In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid $1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food
stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

It's more like this: They may be fat but could also be malnourished.

That's exactly right. Wow.

--

If they're fat, they're getting more than enough of those "calories" jd was
blubbering about
If they were as "malnourished" and you moronic goalpost movers claim, they
wouldn't have the strength to stuff their faces.

A four hundred pound man or woman may have the strength to stuff their
faces but do they have the strength needed to walk two miles?

I have heart disease and Mary and I walk about one or two miles per day.

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:01:23 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The
cop would ask him for his driver's license and his green card. If
the green card info. checks out, he would not have to be concerned
about being sent back to Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or
running a red light.

Except that American citizens have no duty to carry papers. Police
don't have the right to ask you every day to show that you are a
citizen.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he
could be arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick
him up since he was not an American citizen and did not have a green
card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you
support Supreme Court decisions?


There is a requirement that legal immigrants to America must carry
green cards.



Not if they are naturalized US citizens.


I have no problem with cops asking latinos to show them
their green cards when they are pulled over for law violations such as
speeding or running red lights.


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

If Arnold S. does not have a legal American driver's license, he could be
placed in jail if he was driving on a state road in Arizona.

A driver's license in most states means the person is an American citizen.
I had to show the DMV officials in California my Virginia Birth
Certificate before I could be issued a Calif. driver's license.

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0206131453240001@66-53-217-
93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

If he is a legal citizen of America, he has nothing to worry about.


He is not a legal citizen, he is resident alien
married to an American, on a valid visa. How long
will Sheriff Joe hold him in jail while he verifies
this?

How long does it take to check a person's immigration status? I thought
they had some sort of quick check system.

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:01:23 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The
cop would ask him for his driver's license and his green card. If
the green card info. checks out, he would not have to be concerned
about being sent back to Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or
running a red light.

Except that American citizens have no duty to carry papers. Police
don't have the right to ask you every day to show that you are a
citizen.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he
could be arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick
him up since he was not an American citizen and did not have a green
card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you
support Supreme Court decisions?


There is a requirement that legal immigrants to America must carry
green cards.



Not if they are naturalized US citizens.


I have no problem with cops asking latinos to show them
their green cards when they are pulled over for law violations such as
speeding or running red lights.


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

If Arnold S. does not have a legal American driver's license, he could be
placed in jail if he was driving on a state road in Arizona.

A driver's license in most states means the person is an American citizen.

It absolutely does NOT mean that.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

No, it most definitely is not.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:50:04 -0700, Jason wrote:



A driver's license in most states means the person is an American citizen.
I had to show the DMV officials in California my Virginia Birth
Certificate before I could be issued a Calif. driver's license.

It does not mean you are a citizen. To obtain a California
driving licence, you have to prove your identity by
providing one of the following:

.... the original or a certified copy of one of the following
documents is acceptable:

¡EUS Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local
vital statistics office)
¡EUS Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad
¡EFederal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
¡EUSCIS American Indian Card
¡EBirth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
¡EUS Passport or US Passport Card
¡EUS Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty,
dependent of a military member, retired member, discharged
from service, medical/religious personnel)
¡ECommon Access Card (only if designated as Active military
or Active Reserve or Active Selected Reserve)
¡ECertificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
¡ENorthern Mariana Card
¡EUSCIS US Citizen ID Card
¡EPermanent Resident Card
¡ETemporary Resident Identification Card
¡ECanadian Passport/Birth Certificate
¡ENon¡Vresident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
¡EValid foreign passport with a valid Record of
Arrival/Departure (form I¡V94)
¡E"Processed for I¡V551" stamped in a valid foreign passport
¡EPermanent Resident Re¡Ventry Permit
¡ERefugee travel document
¡ECertified court order or judgment issued from a court of
competent jurisdiction. Must contain name, birth date, place
of birth, legal presence status, and judge¡¦s signature.
¡ECertification from California Department of Corrections or
California Youth Authority
¡EEmployment Authorization Card
¡EValid I¡V94 stamped "Refugee," "Parole or Parolee,"
"Asylee," or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section
212d(2), HP or PIP
¡EValid I¡V94 with attached photo stamped "Processed for I¡V551
temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent
residence"
¡ENotice of Action (I¡V797 Approved Petition) ¡V must indicate
approved extension of stay or change in status that grants
temporary or permanent residency, or indicates that an
original, duplicate or renewal Resident Alien card is
forthcoming.
¡EImmigration judge¡¦s order granting asylum
¡EMexican Border Crossing Card with valid I¡V94
¡EU.S. Border Crossing Identification card with valid I¡V94

See how many valid and acceptable proofs of identity you can
spot which do not require US citizenship.

