Joseph West commented on Fox News Blames Hillary Clinton For Russian Plane Crash – Because Benghazi!
2015-11-05 13:43:35 -0500
· Flag
So, using FoxNoise’s logic, that proves that 9/11 was the GOP’s fault.
9/11 was masterminded by Osama bin Laden who was living under the protection of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Osama and the Taliban got their start fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan courtesy of funding provided by the CIA (and while the program got its start under the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration put it on steroids; as part of his zeal to “balance the budget,” which he never actually did of course, Reagan could’ve cut funding the Mujahedeen entirely, recommending that the Saudis and Pakistan use a slightly larger percentage of the “foreign aid” we were sending them to “make up” the difference).
BUT since Osama didn’t actually begin fighting alongside the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan until well into the Reagan Administration, the GOP is ultimately responsible for 9/11.
Something tells me, though, that FoxNoise “logic” is extremely subjective when it comes to the “blame game.”
9/11 was masterminded by Osama bin Laden who was living under the protection of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Osama and the Taliban got their start fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan courtesy of funding provided by the CIA (and while the program got its start under the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration put it on steroids; as part of his zeal to “balance the budget,” which he never actually did of course, Reagan could’ve cut funding the Mujahedeen entirely, recommending that the Saudis and Pakistan use a slightly larger percentage of the “foreign aid” we were sending them to “make up” the difference).
BUT since Osama didn’t actually begin fighting alongside the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan until well into the Reagan Administration, the GOP is ultimately responsible for 9/11.
Something tells me, though, that FoxNoise “logic” is extremely subjective when it comes to the “blame game.”
Joseph West commented on On Fox, Donald Trump Complains About Megyn Kelly’s Debate Questions And Gets A Pass
2015-11-05 13:23:54 -0500
· Flag
TRUMP: I do say this. The networks are making a fortune with the debates. I think they should give money to the wounded warriors and to the veterans. They are making a fortune.
HANNITY: I agree with that.
I wonder if tRump and Hannity think that FoxNoise should give away the money IT made off that very first debate? Or, the upcoming FoxMonkeyBusiness debate?
And, Sean? You might want to hold back with your smarmy ass-kissing considering it’s been HOW MANY YEARS since you volunteered to be waterboarded for charity? You know, for the “troops’ families?” Okay, granted, that probably wouldn’t have brought in as much cash as what the networks have been making, but still.
Oh. One last point—this to tRump. How much money have YOU and the other candidates brought in through “donations” following your debate participation? Have you considered dipping into YOUR “personal funds” (since you can’t legally use campaign contributions for any purposes other than campaigning and you are this great businessman) to give money to charity? Perhaps a “challenge” to the networks, where you’ll match $1 for every dollar donated by the networks to charities?
Oh, but, you see, that’s NOT how “capitalism” works. Capitalism is ALL about “making money” (to most of the 1%, charity donations are seen as a “tax deduction” to save on taxes)—not “giving it away.”
HANNITY: I agree with that.
I wonder if tRump and Hannity think that FoxNoise should give away the money IT made off that very first debate? Or, the upcoming FoxMonkeyBusiness debate?
And, Sean? You might want to hold back with your smarmy ass-kissing considering it’s been HOW MANY YEARS since you volunteered to be waterboarded for charity? You know, for the “troops’ families?” Okay, granted, that probably wouldn’t have brought in as much cash as what the networks have been making, but still.
Oh. One last point—this to tRump. How much money have YOU and the other candidates brought in through “donations” following your debate participation? Have you considered dipping into YOUR “personal funds” (since you can’t legally use campaign contributions for any purposes other than campaigning and you are this great businessman) to give money to charity? Perhaps a “challenge” to the networks, where you’ll match $1 for every dollar donated by the networks to charities?
Oh, but, you see, that’s NOT how “capitalism” works. Capitalism is ALL about “making money” (to most of the 1%, charity donations are seen as a “tax deduction” to save on taxes)—not “giving it away.”
