Heh, I won't lie, this is kind of nice.Follow

It's really sad that people think that way, especially when the people who use government assistance the most are white southerners. Which ironically are the very same people who stigmatize it and vote against it.

I "went right to it" because I can safely assume that it played a significant role in a white single mother not seeking food stamps in a suburb of Chicago in the 70's and 80's.

No doubt because of "Race on the Left". She was probably afraid of Walter Mondale comparing her to a Cadillac Welfare Queen from the Chicago South Side.

Funny thing, I've never actually spoken to the woman.

You're adorable.

I'm in no way surprised.

Once you're over a certain height, people start considering you pieces of landscape until they run into you.

Children see me. The look of horror on their faces. The "omfg people can be THAT big?" look as they stare in amazement lol. I don't help, I glace over at them and make faces. Tears is when I know to stop, laughter makes me go at it more.
I actually freak out when I meet people bigger than me.



I was on welfare for a year and a half. Was nice to call them up thanks them for letting me be in the program once my 1st paycheck was handed to me.

Nah, I'm done.

You're as dense as Alma; you know that, right?

This right here.

My mother actually did make a lot of home cooked meals. And we ate whatever was on the table (usually the stove - everyone came home at different times), because that was it. But what we ate was rarely healthy. A giant pot of spaghetti with cheap ground beef and mushrooms as the veggie, with no portion control. Shake & Bake Pork chops with instant mashed potatoes and canned green beans on the side. (I refused to eat those, so I went without veggies.) Meat loaf with a side of canned peas and biscuits from a refrigerated can.

It was cooked at home, but it was still made from various boxes and cans of stuff so it wasn't a 100% fully prepared from super nutritious things. And it was almost always with carbs as the star of the meal.

I think that Americans have become more conscientious about making healthy food at home - at least those who have time + money. But my '80s dinner menu was pretty horrifying, in retrospect, and my mother was a SAHM and we were able to get pretty cheap groceries from the PX to feed the six of us, so it was neither time or money in our case.... just ignorance.

Of course you can. Why would you think otherwise?





The point is that this isn't what's going on. It's a contrivance, designed to paint people who take a different position as racists.



When someone characterized a person who chooses not to accept foodstamps as doing so because "that's what black people do". Try to keep up.



Everybody knows this? That's funny, I thought Democrats were opposed to the idea of preachers getting involved in politics and using their pulpits in this manner. I distinctly recall us having several discussions over the years about this. I find it interesting that those who claim to be about protecting minority rights and freedoms condemn political preaching as a means of unfairly influencing voters, but only when those voters are white (or Republican, I guess). So it's ok to unfairly influence black votes? How very non-racist of you!

Ok. That was a bit tongue in cheek, but the larger point remains. This restriction applies equally to everyone. It's just hard for me to buy the idea that the same "side" that has complained for decades about the religious right influencing politics is now honestly claiming to want to protect the rights of religious leaders to so directly influence the votes of their constituents, that we can't allow even one day between when they preach and when their flock votes. Unless your argument is that black people are more pliable than white people, or that they're more forgetful of what they heard just yesterday, or maybe that what they're told on Sunday maybe will be re-thought and found to be wrong by Monday?

In any case, it's a silly opposition.



Only via gross paraphrasing of what has been actually said. Or, I suppose if you agree that the Democrats rely on voter fraud to win elections. That works too. Because the GOP's purpose with regard to voting laws is to reduce the possibility for voter fraud to occur. Now, if you believe that this hurts the Democrats more than the GOP, then that's because you believe that the Democrats benefit from voter fraud more than the GOP. Right?



I completely disagree with you (shocker, I know). I think that the left views things within the context of identity, and the right view things within the context of actions. What's interesting is that many people are not aware of this, and so they judge the other "sides" statements as though they were made with their own "sides" methodology. So a conservative will see a liberal defend Trayvon Martin and assume they are defending his actions, when they actually care the most about who he was. Similarly, a liberal will see a conservative blame Trayvon Martin and assume that they are blaming him for being black, or a teen, or that he wears a hoodie, or eats skittles and drinks Arizona tea.