Then consider the fact that I could get a valid California
driver's licence simply by flying to LA, shacking up with
Jeanne for a couple of weeks (for a proper address rather
than a hotel) and facing the endurance obstacle course that
is the DMV.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 19:45:16 -0500, NotMe wrote:

"Jason" wrote in message
...

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

Bahahahahahahahaahahaha you expect drug dealers to not only respond to
questions but to do so honestly?

It's been done before. If one can persuade a dealer that
the responses are anonymous and without legal consequences
-- a big If, admittedly -- they can and do furnish useful
information. That said, I very much doubt whether a street
dealer has the inclination to accept anything other than
cash for his drugs. Why should he bother with the hassle of
trying to fence or exchange food stamps or stolen goods when
he knows full well that his customers are desperate enough
to do this chore for him?

The one sure way to find out either way would be to question
drug dealers once they have been arrested (which, I am
reliably informed, does occur with depressing frequency).
Offer to exchange their full and frank and truthful
cooperation with researchers for three months knocked off
their sentence, and I am pretty certain that researchers
would be able to obtain all the information they want.

On Jun 2, 10:50*pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote :





In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43*am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
* * The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for * * Innuit ?

* *My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. *What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the
immigration status of people they pull over for committing traffic
violations or other types of law violations.

* * They cannot jail them just for suspicion of illegal entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who ever claimed that they ever intended to do that? Just you libs,
who didn't even read the law. Geeez

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 21:04:40 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...



People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.


And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?

Only you, because you didn't bother to read up on what we're
talking about.

On Jun 3, 1:51*am, (Jason) wrote:
In article , Mitchell





Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote innews:Jason-0206131453240001@66-53-217-
93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
* * The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
* * Innuit ?

* * My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

If he is a legal citizen of America, he has nothing to worry about.

* *He is not a legal citizen, he is resident alien
married to an American, on a valid visa. How long
will Sheriff Joe hold him in jail while he verifies
this?

How long does it take to check a person's immigration status? I thought
they had some sort of quick check system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He hands the officer that valid visa when first asked and the
officer gives him his traffic warning or ticket, wishes him a good
day, and sends him on his way.....

Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks? In NYC, they are profiling people and stopping them
on the streets without any other reason for coming in contact
with the police, other than that the officer thinks they look
suspicious. In the case of AZ, the law says that they person
must have another reason for coming into contact with the
officer first. So, why aren't you bitching about your boy
Bloomberg?

On Jun 2, 10:04*pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...





On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:ca9kq85s8of3j3n6acr6vc76c4v07luusn@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse..
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow
a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas
?
* * *Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
* * *Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. *And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist..

And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only those that have eyes and can think. The KoolAid drinkers, not
so much. For them, excuses like "hills" and preferring cheese poofs
to broccoli are enough to qualify as "food deserts"......

On Jun 2, 9:04*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"Alex W." wrote in message

...





On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food
stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse..
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow
a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas ?
* * Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
* * Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles instead
of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. *And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

Bad assumption. *I've lived in rural areas off and on for most of my life.
Most recently W NC where one literally (long story) has to drive 40 miles to
get a traffic ticket.

Food stores in the area were 30+ miles in any direction. *There were no
farmers' market and the only place to get fresh veg was from your own back
yard. *Fruit was location specific and very seasonal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And we're supposed to believe that in the middle of this wilderness,
there were McDonalds and Taco Bell's on every corner, right?

I can see it now folks. A new federal agency, charged with making
sure that there everyone has a world class supermarket within a
short walk of their home, regardless of how populated the area is.
We'll spend trillions and won't stop until every "food desert" has
been eliminated! Oh, and since the definition of "food desert"
includes hilly areas, we'll have to level those too......

