On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, wrote:
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
.. .
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.

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?

I thought you'd be able to work it out for yourself. I was clearly wrong.

Try this: "Nope. excuses like hills and preferring cheese poofs to
broccoli are *NOT* enough to qualify as food deserts".

Got it?

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.

Right back atcha, rightie.

On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
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.

Someone should. Jason certainly doesn't seem to like being one. Except
for the hassle of opting out.

On 6/1/2013 10:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
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.


Who's fault is it? Someone else other than the person eating junk food? o_O

TDD

On 6/1/2013 8:30 PM, 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 ?



Folks living out in rural areas regardless of their ancestry, are a lot
more self reliant than those who live in urban areas. Of course, I've
read about gardens popping up in the ruins of Chicago even some folks
catching a eating some of the wildlife that is filtering into the wreck
of a city. I suppose reverting to a diet containing the lean meat of
possum can be healthier than the hydrogenated vegetable oil containing
high fructose corn syrup sweetened junk food. ^_^

TDD

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.


How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

TDD

On 6/2/2013 8:04 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.


I spent part of my life on a farm, mom canned food and we had a big
chest freezer. I believe my parents were very good at planning food
purchases and believe it or not, we had a milkman deliver milk once
or twice a week driving that big yellow refrigerated truck up our 1/4
mile long driveway. Of course when there are 9 kids in a family, a lot
of planning goes into food purchases. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:14:17 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 10:09 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
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.


Who's fault is it? Someone else other than the person eating junk food? o_O

Why it's George Bush's fault, of course.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

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.


How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Mayor Doomberg certainly thinks he can.

On 6/2/2013 9:25 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:16 am, "Alex W." wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, it's defined as a bunch of nonsensical crap that you
libs make up for the cause of the day.


Almost reminds you of other Politically Correct contrived buzz phrases
from the P.L.L.C.F. like "Hate Speech". I can't wait until they start
howling about "Hate Food" or "Hate Beverage" to describe junk food and
unhealthy sugar loaded soft drinks. Hey kid, wanna buy some evil "Hate
Cereal"? ^_^

TDD

On 6/2/2013 7:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:37:28 +0100, "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*?

What's really a disgrace is that given the education budget of the US,
there is anyone as stone stupid as the common lefty.


I grew up attending school and college during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I
witnessed first hand, the degradation of education in the United States
and it bothered me even as a kid in grammar school. I could see it
happening in the government schools I had to attend when my parents
could no longer afford the private parochial school education. The
teachers in the government schools were not bad evil people (a few of
them were). The problem was the raw material and school board policies
they had to work with. We recited The Pledge Of Allegiance and perhaps a
prayer every morning but I saw the beginnings of Political Correctness
even back then. When I was six years old, I decided all adults were full
of crap, the mistake I made was letting the nuns know it. I had a much
rougher time in government school because of the prevalence of complete
dumb asses. It was awful, the kids didn't read books for the joy of
learning and attacked anyone they considered a book worm. The culture of
doing just enough school work to get by was rearing its ugly head even
back then and now it's much worse. I'm so distressed when a high school
or college student of today may only understand every other word when I
try to carry on a conversation with them. Do I consider myself a genius?
Hell no! I get embarrassed at the thought of speaking with someone who
really is because I may appear to have the naivety of a child. The lack
of educated citizens is wrecking our country and the majority of PhD
candidates in The United States are foreign nationals who take their
great intellect and education back home with them to build up their home
country. We're damn lucky some of them decide to stick around. o_O

TDD

On 6/1/2013 4:28 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
On Jun 1, 2:07 pm, "Attila Iskander" wrote:
"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

They're fat not because they've got too much to eat, but because their
food access is limited to the wrong kinds of food. The vast majority
of people on SNAP live in "food deserts," places where full-service
grocery stores are an impractical distance away, and the only food
outlets are convenience stores and fast food restaurants. This
results in diets that are high in simple carbohydrates and over-
processed foods and low in fresh vegetables, fruits, and lean
proteins, things that you have to eat to stay slim. It's not a
question of how many calories they consume, but of *what kind* of
calories are available for consumption. If the only things available
to you to eat are McDonald's, pizza, KFC and packaged mac-and-cheese
dinners, you're going to be fat, too.