Joseph West commented on "News" Host Martha MacCallum Validates Persecuted Christian Coach
2015-11-04 01:45:57 -0500
· Flag
What Martha and the coach need to remember is that “voluntary” does NOT apply to school officials participation in religious events. The coach is more than free to pull this shit at HIS HOUSE OR HIS CHURCH and he can even invite players (who want to) to participate—that’s actually a little close to the line of unacceptable behavior but as long as non-participating players don’t face any sort of retribution while the coach is attending to his AUTHORIZED school responsibilities.
HOWEVER. The football field—even after the game is over—is still considered SCHOOL TIME for the players and the coach has NO right AS A SCHOOL OFFICIAL to engage in “post-game prayer time.” If the PLAYERS choose to indulge in a post-game prayer event, then they are allowed to under the First Amendment. BUT THE COACH CANNOT BE THERE, EXCEPT TO SUPERVISE. HE CANNOT PARTICIPATE, MUCH LESS LEAD THE SESSION.
(Priscilla, the case you listed—and the link isn’t working at this time—may NOT apply here. That case dealt with prayer DURING the football games, though generally before the start of the game itself; that’s still pretty much a part OF the football game in terms of the gametime. Especially with high school games, the “starting” time for the game is up to 30 minutes before the actual kick-off so that fans can get settled in and relatively comfortable before the players take the field. But this case involves, at least as I understand the case, players on an empty field after the game is over. I still don’t support the practice, for reasons listed above, but I think there’s enough difference between this situation and the Santa Fe case that SCOTUS could likely view this as, effectively, little different from a school prayer group. Unless I missed a pretty major case, SCOTUS has ruled that students may still engage in student-led, student-organized prayer groups and clubs—provided the school doesn’t discriminate against other groups and clubs which may not enjoy certain levels of “community” or school administration approval, like Gay-Straight Alliances or Young Communists or Young Democrats.)
HOWEVER. The football field—even after the game is over—is still considered SCHOOL TIME for the players and the coach has NO right AS A SCHOOL OFFICIAL to engage in “post-game prayer time.” If the PLAYERS choose to indulge in a post-game prayer event, then they are allowed to under the First Amendment. BUT THE COACH CANNOT BE THERE, EXCEPT TO SUPERVISE. HE CANNOT PARTICIPATE, MUCH LESS LEAD THE SESSION.
(Priscilla, the case you listed—and the link isn’t working at this time—may NOT apply here. That case dealt with prayer DURING the football games, though generally before the start of the game itself; that’s still pretty much a part OF the football game in terms of the gametime. Especially with high school games, the “starting” time for the game is up to 30 minutes before the actual kick-off so that fans can get settled in and relatively comfortable before the players take the field. But this case involves, at least as I understand the case, players on an empty field after the game is over. I still don’t support the practice, for reasons listed above, but I think there’s enough difference between this situation and the Santa Fe case that SCOTUS could likely view this as, effectively, little different from a school prayer group. Unless I missed a pretty major case, SCOTUS has ruled that students may still engage in student-led, student-organized prayer groups and clubs—provided the school doesn’t discriminate against other groups and clubs which may not enjoy certain levels of “community” or school administration approval, like Gay-Straight Alliances or Young Communists or Young Democrats.)
Joseph West commented on Fox & Friends "Dads" Perv On Women's Leggings?!
2015-11-02 02:15:29 -0500
· Flag
These pervy “dads” might not want their daughters wearing leggings, but I’ll guarantee you every single one of them would certainly hit on a lady wearing leggings (especially if their physiques were “correctly proportioned”).
And, if Robertson has any real daughters (or a real wife, for that matter), he’d know that LEGGINGS cover a woman’s “lady parts” (it’s either that or Robertson’s confusing what leggings are—they cover “lady parts” just as well as jeans, slacks or even panty hose).
And, if Robertson has any real daughters (or a real wife, for that matter), he’d know that LEGGINGS cover a woman’s “lady parts” (it’s either that or Robertson’s confusing what leggings are—they cover “lady parts” just as well as jeans, slacks or even panty hose).
Joseph West commented on Fox Doesn’t Tell The Whole Story About Greg Abbott’s Effort To Ban ‘Sanctuary Cities’ In Texas
2015-11-01 01:32:55 -0400
· Flag
Abbott said, “Texas is going to be one of the states that passes a law that outlaws sanctuary cities because it’s fundamental that law enforcement officers in this state must follow and apply the Constitutional laws of the United States and of the state of Texas.”