On Jun 2, 7:27*pm, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:14:34 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:





In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended..
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor..

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?

Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

That is your guess even though the Department of Agriculture continually
investigates levels of fraud and finds that it it currently around 1% of
benefits.

You mean just like Eric Holder investigates himself and his dept
and continually finds that everything is A OK?




Why should we listen to your ignorant guess when there is
actual evidence?

Probably because like so many of us, he's actually seen plenty
of fat people loading up carts with food at the supermarket,
getting into cars that are only a few years old. He's seen the
total failure of the "War on poverty". Despite all the trillions
spent on welfare, food stamps, over 50 years, the poverty rate
is still about what it was in 1965. But we do have whole
generations of families living off it and all the fatherless homes
that come with it, because that's how you can qualify.
And as to who is ignorant, you just proposed that we accept an audit
of a
program by the very agency that runs it. Good grief you're dumb!

" wrote in
:


Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?


Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

As was Guiliani before him.

What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

On 6/3/2013 1:15 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Driving While Brown.

On Jun 3, 9:41*am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote :



Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?

* * Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

* * As was Guiliani before him.

* * What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

Bloomberg is *not* a Republican. He was a Democrat and pretended
to switch parties only briefly so that he could run for Mayor.
Shortly thereafter, he
became an "independent", which he remains to this day.

And yes NYC is a liberal city. Bloomberg is a liberal. He rails
against
smoking, against salt, against cars. He tried to limit the size of
soft drinks you
can buy. Why do you not accept one of your own?

On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

On 6/3/2013 7:02 AM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 19:45:16 -0500, NotMe wrote:

"Jason" wrote in message
...

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

Bahahahahahahahaahahaha you expect drug dealers to not only respond to
questions but to do so honestly?

It's been done before. If one can persuade a dealer that
the responses are anonymous and without legal consequences
-- a big If, admittedly -- they can and do furnish useful
information. That said, I very much doubt whether a street
dealer has the inclination to accept anything other than
cash for his drugs. Why should he bother with the hassle of
trying to fence or exchange food stamps or stolen goods when
he knows full well that his customers are desperate enough
to do this chore for him?

The one sure way to find out either way would be to question
drug dealers once they have been arrested (which, I am
reliably informed, does occur with depressing frequency).
Offer to exchange their full and frank and truthful
cooperation with researchers for three months knocked off
their sentence, and I am pretty certain that researchers
would be able to obtain all the information they want.

I'm not sure you'd be able to reliably get anything from them that might
be considered a trade secret, though.

On 6/3/2013 8:12 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:50 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote :





In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?

My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the
immigration status of people they pull over for committing traffic
violations or other types of law violations.

They cannot jail them just for suspicion of illegal entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who ever claimed that they ever intended to do that? Just you libs,
who didn't even read the law. Geeez

They actually have done that. Try to keep up.

On 6/3/2013 8:21 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 1:51 am, (Jason) wrote:
In article , Mitchell





Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote innews:Jason-0206131453240001@66-53-217-
93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

In article , Mitchell
Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?

My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

If he is a legal citizen of America, he has nothing to worry about.

He is not a legal citizen, he is resident alien
married to an American, on a valid visa. How long
will Sheriff Joe hold him in jail while he verifies
this?

How long does it take to check a person's immigration status? I thought
they had some sort of quick check system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He hands the officer that valid visa when first asked and the
officer gives him his traffic warning or ticket, wishes him a good
day, and sends him on his way.....

Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks? In NYC, they are profiling people and stopping them
on the streets without any other reason for coming in contact
with the police, other than that the officer thinks they look
suspicious. In the case of AZ, the law says that they person
must have another reason for coming into contact with the
officer first. So, why aren't you bitching about your boy
Bloomberg?

Don't know about Mitchell, but libs *are* screaming bloody murder about
Bloomberg's 'stop and frisk'.

Surprised you didn't know that, what with your vast insight into all
things progressive.

On 6/3/2013 8:28 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:04 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...





On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow
a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas
?
Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.

And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only those that have eyes and can think. The KoolAid drinkers, not
so much. For them, excuses like "hills" and preferring cheese poofs
to broccoli are enough to qualify as "food deserts"......