If you gave the poor fat people bags of fruits and vegetables, they
would sell them and buy the crap they want to eat or buy booze and dope.
I see similar things happen all the time. What they get is worth what
they pay for it. I see food stamps sold for 50¢ on the dollar all the
time so the seller can buy booze or dope. Unless you've been there you
are completely naive if you believe there is a simple fix for the
problem which is not the fault of anyone but those who eat junk food.
All the laws and good intentions are are not going to fix the problem
without the cooperation of the poor fat people. o_O

TDD

On 6/1/2013 10:38 AM, wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:38 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/1/2013 9:06 AM, wrote:



On Jun 1, 9:54 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 5/31/2013 11:35 PM, Jason wrote:

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:

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.

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?

Do you have the same zeal for ferreting out fraud and abuse when it
comes to big corporations that get billions from the taxpayers? Or is it
only the poor and powerless that get your scorn and ire?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, for the most part, corporations are not getting billions from
the taxpayers. It's that you libs like a tax system where you have
a high theoretical rate, so you can make it look like you're socking
it to those evil companies. Then you also pass all kinds of
exemptions
and loopholes that reduce their rate, so instead of paying 35%, they
actually wind up paying 20%. Kind of like when you do your own
taxes. You do know how to fill out an IRS form, don't you? We
conservatives would cut that 35% rate, one of the highest in the
world,
to something like 20% and get rid of all the loopholes, nonsense, etc.
But you libs will have none of it because you like to keep waging
classwarfare and pretending that corporations are evil.

Now there is some direct handout to corporations, but the best
example of that would be the recent experience of the govt and
Solyndra and all the other failed miracle energy companies. And
yes, with regard to any govt handouts or tax breaks, I'm all
for rooting out the fraud. Of course, the less of these we have
to begin with, the less fraud to worry about. If there was no
govt handouts to the likes of Solyndra, there would be no fraud.

KBR. Haliburton. Exxon and other oil companies. Etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?


Hey trader4, are you on the staff of The DOJ? Isn't it their job to
prosecute wrongdoing by corporations on a national scale or even locally
when asked to. If you aren't a prosecuting attorney with the DOJ, how is
it your fault that corporations are cheating the government out of
taxes? Gee, I'll be glad to take the blame if I was paid oodles
of money and got all sorts of government benefits. ^_^

TDD

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever it's
brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

TDD

In article , wrote:

On 6/2/2013 7:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 00:37:28 +0100, "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*?

What's really a disgrace is that given the education budget of the US,
there is anyone as stone stupid as the common lefty.


I grew up attending school and college during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I
witnessed first hand, the degradation of education in the United States
and it bothered me even as a kid in grammar school. I could see it
happening in the government schools I had to attend when my parents
could no longer afford the private parochial school education. The
teachers in the government schools were not bad evil people (a few of
them were). The problem was the raw material and school board policies
they had to work with. We recited The Pledge Of Allegiance and perhaps a
prayer every morning but I saw the beginnings of Political Correctness
even back then. When I was six years old, I decided all adults were full
of crap, the mistake I made was letting the nuns know it. I had a much
rougher time in government school because of the prevalence of complete
dumb asses. It was awful, the kids didn't read books for the joy of
learning and attacked anyone they considered a book worm. The culture of
doing just enough school work to get by was rearing its ugly head even
back then and now it's much worse. I'm so distressed when a high school
or college student of today may only understand every other word when I
try to carry on a conversation with them. Do I consider myself a genius?
Hell no! I get embarrassed at the thought of speaking with someone who
really is because I may appear to have the naivety of a child. The lack
of educated citizens is wrecking our country and the majority of PhD
candidates in The United States are foreign nationals who take their
great intellect and education back home with them to build up their home
country. We're damn lucky some of them decide to stick around. o_O

TDD

You are 100% correct.

