lexus, have $100 nail job and your kid can spend $5 a day on extra stuff at lunch, you don't need the free lunch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:17 PM) He says they eat just fine and increasing food subsidies won't matter because they obviously can afford a nutritious diet now. This isn't true; they lack the ability to actually plan food purchases in advance and buy more nutritious food because they are living hand-to-mouth. That's not semantics, that's Heritage making more patently dumb claims. It is lack of fresh foods available because the neighborhoods suck and their desire for quick food that isnt good for them. They can plan to buy a bag of chips but not an apple? They can plan to but oil to fry things but not rice or something else more healthy?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Another takedown of this same doofus trying to argue that poor people don't suffer from food or nutrition deficiencies because they're obese. now you are getting into semantics. Poor fat people are not starving. They may be lacking lots of nutrients, but that is often a combination of lack of availability and willingness of them to get & eat it.

Are Adam Dunn's eyes blue? I swear sometimes he swings so far off I wonder if he is half blind.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 14, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) Let's also give credit where credit is due. In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered what will probably be the best deal the Palestinians will ever be offered. Based on the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps (the horror!). That offer was turned down by one Yasser Arafat, who, as far as everyone can guess...simply decided in the end that he did not want to make peace, and so the most recent "Intifiada" was launched. I was about 1 minute away from posting just what you did, with a lot more snark. Arafat probably decided he was getting rich off war, and in peace would just fall off the radar. He siphoned off tons of cash from all the stuff that was supposed to help his 'people'. They all do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) [/b] That is just crazy. No one is going to give up their state, especially someone with the history of the Israelis. I think there was a Tom Clancey book where it ended with the Swiss 'controlling' Jerusilim as some sort of compromise between Israel and the arabs. Not sure how that worked out.

Carlos Q

Konerko

AJP

AJP

Gordon

Konerko

Alexei

Pierre

Pierre

Unless it has to do with raising taxes, democrats want no religion other than Islam anywhere near politics. THAT, they seem to have no problem with.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 02:53 PM) What's rude? "tell your kid to shut the f*** up." Yes, that is rude. If you can see that the parents are bothered by it and trying to do something, very rude. If you can see that they are sitting there ignoring it and not caring, then perhaps it would be more appropriate.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) Agreed, if you're kids can't be disciplined in a quite setting then don't bring them there. I can't believe some parents get offended when they are asked to quite their kids down. If you can't be a good citizen/neighbor then don't expect to be invited back in the future. Well, some people can be downright rude in asking people to quiet their kids. No excuse for that, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) I have no idea, but high rates of obesity doesn't mean they aren't malnourished. Yes, but malnourished and starving are 2 distinctly different things.

I refused to take my kids out to eat with us until they were at least 5 or 6, and even then I didn't like it. And mine were generally good kids.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) Not the most but up there. But there's also this from the WHO: The global epidemic of overweight and obesity - "globesity" - is rapidly becoming a major public health problem in many parts of the world. Paradoxically coexisting with undernutrition in developing countries, the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity is associated with many diet-related chronic diseases including diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, stroke, hypertension and certain cancers. eta: for example there's a lot of obesity in poor neighborhoods in the US because they only have access to junk food and not fruits, vegetables etc. Have they changed the criteria for 'obese'? because I looked at some of the websites regarding those type of studies and according to them, I would qualify as obese. Now I am not a skinny guy, but if you looked at me, the first words that pop to mind would not be 'obese'. Idiot, cool guy, a$$hole, good looking, all those might come to mind first, but not obese.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) I think Israel has carried out a campaign of total war against the People of Gaza, attempting to destroy every element of that society with a bombing campaign as intense as any the U.S. deployed in Iraq/Afghanistan, enforcing a blockade which has prevented even foodstuffs from getting to the people, and moving the population including children to the brink of starvation. The most obese people on earth are starving. That's rich.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 10:44 AM) You don't think that Israeli has launched missiles into areas with children? I think Israel has launched missiles where there are people trying to kill them, that occasionally may have children because the Pali cowards hide behind them. Palistinians launch missiles where there are children and no soldiers present at all for the shock value of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) No, that's a bizarre claim to attribute to me. Well, your initial reply seems to state some sort of equivelency (even if I can't spell it) between the two. I was pointing out that they are not the same.