Ironically, your statement above reflects this. Both of the methodologies you describe are based on the concept of identity (ie: come from the liberal mindset). Are you "the man", or "an individual"? Conservatives don't care about that. We care about actions. What does the government do and is that good or bad. What does the individual do and is that good or bad. That's it. Thus, when we do something like choose not to accept foodstamps, it has nothing to do with other identity groups and how they orient with regard to foodstamps. It's about what foodstamps are, what they do, and whether we think that's good or bad for us. It's actually quite bewildering to a conservative to see a liberal leap to the kind of statement that Joph made. It's actually alien to us. It's something that simply never enters our minds, and it's strange to realize that for someone else, it's nearly obsessively front and center.

Edited, Oct 1st 2014 5:33pm by gbaji

You're talking to alma, everything is always all or nothing.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Of course you can. Why would you think otherwise?

Not if you're arguing against the root of government assistance.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

The point is that this isn't what's going on

That was the point of his mom's statement.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

When someone characterized a person who chooses not to accept foodstamps as doing so because "that's what black people do". Try to keep up.

Maybe you should reread the original text. That wasn't an assumption, that was what Jophiel said. Did he make it up? I don't know. I was merely responding to what he said. I wasn't calling anyone racist.
Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Everybody knows this? That's funny, I thought Democrats were opposed to the idea of preachers getting involved in politics and using their pulpits in this manner. I distinctly recall us having several discussions over the years about this. I find it interesting that those who claim to be about protecting minority rights and freedoms condemn political preaching as a means of unfairly influencing voters, but only when those voters are white (or Republican, I guess). So it's ok to unfairly influence black votes? How very non-racist of you!

Yes everyone knows this. Whoever you were talking to probably weren't black. Do you see the relation between those two sentences? Politics has always been part of the black church.... always, oh and barbershops.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Ok. That was a bit tongue in cheek, but the larger point remains. This restriction applies equally to everyone. It's just hard for me to buy the idea that the same "side" that has complained for decades about the religious right influencing politics is now honestly claiming to want to protect the rights of religious leaders to so directly influence the votes of their constituents, that we can't allow even one day between when they preach and when their flock votes. Unless your argument is that black people are more pliable than white people, or that they're more forgetful of what they heard just yesterday, or maybe that what they're told on Sunday maybe will be re-thought and found to be wrong by Monday?

Unlike most people, I understand the difference between equality and fairness. It is equal, but it is unfairly targeting Souls to the Polls. If it's not a big deal, then why not give that Sunday back?

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Only via gross paraphrasing of what has been actually said. Or, I suppose if you agree that the Democrats rely on voter fraud to win elections. That works too. Because the GOP's purpose with regard to voting laws is to reduce the possibility for voter fraud to occur. Now, if you believe that this hurts the Democrats more than the GOP, then that's because you believe that the Democrats benefit from voter fraud more than the GOP. Right?

What voter fraud? How does eliminating early voting stop voter fraud?

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

I completely disagree with you (shocker, I know). I think that the left views things within the context of identity, and the right view things within the context of actions. What's interesting is that many people are not aware of this, and so they judge the other "sides" statements as though they were made with their own "sides" methodology. So a conservative will see a liberal defend Trayvon Martin and assume they are defending his actions, when they actually care the most about who he was. Similarly, a liberal will see a conservative blame Trayvon Martin and assume that they are blaming him for being black, or a teen, or that he wears a hoodie, or eats skittles and drinks Arizona tea.

Ironically, your statement above reflects this. Both of the methodologies you describe are based on the concept of identity (ie: come from the liberal mindset). Are you "the man", or "an individual"? Conservatives don't care about that. We care about actions. What does the government do and is that good or bad. What does the individual do and is that good or bad. That's it. Thus, when we do something like choose not to accept foodstamps, it has nothing to do with other identity groups and how they orient with regard to foodstamps. It's about what foodstamps are, what they do, and whether we think that's good or bad for us. It's actually quite bewildering to a conservative to see a liberal leap to the kind of statement that Joph made. It's actually alien to us. It's something that simply never enters our minds, and it's strange to realize that for someone else, it's nearly obsessively front and center.

So basically, you "disagree" with me, only to realize that we're saying the same thing and then try to attempt to differentiate our points. You, yourself, argued that 'twas Treyvon's actions that got him killed, which is my point. Democrats argued 'twas because he was simply black (the Man), while Republicans argued 'twas his actions (individual failure). Stop trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

With a little more self-awareness gbaji could boil most of his own multi-paragraph replies down to

Edited, Oct 2nd 2014 8:55pm by Elinda