In article , wrote:

On 6/2/2013 9:25 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:16 am, "Alex W." wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, it's defined as a bunch of nonsensical crap that you
libs make up for the cause of the day.


Almost reminds you of other Politically Correct contrived buzz phrases
from the P.L.L.C.F. like "Hate Speech". I can't wait until they start
howling about "Hate Food" or "Hate Beverage" to describe junk food and
unhealthy sugar loaded soft drinks. Hey kid, wanna buy some evil "Hate
Cereal"? ^_^

TDD

Do the P.L.L.C.F. blame Bush2 for every problem?

He was a hoot, in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. I thought he was really funny.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Alex W." wrote in message ...

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.

How about racist food? Sugar frosted pork rinds
and sparkling sugar coated watermellon for our
cousins? Wash it down with a hate 40 ouncer, and
a hate soda pop.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

Almost reminds you of other Politically Correct contrived buzz phrases
from the P.L.L.C.F. like "Hate Speech". I can't wait until they start
howling about "Hate Food" or "Hate Beverage" to describe junk food and
unhealthy sugar loaded soft drinks. Hey kid, wanna buy some evil "Hate
Cereal"? ^_^

TDD

Of course, after what people did to their
ancestors. Who would expect poor, under
privileged people to cook their own food,
and eat healthy?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

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

That's exactly right. Wow.


Who's fault is it? Someone else other than the person eating junk food? o_O

TDD

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:50:38 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 6/2/2013 7:24 PM, wrote:



What's really a disgrace is that given the education budget of the US,
there is anyone as stone stupid as the common lefty.


I grew up attending school and college during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I
witnessed first hand, the degradation of education in the United States
and it bothered me even as a kid in grammar school. I could see it
happening in the government schools I had to attend when my parents
could no longer afford the private parochial school education. The
teachers in the government schools were not bad evil people (a few of
them were). The problem was the raw material and school board policies
they had to work with. We recited The Pledge Of Allegiance and perhaps a
prayer every morning but I saw the beginnings of Political Correctness
even back then. When I was six years old, I decided all adults were full
of crap, the mistake I made was letting the nuns know it. I had a much
rougher time in government school because of the prevalence of complete
dumb asses. It was awful, the kids didn't read books for the joy of
learning and attacked anyone they considered a book worm. The culture of
doing just enough school work to get by was rearing its ugly head even
back then and now it's much worse. I'm so distressed when a high school
or college student of today may only understand every other word when I
try to carry on a conversation with them. Do I consider myself a genius?
Hell no! I get embarrassed at the thought of speaking with someone who
really is because I may appear to have the naivety of a child. The lack
of educated citizens is wrecking our country and the majority of PhD
candidates in The United States are foreign nationals who take their
great intellect and education back home with them to build up their home
country. We're damn lucky some of them decide to stick around. o_O


While I wouldn't care to disagree with your comment that the
shortage of native educated citizens is harmful to the US,
the picture is somewhat different when viewed from outside
America. Over here, we witness the US poaching our
brightest and best by waving fistfuls of money and desirable
perks at them, to the detriment of our own national
economies. African and Latin American economies in
particular have long suffered from their most promising
children being sent to acquire urgently needed education and
then deciding to stay abroad. While this may be a rational
choice on an individual basis, it is also an immoral one,
considering that only in the rarest of cases those bright
young graduates paid for their own educaiton: in most cases,
their schooling was paid or by the taxes of their fellow
citizens ... and the US directly benefits from this indirect
subsidy.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

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.


How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

" wrote in
:

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

ups
.com:

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
o
f
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.



The party of more drug laws and more abortion laws
and more contraception laws and more identity check laws
is complaining about "government forcing us to behave"?

Oh, the irony..............