Except, of course, the “Constitutional laws of the United States” that Texas feels it doesn’t need to follow—like marriage equality.
Except, of course, the “Constitutional laws of the United States” that Texas feels it doesn’t need to follow—like marriage equality.
Joseph West commented on Reince Priebus Vows No More ‘Crap Sandwich’ Debates On CNBC
2015-10-30 12:31:00 -0400
· Flag
Dave, the only problem with your suggestion is that the FoxNoise debates would wind up getting coverage by the mainstream networks and, DOYC knows, UpChuck Todd would end up having the “debate winner” on his show, giving more exposure which would lead to the other Sunday morning shows on the mainstream networks giving air time to some, if not all, of the other candidates.
So, as much as *we*’d like to see the GOP Klown Kar have all their debates on FoxNoise, they, unfortunately, would still wind up on the REAL networks (such as they are).
Also, don’t forget that the first debate pulled in more non-regular viewers of FoxNoise for that ONE night than the network gets in a whole year of their regular shows.
So, as much as *we*’d like to see the GOP Klown Kar have all their debates on FoxNoise, they, unfortunately, would still wind up on the REAL networks (such as they are).
Also, don’t forget that the first debate pulled in more non-regular viewers of FoxNoise for that ONE night than the network gets in a whole year of their regular shows.
Joseph West commented on Is Fox’s Bret Baier Taking Over The O’Reilly Factor? Moving To Prime Time?
2015-10-30 01:07:47 -0400
· Flag
Antoinette wrote “Billy would retire, hang with his kids, and continue to write his books . . . .”
Well……….I don’t know about that. If old Billy-Boy did retire, then he’d be out of the spotlight. He’d actually have to ask to appear on shows to hawk his books, and that would be a serious blow to his ego. His recent books haven’t really been the type that would get him invited to shows—none of the acceptable “red meat” for the “red state” FoxNoise viewers. And, ironically, he’s been trying, with his recent efforts, to gain “critical” acclaim for his “serious” works, rather than his earlier bloviating “blame the liberals for all the world’s woes” stuff.
As for the kids, that’s taking a big leap that THEY want him to “hang with” them. And without all that filthy FoxNoise lucre coming in, he won’t be able to bribe them to spend time with him.
And, as we’ve seen before, FoxNoise isn’t one to take many risks with their “popular” hosts unless the host does something that really ticks off Murdoch and/or Ailes. (Even if Rupert isn’t that involved with FoxNoise, he’d still be likely to have some input in who appears on “his” network.)
Well……….I don’t know about that. If old Billy-Boy did retire, then he’d be out of the spotlight. He’d actually have to ask to appear on shows to hawk his books, and that would be a serious blow to his ego. His recent books haven’t really been the type that would get him invited to shows—none of the acceptable “red meat” for the “red state” FoxNoise viewers. And, ironically, he’s been trying, with his recent efforts, to gain “critical” acclaim for his “serious” works, rather than his earlier bloviating “blame the liberals for all the world’s woes” stuff.
As for the kids, that’s taking a big leap that THEY want him to “hang with” them. And without all that filthy FoxNoise lucre coming in, he won’t be able to bribe them to spend time with him.
And, as we’ve seen before, FoxNoise isn’t one to take many risks with their “popular” hosts unless the host does something that really ticks off Murdoch and/or Ailes. (Even if Rupert isn’t that involved with FoxNoise, he’d still be likely to have some input in who appears on “his” network.)
Joseph West commented on Fox’s Brian Kilmeade Inadvertently Reveals What’s Wrong With A Restaurant Discount For Gun-Toting Customers
2015-10-29 15:50:43 -0400
· Flag
Well, we see how well things went during the robbery, don’t we?
The allegedly armed customer claims he WOULD have done something but only IF “it became life or death but not until then.” So, a “good guy with a gun” (the type the NRA and the gun nuts always wish for) who was present in the restaurant didn’t do anything to stop the “bad guy with a gun.” I guess the “good guy with a gun” just wanted to finish his oh-so-important dinner rather than be bothered lending any help to the poor cashier with the gun in his/her face.