Nope. You might look stuff up instead of making a fool of yourself.

But that'd get in the way of your rants, so I can see your problem with
doing that.

On 6/3/2013 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:41 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote :



Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?

Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

As was Guiliani before him.

What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

Bloomberg is *not* a Republican. He was a Democrat and pretended
to switch parties only briefly so that he could run for Mayor.
Shortly thereafter, he
became an "independent", which he remains to this day.

And yes NYC is a liberal city. Bloomberg is a liberal. He rails
against
smoking, against salt, against cars. He tried to limit the size of
soft drinks you
can buy. Why do you not accept one of your own?

Not sure you got the memo, but Bloomberg is being slammed by the left
for his Stop and Frisk policy. You may want to pay closer attention.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:05:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/3/2013 8:28 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:04 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...





On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow
a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas
?
Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.

And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only those that have eyes and can think. The KoolAid drinkers, not
so much. For them, excuses like "hills" and preferring cheese poofs
to broccoli are enough to qualify as "food deserts"......

Nope. You might look stuff up instead of making a fool of yourself.

[..../]
IRONY

Look up what? An idiot lefty's definition of something that doesn't
exist?

But that'd get in the way of your rants, so I can see your problem with
doing that.

You just broke my irony meter.

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 09:31:37 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:03*am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
"Alex W." wrote :







On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:09:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in news:koe7qg$mb1
$1
@dont-email.me:

"Alex W." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:42:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

I always ask people how much more they're willing to pay for their
produce in order to avoid having them picked by undocumented
workers.

It's a pretty pointless question, I'm afraid, Jeanne.
What people will tell you is that they would do the same job
for reasonable and sutainable wages -- it's the
ideologically correct thign to say. *What people DO, on the
other hand, is to sit and kvetch about the lousy labour
market without ever even going anywhere near a farm. *People
will likely tell you that they are prepared to pay more for
fruit or meat or services if that helps save American jobs.
Then they will go and buy the cheap stuff which they know
cannot have been produced without cutting corners -- and
labour costs are the single biggest corner to cut.

Several years ago in Germany, the government, pressured by
trade unions, passed a law forcing farmers to pay their
casual and illegal foreign seasonal labour the same rate as
native German workers. *As a direct result, that very year
the asparagus crop rotted in the fields as farmers found it
cheaper to let their crops go unharvested than to pay these
excessive wages. *The law was very quickly modified.

Yup
The pinkies still haven't figured out how market forces work and that
ultimately prices will settle for what the market will bear..

* * More rightwing ignorance.

* * The US has ALWAYS depended on a large pool of
cheap labor, from indentured servants to chinese
coolies to Irish immigrants to slaves to (always)
Mexicans. Have YOU ever picked crops for a living?
Do you really think our current generation of
Gen Xer's is going to put down their Ipads and
pick lettuce 10 hours a day?

In Australia, there is a regular and established trail
around the country for students and other young tourists to
wrok their way across this vast land picking crops. *They
arrive Downunder, work a few weeks on one crop, earn enough
money to hang around the beaches surfing for a few weeks and
then repeat the same process elsewhere.

http://www.jobsearch.gov.au/harvesttrail/

http://www.fruitpicking.org/

Somehow, I cannot see this taking off in the US ... and
certainly not in the numbers neded for the vast US farming
industry.

The alternative can be worse, too: replacing fruit pickers
with machines. *Not only does this reduce the job market
even for legal workers, but it also requires farmers to
switch to varietals that are suitable for mechanised
harvesting. *You end up with apple trees three foot high,
and tomatoes in supermarkets that are quite flavourless
because they have been bred not for taste but for
"throwability" (hard skin and resistance to bruising).
Mechanisation also breeds standardisation, so instead of
being offered ten or twenty different varieties of a fruit
or vegetable in your well-sorted neighbourhood grocery shop,
you will end up with two or three.

* * *Even at the height of the Bush Recession with
rampant unemployment Americans could not be induced
do field work.