Free Lunch wrote in
:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:47:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote:


I live in California. I have a different problem. The liberal
democrats pass bills that I don't support. There is nothing that we
can do about the problem.

Sure there is; *MOVE*.

Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?




Mississippi is the leading state for consuming more
federal benefits than they contribute in taxes. In other
words, they whine about federal spending even as they
DEPEND on federal spending.

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,
where governor Perry only stops complaining
about federal spending when he is demanding
MORE federal spending, where his only response
to statewide problems is to conduct a prayer
rally over it. No wonder he was laughed off
the national stage last year, by his own
Republicans no less.


PS: What happened to the Republican call
to "shrink government"?




Texas leads nation in government job growth

Texas has led the nation in terms of the growth
of government jobs since 2006. A total of 30 states
and the District of Columbia increased their number
of federal, state and local government employees
since 2006. However, Texas had the largest growth
from November 2006 to November 2011. The Lone Star
state increased its government employees by 77,600
since 2006 according to an analysis of U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics data by The Business Journals’
On Numbers.


http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/n...ads-nation-in-
government-job.html

On Jun 3, 7:27*pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, wrote:





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@40tud e.net...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
news:w8x73knj8dee$.svdh1uhbrvns.dlg@40tud e.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:ca9kq85s8of3j3n6acr6vc76c4v07lu ...
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?

I thought you'd be able to work it out for yourself. I was clearly wrong.

Try this: "Nope. excuses like hills and preferring cheese poofs to
broccoli are *NOT* enough to qualify as food deserts".

Got it?

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.

Right back atcha, rightie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Do try to pay attention. One of your lib pals here, believe it was
JD,
provided a link to Wikipedia that defines "food deserts". She
provided
it, not me. Not some conservative. Here it is:

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


A food desert is a district with little or no access to large grocery
stores that offer fresh and affordable foods needed to maintain a
healthy diet.[1] Instead of such stores, these districts often contain
many fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

"Access", in this context, may be interpreted in three ways:

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."
"


There you have it. Hills are specifically mentioned as a cause of
"food deserts"
And the last part, about a consumer's mental attitude covers the part
about
preferring cheesy poofs over broccoli.

On Jun 4, 6:55*am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:
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.

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As if that hasn't been done enough already? Anyone who gives
a damn for sure knows that eating cheesy poofs and drinking
soda full of sugar isn't a sound diet.

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

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.


How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).

(2010 numbers)
TX $.124 /kWh
CA $.147 /kWh
AK $.151 /kWh
MA $.163 /kWh
NY $.175 /kWh
CT $.187 /kWh

lies after the first snipped

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

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.


How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.


Have you hugged a fat poor person today? (P.L.L.C.F. Bumper Sticker) ^_^

TDD

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
" wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason) wrote
in alt.atheism:

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 i
n
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.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,


Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.




or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.





Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and
local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes,
which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants
pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%,
according the Congressional Budget office.

Figures found in studies such as Texas’ 2006 study, or another
2007 study by the CBO, which did a survey of all data for the
past 30 years and concluded that fiscal impact of services
provided to illegal immigrants “is mostly modest,” stands in
contrast to political rhetoric that fueled the passage of
Arizona SB1070.
http://tinyurl.com/3429xdh




or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.

And where is the evidence that it's doing us much good?
You cool with the idea of giving the muslim brotherhood
govt in Egypt money from struggling Americans?


Well, that IS the elected government there.
Do you have a problem with supporting democracy?


Democracies always fail, that's why The United States is a republic. ^_^

TDD

On 6/1/2013 4:25 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:16:35 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote
innews:c26f7eae-81a
:





On Jun 1, 8:29 am, "Alex W." wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in alt.atheism:

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 i
n
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.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime,

Nice analogy. There are 48 mil on food stamps today, up
70% in the last 4 years. If crime were up like that, it would
be one hell of a mess. Actually, crime is one hell of a mess
in places like Detroit and Chicago that are run by you libs.

or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers,

hard worker or not, they are still illegal aliens. And there
are plenty of them taking advantage of the USA.

Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States
Fox Busniess News

Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several
studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more
of an economic contributor to state and local economies than
politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can
be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal
immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of
the population.

The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of
immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’
Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and
economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent
to provide services. According to the Comptrollers’ office,
state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide
services like education, health care and safety, but raised
an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data,
the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal
immigrant population in 2006.


Liar, liar, pants on fire! You carefull edited out this part which
totally
changes the math:

"Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues,
which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.
However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in
uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not
paid for by the state.”

So:

$1.58bil - $1.16bil - $1.44 bil = - $1bil

In other words illegal alliens actually cost the citizens of TX,
$1bil.


You aren't factoring in the consumer cost of
goods and service kept artifically low by the
work of illegals. How high would wages (and thus
prices) have to go to lure Americans into fields
to pick lettuce and strawberries and to gut cattle
and "process" chickens and pigs?


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.


Considering that documented workers get paid the same as undocumented ones,
There would be no additional cost
Come back when you have something other than a false argument.

There is clear evidence that undocumented workers get defrauded by
employers.


An "undocumented worker" i.e. "illegal alien" is a criminal to start
with. I suppose low pay is a criminal penalty. ^_^

TDD

In article , wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).

(2010 numbers)
TX $.124 /kWh
CA $.147 /kWh
AK $.151 /kWh
MA $.163 /kWh
NY $.175 /kWh
CT $.187 /kWh

lies after the first snipped

pesky facts

On 6/4/2013 8:20 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:27 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, wrote:





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
.. .
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.

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?

I thought you'd be able to work it out for yourself. I was clearly wrong.

Try this: "Nope. excuses like hills and preferring cheese poofs to
broccoli are *NOT* enough to qualify as food deserts".

Got it?

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.

Right back atcha, rightie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Do try to pay attention. One of your lib pals here, believe it was
JD,
provided a link to Wikipedia that defines "food deserts". She
provided
it, not me. Not some conservative. Here it is:

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


A food desert is a district with little or no access to large grocery
stores that offer fresh and affordable foods needed to maintain a
healthy diet.[1] Instead of such stores, these districts often contain
many fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

"Access", in this context, may be interpreted in three ways:

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."
"


There you have it. Hills are specifically mentioned as a cause of
"food deserts"
And the last part, about a consumer's mental attitude covers the part
about
preferring cheesy poofs over broccoli.

And my comment stands: they are not sufficient in themselves to make a
food desert.

Do try to keep up.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 6/2/2013 6:32 PM, Alex W. wrote:


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.


How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Not much of a choice when they have neither the mental tools
nor the knowledge to make informed choices. In today's
world it can be tricky even for aware and edumafacated
customers to figure out the facts from the lies (of
omission, of misdirection, of misrepresentation) peddled by
industry. Quickly now: what's less fattening, a Big Gulp
cup of Coke or a Big Gulp cup of freshly squeezed apple
juice? When the label says "100 per cent beef", how much of
it really is meat and how much is filler? When you read
"Only 120 calories per serving", how often do you hunt the
very small print for the size of the serving and compare it
to the size of the package? Do you know the difference
between saturated, unsaturated and polysaturated fats? The
label says "made with the goodness of whole grains" -- how
much grain is really in the product? What's the difference
between sucrose, evaporated cane juice and dextrose? So the
packaging on that carton of eggs you are buyng says
"contains omega-3" which you know is good for your heart ...
or is it? If you buy some Gerber Fruit Juice Treats for
your kid because it tells you it's made with "real fruit",
what's the ratio of fruit juice concentrate to corn syrup --
and what does that mean for you the consumer? How many
shoppers do you think know that the term "free range" on
that carton of eggs is utterly meaningless? So you know the
difference between "enriched" and "fortified"?

And so on.