And, of course, these idiots don’t stop to think about a situation where an armed robber might have an accomplice (or several accomplices) sitting in the restaurant just waiting for the robbery to happen.
The allegedly armed customer claims he WOULD have done something but only IF “it became life or death but not until then.” So, a “good guy with a gun” (the type the NRA and the gun nuts always wish for) who was present in the restaurant didn’t do anything to stop the “bad guy with a gun.” I guess the “good guy with a gun” just wanted to finish his oh-so-important dinner rather than be bothered lending any help to the poor cashier with the gun in his/her face.
And, of course, these idiots don’t stop to think about a situation where an armed robber might have an accomplice (or several accomplices) sitting in the restaurant just waiting for the robbery to happen.
Joseph West commented on Fox's Favorite Sheriff Warns #BlackLivesMatter Will Soon 'Join Forces With ISIS'
2015-10-28 14:55:20 -0400
· Flag
Clarke’s an idiot. And I have to wonder how he got elected to the job?
Joseph West commented on Fox’s Jesse Watters Kicked Off Cornell Campus
2015-10-28 01:25:40 -0400
· Flag
Watters should’ve been arrested for trespassing. Cornell University is a PRIVATE university and so the only people who should be on the campus are those who were properly invited.
Maybe O’Reilly needs Russell Brand to remind him of how Brand was treated by FoxNoise security while Brand was on a CITY SIDEWALK.
Maybe O’Reilly needs Russell Brand to remind him of how Brand was treated by FoxNoise security while Brand was on a CITY SIDEWALK.
Joseph West commented on Are Rupert Murdoch And Mick Jagger Ex Jerry Hall An Item?
2015-10-27 12:18:37 -0400
· Flag
What I don’t understand is that Jerry Hall is actually 12 years OLDER than Rupert’s last wife.
At this rate, by the time Rupert’s 120, he’ll actually be dating women his own age.
At this rate, by the time Rupert’s 120, he’ll actually be dating women his own age.
Joseph West commented on Bill O’Reilly Wants The San Francisco Board Of Supervisors Arrested
2015-10-27 01:36:50 -0400
· Flag
Ed, would you just go the fuck away.
Last I heard, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the legality of “sanctuary cities.” It’s worth pointing out to you—since you’re so fucking ready to bring up the Kentucky Cow—that the BIBLE itself (the same item that Davis uses to back up HER illegal actions) not only permitted sanctuary cities, they were MANDATED BY GOD. (And, in the Biblical case, these were refuges for people who’d actually killed or gravely wounded others but feared they wouldn’t get a fair and just hearing.) Now, the Supreme Court DID rule on marriage equality and Davis went against not only local court decisions but defied the Supreme Court as well.
But, really, why are right-wingers like you so upset? You had no problem when certain fascist states (like Texas and Arizona) chose to violate the President’s directives on undocumented aliens because the governors of these states believed that THEY had a “right” to enforce Federal laws when the Federal government itself didn’t. (For the record, they DON’T. There is NO Constitutional provision by which a state has the right to dictate foreign policy—and when you’re dealing with undocumented aliens, that crosses into foreign policy.) But when a local government chooses to adopt its own policies regarding undocumented aliens (and the Feds aren’t overly concerned about the policies), you right-wingers go into a fucking frenzy. Pick ONE side, you moron. You can’t have it both ways. Either local governments DO have a right to determine how they want to deal with undocumented aliens or they don’t. But you can’t whine when their policy isn’t what you want.
Last I heard, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the legality of “sanctuary cities.” It’s worth pointing out to you—since you’re so fucking ready to bring up the Kentucky Cow—that the BIBLE itself (the same item that Davis uses to back up HER illegal actions) not only permitted sanctuary cities, they were MANDATED BY GOD. (And, in the Biblical case, these were refuges for people who’d actually killed or gravely wounded others but feared they wouldn’t get a fair and just hearing.) Now, the Supreme Court DID rule on marriage equality and Davis went against not only local court decisions but defied the Supreme Court as well.