Worker Shortage in Washington with a Jobless Rate 9%
MAY 26, 2010

"It's just common sense, with the depression and high
unemployment and what not, that there ought to be local
folks looking to come take some of these jobs," says
Appel, 58, a wheat farmer in the Palouse in Eastern
Washington.

Nope. It hasn't happened. Farm jobs are going unfilled to
such a degree that now a huge fruit orchard in Okanogan
County, desperate for someone to pick cherries and apples
this summer, has turned to flying in hundreds of workers
from ... Jamaica. *That's right. From a Caribbean island
more than 3,000 miles away. *In all, this one farm has
applied to bring in more than a thousand temporary foreign
workers."http://tinyurl.com/3xc2dbv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why should that be a suprise? With all the welfare, food stamp
programs, the govt running ads encouraging more people to apply,
I'm surprised there aren't more jobs that go unfilled.

Why don't the orchard owners want to pay fair wages so people will be
willing to work for them. Why do you think that the laborer is not
worthy of his pay?

Idiot. Because *YOU* aren't willing to pay for the produce picked by
these "fair wage" employees, in addition to all of the other
government mandated costs (also taxes).

You clearly know nothing about welfare, but that is no surprise.

Clearly you know nothing about economics, but that's obvious. You're
a lefty.

Your disdain for humanity is noted.

Your disdain for reality is noted.

On 5/31/2013 9:26 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:42 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:55:49 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:

On 5/27/2013 8:49 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:33:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,

wrote:

Remaining President when you know you are no longer capable of
performing the duties is the worst kind of treason because it's
endangers the country more than almost anything anyone could do.

Show me where that is grounds for treason. You lefties really are
dumb****s.


When there is a lefty getting all up in arms about RR and his
alleged
Alzheimers, I ask them if that is true, aren't they sorta ashamed
by the
fact that this demented old man handed their assess to them on
numerous
occassions?
Tends to shut them up at least temporarily.

We're being nice to him. If he did not have Alzheimers, he was just
being a very bad man. The fact that he could get enough hate-filled
Americans to support him in his war on the poor (particularly if they
were of color) shows us how much racism, sexism and bigotry still
remains in this country.

Of course, today, the GOP would never consider Reagan because
he was far
too liberal for their taste. They worship a fake St. Ronnie who looks
little like the man who was actually president.

The War on Hunger had been won by the time Reagan became President. He
dismantled the apparatus that had worked and now we have 50 million
Americans who are food insecure, almost all of the children, the
elderly, and hard-working adults.

For that alone, Reagan deserves to be cursed every single day.


Perhaps the program suffered the malaise of many government giveaway
programs which is becoming a huge corrupted and wasteful organization.
Food Stamps became the secondary legal tender for the underground and
criminal economy. The EBT card is being used in the same way. I've seen
the credit on the cards being sold for 50 cents on the dollar by
someone
who wanted to buy booze or dope. Food Stamps now the EBT card is a
major
part of the illegal drug trade. I've seen people trade their
EBT credit for cash to buy cigarets, pot and alcohol instead of food
for "their children". So the P.L.L.C.F. blame the behavior of the
parents on Republican presidents. Gee, that makes a lot of sense. ^_^

TDD

Thanks for the best post that I have seen today. I know the story of a
local mother of three kids. She trades her food stamps for marijuana and
cocaine.

And that is a crime, but it is not an excuse to take food stamps away
from those who are not violating the law. Clearly those who want to take
food stamps away from everyone are people who hate what Jesus taught,
who mock what Jesus taught.

I agree that it's not an escuse to end the food stamp program. However, it
is evidence that officials need to do a better job of enforcing the food
stamp rules.

How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid $1,000 in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.


If you call the FBI and tell them that the food stamp fraudster has
nekid pictures of children, the whole weight of the federal government
with unlimited resources will fall upon the fraudster. ^_^

TDD

On 6/1/2013 7:19 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid $1,000 in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go without food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse. Is that what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and difficult to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so, but as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will get away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than allow a far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Would you shut down roads because some people speed?


Simple, pass a law that anyone who commits food stamp fraud will be
eaten. The penalty will make anyone think twice about fraud and more
hungry people will be fed with Soylent Green. ^_^

TDD

Did you mean to write "right wing tea party patriots, who read the Constitution"?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.