As I said: it's difficult even for reasonably intelligent
consumers with a fair amount of formal educaiton to parse
food labelling and nutritional information for the truth.
Now try to imagine how much harder -- to the point of
impossible -- this is for consumers who do not have these
advantages.

In short, there is no informed choice being made, and it is
functionally impossible for them to do so. That makes the
whole "their choice" argument a strawman.

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

On Jun 4, 2:30*pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/4/2013 8:20 AM, wrote: On Jun 3, 7:27 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, wrote:

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@40t ude.net...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:30:01 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Alex W." wrote in message
news:w8x73knj8dee$.svdh1uhbrvns.dlg@40t ude.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:ca9kq85s8of3j3n6acr6vc76c4v07 ...
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?

I thought you'd be able to work it out for yourself. I was clearly wrong.

Try this: "Nope. excuses like hills and preferring cheese poofs to
broccoli are *NOT* enough to qualify as food deserts".

Got it?

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.

Right back atcha, rightie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do try to pay attention. *One of your lib pals here, believe it was
JD,
provided a link to Wikipedia that defines "food deserts". *She
provided
it, not me. *Not some conservative. * Here it is:

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

A food desert is a district with little or no access to large grocery
stores that offer fresh and affordable foods needed to maintain a
healthy diet.[1] Instead of such stores, these districts often contain
many fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

"Access", in this context, may be interpreted in three ways:

* 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."
"

There you have it. *Hills are specifically mentioned as a cause of
"food deserts"
* And the last part, about a consumer's mental attitude covers the part
about
preferring cheesy poofs over broccoli.

And my comment stands: they are not sufficient in themselves to make a
food desert.

Do try to keep up.

Do try to stop lying. ANYTHING is enough to qualify for a "food
desert"

A hill
not knowing that cheesy poofs and soft drinks are not a good diet.

that is by the reference from your lib friends, that you acknowlege.

On 6/4/2013 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Jun 4, 2:30 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/4/2013 8:20 AM, wrote: On Jun 3, 7:27 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, wrote:

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
.. .
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.

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?

I thought you'd be able to work it out for yourself. I was clearly wrong.

Try this: "Nope. excuses like hills and preferring cheese poofs to
broccoli are *NOT* enough to qualify as food deserts".

Got it?

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.

Right back atcha, rightie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do try to pay attention. One of your lib pals here, believe it was
JD,
provided a link to Wikipedia that defines "food deserts". She
provided
it, not me. Not some conservative. Here it is:

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

A food desert is a district with little or no access to large grocery
stores that offer fresh and affordable foods needed to maintain a
healthy diet.[1] Instead of such stores, these districts often contain
many fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

"Access", in this context, may be interpreted in three ways:

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."
"

There you have it. Hills are specifically mentioned as a cause of
"food deserts"
And the last part, about a consumer's mental attitude covers the part
about
preferring cheesy poofs over broccoli.

And my comment stands: they are not sufficient in themselves to make a
food desert.

Do try to keep up.

Do try to stop lying. ANYTHING is enough to qualify for a "food
desert"

A hill
not knowing that cheesy poofs and soft drinks are not a good diet.

that is by the reference from your lib friends, that you acknowlege.

Another citizen of Stereotypeland. Long may it wave.

wrote in news
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:54:07 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:58:16 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:


Jason prefers to accept all of the benefits of living in an
enlightened state while whining about it.

Why isn't Mississippi swarming with right-wing immigrant?

We need to remain in Liberal California to take care of the grand
children. I would like to move to Texas or Arizona to be around
neighbors that are not liberal democrats.


Yes, Jason, come to Texas, where the
all-Republican government is growing, not
shrinking, where deregulation has led to
the highest utility bills in the country,


Just a little fact checking...

Four Pinocchios for you (lefties *always* lie).


Consider yourself corrected.


http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rc...rnia_rivalry_m
o.html


http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busi...regulation-in-
Texas-fails-to-make-power-more-4191062.php


http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/t...ince-electric-
deregulation/