But, really, why are right-wingers like you so upset? You had no problem when certain fascist states (like Texas and Arizona) chose to violate the President’s directives on undocumented aliens because the governors of these states believed that THEY had a “right” to enforce Federal laws when the Federal government itself didn’t. (For the record, they DON’T. There is NO Constitutional provision by which a state has the right to dictate foreign policy—and when you’re dealing with undocumented aliens, that crosses into foreign policy.) But when a local government chooses to adopt its own policies regarding undocumented aliens (and the Feds aren’t overly concerned about the policies), you right-wingers go into a fucking frenzy. Pick ONE side, you moron. You can’t have it both ways. Either local governments DO have a right to determine how they want to deal with undocumented aliens or they don’t. But you can’t whine when their policy isn’t what you want.
Joseph West commented on Ben Carson Can’t Explain His Own Medicare-Killing Program To Chris Wallace
2015-10-26 01:22:54 -0400
· Flag
He can’t explain it because no one’s actually explained it to HIM.
And, Ed, just stop with your lying bullshit. Carson HIMSELF pulled the biggest crock of shit when he said, “Well, remember, you already if you’re a regular person have a job. And they’re already giving you some health benefits.”
NO! Most businesses are NOT “giving you some health benefits.” That’s an outright fucking lie, and you right-wingers simply don’t get it. And the businesses that DO “give” health benefits are now largely taking money from YOU, the employee.
The last time I got sick, I went to a clinic (I know I should find a regular doctor, but I really don’t have time to “research” the various doctors AND check to make sure they do take my insurance). I’ve got a pretty good health care plan through my work but I still have to pay $25 just to be seen. (Believe me, you right-wing loon, I know how much I’d have to pay WITHOUT insurance. The last time it happened, it cost me nearly $200 JUST TO BE SEEN. That’s no examination, no bloodwork—nothing. Just to be seen by a doctor. And that was more than a decade ago—I’d hate to imagine how much it would cost now. But I digress…..) When my insurance company sends me “the bill” (which, so far, I’ve not actually owed anymore), they break down how much the doctor “charged” for each service compared to what the insurance paid (and, without fail, the doctor charged MORE for EVERY procedure and test than the insurance provider would cover). Because the clinic is “in the network,” the clinic doesn’t actually bill the difference. Just as an example, let’s say the clinic says a routine blood panel costs $150, but the insurer will only pay $100. The clinic is willing to take that $100 (being a “network provider”) instead of charging me the $50 difference. BUT, if I didn’t have insurance, I would have to pay that FULL $150 charge—unless, the clinic is “padding” the bill to the insurance company. (I don’t have my paperwork from the time I didn’t have insurance as it’s been well over a decade. I only remember the “co-pay” because I had to go to an ATM to get cash; they accepted credit card payments for the rest of the bill but that initial office visit charge was cash-only.)
So, please tell me where all this “accessibility” is NOW for people without insurance (or, for that matter, where it was before the ACA was passed.) You know, people who didn’t have that “middle man” involved in the first place.
And, Ed, just stop with your lying bullshit. Carson HIMSELF pulled the biggest crock of shit when he said, “Well, remember, you already if you’re a regular person have a job. And they’re already giving you some health benefits.”
NO! Most businesses are NOT “giving you some health benefits.” That’s an outright fucking lie, and you right-wingers simply don’t get it. And the businesses that DO “give” health benefits are now largely taking money from YOU, the employee.
The last time I got sick, I went to a clinic (I know I should find a regular doctor, but I really don’t have time to “research” the various doctors AND check to make sure they do take my insurance). I’ve got a pretty good health care plan through my work but I still have to pay $25 just to be seen. (Believe me, you right-wing loon, I know how much I’d have to pay WITHOUT insurance. The last time it happened, it cost me nearly $200 JUST TO BE SEEN. That’s no examination, no bloodwork—nothing. Just to be seen by a doctor. And that was more than a decade ago—I’d hate to imagine how much it would cost now. But I digress…..) When my insurance company sends me “the bill” (which, so far, I’ve not actually owed anymore), they break down how much the doctor “charged” for each service compared to what the insurance paid (and, without fail, the doctor charged MORE for EVERY procedure and test than the insurance provider would cover). Because the clinic is “in the network,” the clinic doesn’t actually bill the difference. Just as an example, let’s say the clinic says a routine blood panel costs $150, but the insurer will only pay $100. The clinic is willing to take that $100 (being a “network provider”) instead of charging me the $50 difference. BUT, if I didn’t have insurance, I would have to pay that FULL $150 charge—unless, the clinic is “padding” the bill to the insurance company. (I don’t have my paperwork from the time I didn’t have insurance as it’s been well over a decade. I only remember the “co-pay” because I had to go to an ATM to get cash; they accepted credit card payments for the rest of the bill but that initial office visit charge was cash-only.)