If you call the FBI and tell them that the food stamp fraudster has
nekid pictures of children, the whole weight of the federal government
with unlimited resources will fall upon the fraudster. ^_^

TDD

It's also the principle. I'll spend more to save less, if it keeps people on the honest track.

See if you can ferment the soylent, and put in some hops and such. Soylent Brewski!
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than allow a far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Would you shut down roads because some people speed?


Simple, pass a law that anyone who commits food stamp fraud will be
eaten. The penalty will make anyone think twice about fraud and more
hungry people will be fed with Soylent Green. ^_^

TDD

In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

" wrote in
:


Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?


Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

As was Guiliani before him.

What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?


And if the idiot thinks liberals aren't screaming to the high heaven
about Bloomberg's racist stop & frisk policy, he's hopeless.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article ,
Tom McDonald wrote:

On 6/3/2013 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:41 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
:



Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?

Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

As was Guiliani before him.

What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

Bloomberg is *not* a Republican. He was a Democrat and pretended
to switch parties only briefly so that he could run for Mayor.
Shortly thereafter, he
became an "independent", which he remains to this day.

And yes NYC is a liberal city. Bloomberg is a liberal. He rails
against
smoking, against salt, against cars. He tried to limit the size of
soft drinks you
can buy. Why do you not accept one of your own?

Not sure you got the memo, but Bloomberg is being slammed by the left
for his Stop and Frisk policy. You may want to pay closer attention.

And most of the left has been mocking his big drink ban unmercifully
since it was proposed.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

In article ,
Tom McDonald wrote:

On 6/3/2013 1:15 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone 'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be safe
even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop would
ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Driving While Brown.

Yep.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

On 6/2/2013 9:23 AM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 11:07 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article
,





(Jason) wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 5:22 PM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand
in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse. Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so, but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than allow a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Yes, it is.

Too bad, it happens ONLY in the minds of the useful idiots on the left, who
have no clue about nutrition and good eating habits.

It's a major issue in America. Pizza stores, MacDonalds and Burger King
are making millions selling mostly un-nutrition foods. My 350 pound
neighbor loves going to Costco and getting processed food such as a
processed meal that contains meatloaf and mashed potatoes. I looked at the
bottom of the container and it had dozens of long words that meant
"chemical preservatives". She offered to serve me a portion and I stated,
"No thanks".

The problem for the poor is having no access to anything else beyond
convenience stores and fast food.

Food deserts are a vitally important issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

http://www.marketmakeovers.org/why/food-desert

http://www.fooddesert.net/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product...-atlas/about-t
he-atlas.aspx#.Uaq2xRxlFoU

That should be enough to educate the educable.



Yet another lib fiction. From your own dumb reference:

"Physical access to shops can be difficult if the shops are distant,
the shopper is elderly or infirm, the area has many hills, public
transport links are poor, or if the consumer has no car. Healthy
options are unavailable. Carrying fresh food from grocers is also a
challenge for individuals who must take transit or walk long
distances.
Financial access is difficult if the consumer lacks the money to buy
healthy foods (generally more expensive, calorie for calorie, than
less nutritious, sugary, and fatty 'junk foods') or if the shopper
cannot afford the bus fare to remote shops selling fresh foods. This
limits individuals to cheaper local fast food outlets. Other forms of
financial access barriers come in the forms of inability to afford
storage space for food, or, for the very poor, homelessness, or living
in temporary accommodations that do not offer good cooking facilities.
The consumer's mental attitude or knowledge about nutrition and food
preparation can be major barriers limiting access to fresh produce and
other healthy food choices. Consumers may lack cooking knowledge or
have the idea that eating a healthy diet is not important."


So, on the one hand we're supposed to believe that these "deserts" are
a major problem unique to poor people. But then the definition
includes:

" the area has many hills"

What, those on food stamps can't get up a hill?


"if the consumer has no car."

take the bus. Plus we all know most folks on welfare and food stamps
have $500 hoopie cars.

"Carrying fresh food from grocers is also a challenge for individuals
who must take transit or walk long distances."

Oh, I feel so bad for them. Welfare and food stamps and they have to
carry the groceries!

