President vs. Arizona

[chickened]

The Food network? where a channel exists for the sole purpose of selling advertising air time. They have commercial that solicit money using sad skinny kids also. You do realize those are scams don't you? Less than 5% makes it to the organizations.

They do not even use the word hunger anymore they call it "food insecure household" which means lousy parents not providing food for kids... far from starvation... government should take those kids away not give the parents more money.

There is a ton of food banks and souplines out there, there are 2 churches that offer dinner tuesday and the other sunday within 3 miles of me.


The foodstamp program is at fault then is what you are saying because it's mission is to stamp out hunger in America. How many of those starving kid's parents get foodstamps? based on the number of kids BTW. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink... or make a lousy parent feed their kids. You have to remember how they calculate hunger. One in eight Americans receive foodstamps so they obviously are starving, there is one statistic, school lunch and breakfast stats there is another, they do not go into households and watch and see what mommy puts on the plate. There are ways to skew studies to get what you want.

Removing those 2.5 million kids from abusive parents would keep them from starving also.

I find it very odd that you can manage to somehow connect big oil taxbreaks to starvation and poverty and then blame the oil companies when government gives it to them. Why not prosecute drug dealers take their money and feed the hungry? that would seem bit more noble of an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

You think it filters down, you could not be more wrong and that theroy is economic nonsense. Tonight at 8PM on the Food Network was a documentary entitled "Hunger Hits Home" that focused on starving children in this country. In California alone there are more then 2.5 million children that are hungry every day. In the US more then 1 in 5 children go hungry. You think it is trickling down to any of them. What trickles down to hungry children is the services our taxes pay not any of that money from oil pigs. Think that those tax breaks provide us with cheap oil. That is even more nonsensical. To have one starving child in this country is a sin in anyones religious beliefs. Just 4 billion of that obsene 41 billion profit would feed every one of those 2.5 million children,

 

[RHRanch]

The Food network? where a channel exists for the sole purpose of selling advertising air time. They have commercial that solicit money using sad skinny kids also. You do realize those are scams don't you? Less than 5% makes it to the organizations.

They do not even use the word hunger anymore they call it "food insecure household" which means lousy parents not providing food for kids... far from starvation... government should take those kids away not give the parents more money.

There is a ton of food banks and souplines out there, there are 2 churches that offer dinner tuesday and the other sunday within 3 miles of me.


The foodstamp program is at fault then is what you are saying because it's mission is to stamp out hunger in America. How many of those starving kid's parents get foodstamps? based on the number of kids BTW. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink... or make a lousy parent feed their kids. You have to remember how they calculate hunger. One in eight Americans receive foodstamps so they obviously are starving, there is one statistic, school lunch and breakfast stats there is another, they do not go into households and watch and see what mommy puts on the plate. There are ways to skew studies to get what you want.

Removing those 2.5 million kids from abusive parents would keep them from starving also.

I find it very odd that you can manage to somehow connect big oil taxbreaks to starvation and poverty and then blame the oil companies when government gives it to them. Why not prosecute drug dealers take their money and feed the hungry? that would seem bit more noble of an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

Um, ALL tv channels exist just for the purpose of selling things/advertising.

 

[chickened]

That is my point... get out of your government furnished utopian cubicle, out from in front of a computer screen and see what really happens to all that free stuff and see how it is used.

My business creates wealth, it turns raw natural resources in to commodities... as does the oil business.

Anyone in America that thinks starvation is from lack of tax revenue is high. Capvin is right in one way big oil does not help those that choose not to work to feed themselves.

Um, ALL tv channels exist just for the purpose of selling things/advertising.

 

[chickened]

RRanch, I want to explain a little known principle in life to you. Problems are not solved by big mighty swoops of kindness and charity by the government or otherwise. They are won by the little things, a neighbor feeding a starving child while mom is high on crack, a church with a few volunteers preparing a meal for any who come. This is the battleground not some courtroom, street march or protest. Our folks in government have lost that principle as well as some well meaning people. Government programs are great idea but resemble a great novel with only the preface written.

It is the tiny little streams and trickles that make mighty rivers in life. It is the little things of the hour that make up a noble life not the great things of an age.

 

[RHRanch]

RRanch, I want to explain a little known principle in life to you. Problems are not solved by big mighty swoops of kindness and charity by the government or otherwise. They are won by the little things, a neighbor feeding a starving child while mom is high on crack, a church with a few volunteers preparing a meal for any who come. This is the battleground not some courtroom, street march or protest. Our folks in government have lost that principle as well as some well meaning people. Government programs are great idea but resemble a great novel with only the preface written.

It is the tiny little streams and trickles that make mighty rivers in life. It is the little things of the hour that make up a noble life not the great things of an age.