So, please tell me where all this “accessibility” is NOW for people without insurance (or, for that matter, where it was before the ACA was passed.) You know, people who didn’t have that “middle man” involved in the first place.
Joseph West commented on While Fox Condemns #BlackLivesMatter Rhetoric, It Condones This Disgusting Talk About Hurricane Patricia On Fox Nation
2015-10-25 02:03:31 -0400
· Flag
Just wait till the remnants of this storm hit Texas in the next day or so.
The state’s already experiencing massive flash floods from very heavy rainfall and the forecast is for Patricia to add to it. Most of the eastern 1/3 of Texas is expected to see some massive rainfall over the next few days (one area currently inundated is the Corsicana area, which has already received more than 20" from NON-hurricane-related rainfall).
We can expect to see the Texas Teabaggers in Congress begging for Federal aid any day now. And just in time for the latest Teabagger threat to “shut down the government”.
The state’s already experiencing massive flash floods from very heavy rainfall and the forecast is for Patricia to add to it. Most of the eastern 1/3 of Texas is expected to see some massive rainfall over the next few days (one area currently inundated is the Corsicana area, which has already received more than 20" from NON-hurricane-related rainfall).
We can expect to see the Texas Teabaggers in Congress begging for Federal aid any day now. And just in time for the latest Teabagger threat to “shut down the government”.
Joseph West commented on It's Benghazi Time!
2015-10-22 17:10:57 -0400
· Flag
@ truman: I did a quick check on Daniel Celmer’s other comments and, based on those, I’m almost willing to bet that he was being sarcastic.
OTOH, given that his last comment was 1 month ago—“this is not surprising considering fox is fake news.” from http://www.newshounds.us/yes_fox_news_blames_obama_for_france_train_attack_082415—and, before that, nothing more recent than 5 months ago, he might have gone over to the Dark Side, or his “troll recruitment” check from FoxNution.com finally cleared the bank so he can now stop his Fox-bashing posts. (I really doubt that latter point since that would suggest some sort of conscience on Daniel’s part and Fox-paid trolls tend to lack those.)
OTOH, given that his last comment was 1 month ago—“this is not surprising considering fox is fake news.” from http://www.newshounds.us/yes_fox_news_blames_obama_for_france_train_attack_082415—and, before that, nothing more recent than 5 months ago, he might have gone over to the Dark Side, or his “troll recruitment” check from FoxNution.com finally cleared the bank so he can now stop his Fox-bashing posts. (I really doubt that latter point since that would suggest some sort of conscience on Daniel’s part and Fox-paid trolls tend to lack those.)
Joseph West commented on O’Reilly Whitesplains Poverty To A Formerly Homeless Attorney
2015-10-22 16:13:39 -0400
· Flag
Obviously, BillO doesn’t understand how the “black market” works.
“. . . who squander the food stamps that come in, who sell them on the black market.”
If you have $100 worth of food stamps, the “black market” won’t give you $100 in cash for them and I doubt that anyone’s going to want to buy food stamps from the “black market” because the “black market” will charge MORE than face value for them. It’s not like scalping where you might be willing to pay $1000 for a $100 concert seat; there’s no one who has $1000 in cash who’s going to be stupid enough (or desperate enough) to buy $100 worth of food stamps. Hell, if you’ve got $100.01 in cash, why would you turn around and spend that on $100 in food stamps? (Okay—maybe to avoid sales tax but a lot of states don’t tax food at all and food stamps can’t generally be used to purchase the types of food that may be taxed in other states. Some states that don’t tax general grocery food items will however tax prepared grocery store deli or bakery items as well as food from restaurants—fast food and otherwise. But still, if you’ve got the cash, spending it to get black-market food stamps is a bit absurd.)