"Financial access is difficult if the consumer lacks the money to buy
healthy foods (generally more expensive, calorie for calorie, than
less nutritious, sugary, and fatty 'junk foods') or if the shopper
cannot afford the bus fare to remote shops selling fresh foods. This
limits individuals to cheaper local fast food outlets."

They don't lack the money, for God's sake we're giving it to them.
Not only that, but with a few states that are exceptions, you can't
use
food stamps at fast food outlets. And it's a lie that the fast food
alternative
is cheaper than buying better food at a supermarket.


But this is how you libs operate. Make a crisis out of something made
up. Then the next step is another $50bil govt program that will
allegedly solve
it.....


We used to have little neighborhood grocery stores and produce stands
all over the place but they vanished when people quit walking to the
neighborhood market and drove to the big mega stores. There were some
wonderful small stores hanging on in some of the decaying hoods where
the high dollar earners moved away to the outer suburbs. The problem
was the stores kept getting robbed and the people of the hood wouldn't
tell the police anything so the wonderful small store owners packed it
in and left for safer grounds. The same thing happened to bank branches
which closed after being robbed and getting no support from the folks
who lived in the area. Of course the P.L.L.C.F. along with Al Sharpton
and Jessie Jackson start howling that the merchants and banks are "Red
Lining" the hoods because they're racist and haters when the truth is
the simple fact that they keep getting robbed and or don't want to get
robbed if they open a store or bank branch. There was one small store
that stayed open downtown next to the central housing project when it
was bought by some Iranians, the store was secured like it was in
Beirut, Lebanon. The place had bars and expanded metal over all windows
and doors along with concrete filled steel posts to prevent vehicles
from smashing in the front door. The boys in the hood knew the Iranians
didn't play, they had AK's and would shoot them if they looked at them
the wrong way. Odd, how that store was never robbed. ^_^

TDD

On Jun 3, 5:51*pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Tom McDonald wrote:





On 6/3/2013 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:41 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
:

Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?

* * *Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

* * *As was Guiliani before him.

* * *What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

Bloomberg is *not* a Republican. *He was a Democrat and pretended
to switch parties only briefly so that he could run for Mayor.
Shortly thereafter, he
became an "independent", which he remains to this day.

And yes NYC is a liberal city. *Bloomberg is a liberal. *He rails
against
smoking, against salt, against cars. * He tried to limit the size of
soft drinks you
can buy. *Why do you not accept one of your own?

Not sure you got the memo, but Bloomberg is being slammed by the left
for his Stop and Frisk policy. You may want to pay closer attention.

And most of the left has been mocking his big drink ban unmercifully
since it was proposed.

--


Most of the left has been mocking it? Why that big drink ban is the
quintessential
example of what you libs love. Trying to have govt force the rest of
us to behave
the way you think we should to be better persons. Now go back to
sipping your
Evian water and nibbling your organic bean sprouts.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:57:44 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:





On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason) wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid $1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food
stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement, the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--


I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

It's more like this: They may be fat but could also be malnourished.

That's exactly right. Wow.

--

If they're fat, they're getting more than enough of those "calories" jd was
blubbering about
If they were as "malnourished" and you moronic goalpost movers claim, they
wouldn't have the strength to stuff their faces.

Which is, of course, hogwash and poppycock.
Malnourishment and body fat ratio are not automatically
correlated, as any doctor will be only too happy to confirm.
You can be built like John Candy and still suffer from
rickets or scurvy.

On Jun 3, 12:05*pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:28 AM, wrote:



On Jun 2, 10:04 pm, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

...

On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:45:15 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
news:1qfhuhgokj7oo$.19fgaznj6mkjc.dlg@40tude. net...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
news:w8x73knj8dee$.svdh1uhbrvns.dlg@40tude. net...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:22:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:55 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:07:51 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:ca9kq85s8of3j3n6acr6vc76c4v07luus ...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:08:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 1, 8:19 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:35:01 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article
,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700,
(Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to
avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

Not to mention the children and elderly people who'll go
without
food.

The alternative is to do nothing about the fraud and abuse.
Is
that
what
you want to happen?

You make a reasonable effort to make it uninviting and
difficult
to
engage in SNAP fraud and punish those who are caught doing so,
but
as
with every other type of crime, we know that some people will
get
away
with it.