Chickened, That was a nice try at explaining things to me. I am so glad that you know everything and feel comfortable educating misguided folks like me. But, while we are educating each other, I want to explain a principle of life to you: Your "little known principle in life" is a actually just your opinion. Its a nice sentiment, but hardly a "solution" to economic and social problems which are not entirely attributable to the personal failings of individuals. You would do well to consider that many factors: individual, social, economic and global affect people. It is well and good for individuals to act, and they certainly do so all the time... but when a bunch of individuals see a problem that is widespread (poverty for example) it is sometimes up to us citizens to demand that our government (who we democratically elect and employ) meet the demands of we, the taxpayer and voter. I know you find broad sweeping statements like "get rid of all social programs!" appealing and no doubt you will come up with another gem in no time, which I am looking forward to seeing.

 

[dela1991]

nope. it's a real picture. the only thing photoshopped around here is that birth certificate (ouch!)

Fowl, Were you the photographer who took this picture?

 

[Capvin]

Chickened, I read your response to the comments about hungry children and I remembered what people in Germany said about the atrocities that were being committed in front of their noses. Yes, let's take all those hungry children away from their bad parents, for they all must be bad if they have a hungry child. A hungry child is not a political cause nor is it a conservative or liberal issue, it is a hungry child and if anyone does not believe that it is their personal responsibilty to not have any child go hungry in this country then you have lost your way. Does "let them eat cake" enter into your thought process?

PS: I have sent an invitation to all 2.5 million hungry children in California to go right over to your church and wait for their free meal. Please send me the name and address.

 

[chickened]

Well , since you asked here is a gem that reaffirms my opinion... and apparently a few others misguided opinions.

The government used to run orphanages but they figured out that taking children out of government and other large orphanages and putting them in foster care with one on one contact with a loving set of parents was the best way to put stability into an abused and mistreated childs' life. So you go ahead and keep supporting your big daddy government ideas and keep sending them money but let the folks that know how to SOLVE problems do it their way. You are misguided if you think lack of personal responsibility is a social or economic problem that throwing other peoples' money at it will fix it, and yes that is my opinion andI happen to be able to observe enough that it is a good and correct one. But you are entitled to yours and entitled to support it. I support mine privately.

Chickened, That was a nice try at explaining things to me. I am so glad that you know everything and feel comfortable educating misguided folks like me. But, while we are educating each other, I want to explain a principle of life to you: Your "little known principle in life" is a actually just your opinion. Its a nice sentiment, but hardly a "solution" to economic and social problems which are not entirely attributable to the personal failings of individuals. You would do well to consider that many factors: individual, social, economic and global affect people. It is well and good for individuals to act, and they certainly do so all the time... but when a bunch of individuals see a problem that is widespread (poverty for example) it is sometimes up to us citizens to demand that our government (who we democratically elect and employ) meet the demands of we, the taxpayer and voter. I know you find broad sweeping statements like "get rid of all social programs!" appealing and no doubt you will come up with another gem in no time, which I am looking forward to seeing.

 

[RHRanch]

Well , since you asked here is a gem that reaffirms my opinion... and apparently a few others misguided opinions.

The government used to run orphanages but they figured out that taking children out of government and other large orphanages and putting them in foster care with one on one contact with a loving set of parents was the best way to put stability into an abused and mistreated childs' life. So you go ahead and keep supporting your big daddy government ideas and keep sending them money but let the folks that know how to SOLVE problems do it their way. You are misguided if you think lack of personal responsibility is a social or economic problem that throwing other peoples' money at it will fix it, and yes that is my opinion andI happen to be able to observe enough that it is a good and correct one. But you are entitled to yours and entitled to support it. I support mine privately.

Thats a good one, it was worth the wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[chickened]

Is that what you really got out of what I said? Lets see you are saying regardless whatsoever they should never go hungry? Giving food to a parent that fails to give it to their kid is a good idea? leaving that child in an abusive situation is a good idea? By your reasoning if a Nazi feeds a starving kid it is better than starvation? People in Germany were starving and they encouraged their children to join the Nazi party so to not starve. Get your history straight. Unless you are comparing poverty and hunger to the Holocaust and that is no way a fair comparison and you should be ashamed to suggest that.

I am sure someone used some facts to come up with the 2.5 million starving kids I just question how they did it.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_starvation_each_year_in_America

A few facts about your imaginary problem.

Chickened, I read your response to the comments about hungry children and I remembered what people in Germany said about the atrocities that were being committed in front of their noses. Yes, let's take all those hungry children away from their bad parents, for they all must be bad if they have a hungry child. A hungry child is not a political cause nor is it a conservative or liberal issue, it is a hungry child and if anyone does not believe that it is their personal responsibilty to not have any child go hungry in this country then you have lost your way. Does "let them eat cake" enter into your thought process?

PS: I have sent an invitation to all 2.5 million hungry children in California to go right over to your church and wait for their free meal. Please send me the name and address.