Anyways………..food stamps are generally a “once-a-month” deal. If you sell them on the “black market” for “spending cash,” you only have cash to last you for that month. Once that’s gone, there’s no more till the next month rolls around. And, food stamps aren’t a “one-size-fits-all” deal. Single people using food stamps don’t get as much as a single person with 3 dependents or a married couple with zero dependents, etc. And, if you’ve got even a part-time job, you may qualify for food stamps but at a reduced level.
Then there’s also, as realtors say, “location, location, location.” Where you live can affect how your food stamp allotment travels. Most inner-city food stamp beneficiaries may not have a real selection of outlets at which to spend them. Small markets in poor neighborhoods tend to have less fresh produce (and what there is may be more expensive) or lean meat and fish options (even “scrap” meats—like bones for soup and things like tripe and oxtails—can be pretty expensive for what they are). And, in a lot of larger cities, transportation can be a factor in getting to the market (a neighborhood market where it costs $10 for a package of ground beef versus a Wal-Mart 10 miles away where the same package of ground beef is only $7.50—but the trip to Wal-Mart involves a one-way trip of at least 30 minutes since most city-owned buses don’t offer “non-stop” routes; so the neighborhood market may seem more expensive but, in the end, the cost when factoring in time and travel expense means the Wal-Mart isn’t really all that much cheaper).
“. . . who squander the food stamps that come in, who sell them on the black market.”
If you have $100 worth of food stamps, the “black market” won’t give you $100 in cash for them and I doubt that anyone’s going to want to buy food stamps from the “black market” because the “black market” will charge MORE than face value for them. It’s not like scalping where you might be willing to pay $1000 for a $100 concert seat; there’s no one who has $1000 in cash who’s going to be stupid enough (or desperate enough) to buy $100 worth of food stamps. Hell, if you’ve got $100.01 in cash, why would you turn around and spend that on $100 in food stamps? (Okay—maybe to avoid sales tax but a lot of states don’t tax food at all and food stamps can’t generally be used to purchase the types of food that may be taxed in other states. Some states that don’t tax general grocery food items will however tax prepared grocery store deli or bakery items as well as food from restaurants—fast food and otherwise. But still, if you’ve got the cash, spending it to get black-market food stamps is a bit absurd.)
Anyways………..food stamps are generally a “once-a-month” deal. If you sell them on the “black market” for “spending cash,” you only have cash to last you for that month. Once that’s gone, there’s no more till the next month rolls around. And, food stamps aren’t a “one-size-fits-all” deal. Single people using food stamps don’t get as much as a single person with 3 dependents or a married couple with zero dependents, etc. And, if you’ve got even a part-time job, you may qualify for food stamps but at a reduced level.
Then there’s also, as realtors say, “location, location, location.” Where you live can affect how your food stamp allotment travels. Most inner-city food stamp beneficiaries may not have a real selection of outlets at which to spend them. Small markets in poor neighborhoods tend to have less fresh produce (and what there is may be more expensive) or lean meat and fish options (even “scrap” meats—like bones for soup and things like tripe and oxtails—can be pretty expensive for what they are). And, in a lot of larger cities, transportation can be a factor in getting to the market (a neighborhood market where it costs $10 for a package of ground beef versus a Wal-Mart 10 miles away where the same package of ground beef is only $7.50—but the trip to Wal-Mart involves a one-way trip of at least 30 minutes since most city-owned buses don’t offer “non-stop” routes; so the neighborhood market may seem more expensive but, in the end, the cost when factoring in time and travel expense means the Wal-Mart isn’t really all that much cheaper).
Joseph West commented on Bill O’Reilly Threatens GOP Sen. Kirk To ‘Wise Up’ And Support ‘Kate’s Law’ Or ‘I’m Coming After Him’
2015-10-21 02:52:57 -0400
· Flag
No, Ed, it should NOT be passed. After all, the bill would do NOTHING to prevent ANYONE from being MURDERED by American CITIZENS.
When the right-wing starts taking the deaths of INNOCENT African-Americans at the hands of police, or in police custody, with as much gravity as they do white people, we’ll talk about these stupid laws.
But, the simplest fact is that “mandatory minimums” are a useless punishment. We’ve had to deal with the “three strikes” laws for decades, only to have people put in prison for years, even decades, for fairly minor offenses (like marijuana possession) but they had the misfortune of being caught and tried three times. Meanwhile, rapists and murderers can manage to get out on parole (something typically denied people tried under “three strikes”).