It is much more wasteful to spend 10% on enforcement than
allow
a
far
smaller amount to be diverted to fraud. Like most law
enforcement,
the
first few dollars are the most effective.

Of course the concept that the first few dollars are the most
effective doesn't apply to the welfare programs themselves,
right? Why no. In that case, the sky is the limit:

"Better there be a little bit of fraud than have ANYone go
hungry"

We passed the point of people going hungry anywhere even
close to what really going hungry means around the world
a very long time ago. Today, look at people on welfare and
they have TV, cable, AC, Fritos.,....

What welfare program are you speaking of? Which country?

The one where the poor people are also the fattest in the world
To the best of my knowledge you don't get fat being hungry

Your knowledge is rarely trustworthy.

piggybacking

The only food that the poor can afford AND have access to is crap
junk
food that is cheap because of the subsidies given to huge corporate
farmers.

If you're poor, you're going to find as many calories as cheaply as
possible to try to keep your family's stomachs full. That means
you're
going to get fat.

--

I see so they are both fat and starving at the same time.
What a unique condition!

Starving, maybe not.
Starving for proper nutrition, definitely.
Do you not see the utter disgrace that a rich country like
the US actually has *food deserts*?

And do you know WHY they exist ?

By the way, ALL rural areas are effectively "food deserts"
Because the closest food shops are not blocks but miles away.
WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in rural areas
?
* * * Why is that ?

I suggest you look up the definition of "food desert".
Hint: it is not defined as access to food shops in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

You moron
Why don't you try reading for comprehension instead of a excuse to
demonstrate your lack of educartion

Castigating a lack of education by referring to my
"educartion"?
Cute...

As I wrote, WE don't hear you morons babbling about "food deserts" in
rural
areas ?
* * * Why is that ?

Even though the distances in rural areas can be measured in miles
instead of
blocks.

Had you read the article, you would know that the definition
of a food desert is not primarily a matter of distance but
availability. *And even in America where one may have to
drive some miles to the nearest town, I would be very
surprised indeed to find any rural area without a farmers'
market or access to fresh fruit and vegetables.

People in rural areas have figured out how to get places. Most of us have,
or have access to, vehicles. Those who don't have arrangements with
friends or family to get into town for necessities.

Those that don't have any access at all to town pretty much don't exist.

And yet you idiots claim there are "food deserts" in urban areas where
things are more compact, public transit exists, and people also have friends
and neighbors to help them get around.
Anyone see the disconnect ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only those that have eyes and can think. *The KoolAid drinkers, not
so much. * For them, excuses like "hills" and preferring cheese poofs
to broccoli are enough to qualify as "food deserts"......

Nope. You might look stuff up instead of making a fool of yourself.

Nope to exactly what? Can't you even be clear? Are you denying
that hills and preferring cheese poos to broccoli are listed as part
of the "food desert" problem by you libs?



But that'd get in the way of your rants, so I can see your problem with
doing that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can see you have a problem with being long on emotion, short on
clarity and fact.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:36:00 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

No one asks peckerwoods if they are citizens.

On 6/3/2013 5:36 PM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:51 pm, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Tom McDonald wrote:





On 6/3/2013 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:41 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
:

Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?

Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

As was Guiliani before him.

What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

Bloomberg is *not* a Republican. He was a Democrat and pretended
to switch parties only briefly so that he could run for Mayor.
Shortly thereafter, he
became an "independent", which he remains to this day.

And yes NYC is a liberal city. Bloomberg is a liberal. He rails
against
smoking, against salt, against cars. He tried to limit the size of
soft drinks you
can buy. Why do you not accept one of your own?

Not sure you got the memo, but Bloomberg is being slammed by the left
for his Stop and Frisk policy. You may want to pay closer attention.

And most of the left has been mocking his big drink ban unmercifully
since it was proposed.

--


Most of the left has been mocking it? Why that big drink ban is the
quintessential
example of what you libs love. Trying to have govt force the rest of
us to behave
the way you think we should to be better persons. Now go back to
sipping your
Evian water and nibbling your organic bean sprouts.

You have clearly not been paying attention.