Furthermore, JUDGES (even some fairly strong conservatives) despise “mandatory minimums” because they remove a key aspect of the judicial process. But, they’re hampered by state legislators (and, in some cases, members of Congress) who decide the only way to be “tough on crime” is to force a judge and jury to ignore the circumstances of a particular crime and impose a punishment (which literally may not fit the actual crime).
And, Ed, I don’t think you could “pass it in a heartbeat.” That implies that you have a heart.
Oh. Just a little more food for thought. Who’s going to pay for the undocumented immigrants who get busted and then incarcerated for violating “Kate’s Law?” The goal should be to deport undocumented immigrants, right? So. You pass this law, and all you’re doing basically is offering an incentive for undocumented immigrants to WANT to get busted, be deported and then get busted again. They go on trial, found guilty, then put in prison for X number of years—all of which is paid for by YOUR tax dollars. If they’re not going to be incarcerated, then what’s going to prevent an undocumented immigrant busted under “Kate’s Law” from “repeat offending?”
Just go away, Ed. I think FoxNution and RedState are missing your “contributions.”
When the right-wing starts taking the deaths of INNOCENT African-Americans at the hands of police, or in police custody, with as much gravity as they do white people, we’ll talk about these stupid laws.
But, the simplest fact is that “mandatory minimums” are a useless punishment. We’ve had to deal with the “three strikes” laws for decades, only to have people put in prison for years, even decades, for fairly minor offenses (like marijuana possession) but they had the misfortune of being caught and tried three times. Meanwhile, rapists and murderers can manage to get out on parole (something typically denied people tried under “three strikes”).
Furthermore, JUDGES (even some fairly strong conservatives) despise “mandatory minimums” because they remove a key aspect of the judicial process. But, they’re hampered by state legislators (and, in some cases, members of Congress) who decide the only way to be “tough on crime” is to force a judge and jury to ignore the circumstances of a particular crime and impose a punishment (which literally may not fit the actual crime).
And, Ed, I don’t think you could “pass it in a heartbeat.” That implies that you have a heart.
Oh. Just a little more food for thought. Who’s going to pay for the undocumented immigrants who get busted and then incarcerated for violating “Kate’s Law?” The goal should be to deport undocumented immigrants, right? So. You pass this law, and all you’re doing basically is offering an incentive for undocumented immigrants to WANT to get busted, be deported and then get busted again. They go on trial, found guilty, then put in prison for X number of years—all of which is paid for by YOUR tax dollars. If they’re not going to be incarcerated, then what’s going to prevent an undocumented immigrant busted under “Kate’s Law” from “repeat offending?”
Just go away, Ed. I think FoxNution and RedState are missing your “contributions.”
Joseph West commented on Watch O’Reilly Issue His Marching Orders To The Benghazi Committee
2015-10-20 12:37:18 -0400
· Flag
I’d love for Hillary to say, in response to the “additional security” request, “Well, as you know, this was period of time when the House—which, at the time, was under Republican leadership—decided that FUNDING to pay for the additional security that had been requested for dozens of embassies and consulates around the world was NOT necessary. And, as I’m certain the esteemed members of this committee are aware, the State Department cannot simply produce money out of thin air. If State is denied funding requests for security, State cannot simply redirect funding for security matters without affecting the security of other embassies and consulates.”
With such a response, it would also be interesting if Hillary spoke the words “leadership” and “esteemed” in a sarcastic way.
With such a response, it would also be interesting if Hillary spoke the words “leadership” and “esteemed” in a sarcastic way.
Joseph West commented on Fox & Friends Supports CJ Pearson's Claim That Liberal Teacher Dissed Him
2015-10-20 01:24:16 -0400
· Flag
Too bad FoxNoise isn’t willing to come to the aid of other kids who get bullied in school—even by teachers. Granted, most of these kids are LGBT but, I seem to recall when a teacher got punished by her school for a private Facebook page that was critical of LGBT students, FoxNoise defended the BULLYING TEACHER, rather than the students. The students, as I recall, were told to just get thicker skins and stop whining and to leave the poor teacher alone.