Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 16, 2013, 01:23:37 PM
-
Liberals should really be embarrassed by this guy.
Bill O'Reilly Exposes Al Sharpton for Lying 'Once Again' on National Television
By Noel Sheppard | August 16, 2013
Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on Thursday exposed Al Sharpton for lying "once again" on national television.
Also of interest, O'Reilly disclosed for the time that years ago he gave $25,000 to one of Sharpton's charities (video follows with transcript and commentary):
BILL O'REILLY: A few days ago, we did a story about the food stamp fraud in the USA. As part of that story we featured Jason the Surfer, there he is, young man healthy, gets thousands of dollars worth of food stamps every year. Even while he surfs all day long. He doesn't care about working. And here is what I said about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: This guy is a parasite. And my contention is that the Obama administration is encouraging parasites to come out and, you know, take as much as they can with no remorse and this is how a country declines. This is how we become a weak nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: So that was a pretty clear statement about Jason the Surfer. And the failure of the federal government to regulate who gets entitlements from the taxpayer. Right? Pretty straightforward. Here is how Al Sharpton spun it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL SHARPTON: Bill O'Reilly is going back to one of his favorite talking points. Attacking the poor. Here is his latest rant about people on food stamps. Parasites. The poor are parasites. We have heard these kinds of attacks before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Sharpton obviously taking my comments totally out of context. Not even mentioning Jason the Surfer and basically not telling the truth once again. The guy does this all the time. And here's the crusher on Sharpton. He has been portraying me as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor. A few years ago Sharpton told me that his charity in Harlem, New York, was out of money. And that it could not provide Christmas presents and Christmas dinners to hundreds of poor people in Harlem. So I gave Sharpton a $25,000 donation to provide the gifts and the food. I never mentioned it. Because it wasn't necessary to mention it. But now it is. To prove exactly what kind of person Al Sharpton is.
Actually, most people in America have known for years what kind of person Sharpton is.
That's what makes it so shocking the folks at NBC News would actually give him his own show to race-bait from.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/16/bill-oreilly-accuses-al-sharpton-lying-once-again-national-television#ixzz2cAJwh0J6
-
hey fuck you Beach! Al Sharpton is black. Leave him alone.
-
Sharpton is a typical race pimping thug maggot
-
Is his stature in the public even what it once was?
He seems irrelevant these days
-
hey fuck you Beach! Al Sharpton is black. Leave him alone.
lol. Racist post reported . . . .
-
Is his stature in the public even what it once was?
He seems irrelevant these days
Yes. He has a show on MSNBC. Granted their ratings suck, but he still reaches thousands of people almost every day.
And irrelevant? He's partly responsible for the Zimmerman persecution (not a typo).
-
This Racism is killing me inside
-
Liberals should really be embarrassed by this guy.
Bill O'Reilly Exposes Al Sharpton for Lying 'Once Again' on National Television
By Noel Sheppard | August 16, 2013
Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on Thursday exposed Al Sharpton for lying "once again" on national television.
Also of interest, O'Reilly disclosed for the time that years ago he gave $25,000 to one of Sharpton's charities (video follows with transcript and commentary):
BILL O'REILLY: A few days ago, we did a story about the food stamp fraud in the USA. As part of that story we featured Jason the Surfer, there he is, young man healthy, gets thousands of dollars worth of food stamps every year. Even while he surfs all day long. He doesn't care about working. And here is what I said about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: This guy is a parasite. And my contention is that the Obama administration is encouraging parasites to come out and, you know, take as much as they can with no remorse and this is how a country declines. This is how we become a weak nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: So that was a pretty clear statement about Jason the Surfer. And the failure of the federal government to regulate who gets entitlements from the taxpayer. Right? Pretty straightforward. Here is how Al Sharpton spun it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL SHARPTON: Bill O'Reilly is going back to one of his favorite talking points. Attacking the poor. Here is his latest rant about people on food stamps. Parasites. The poor are parasites. We have heard these kinds of attacks before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Sharpton obviously taking my comments totally out of context. Not even mentioning Jason the Surfer and basically not telling the truth once again. The guy does this all the time. And here's the crusher on Sharpton. He has been portraying me as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor. A few years ago Sharpton told me that his charity in Harlem, New York, was out of money. And that it could not provide Christmas presents and Christmas dinners to hundreds of poor people in Harlem. So I gave Sharpton a $25,000 donation to provide the gifts and the food. I never mentioned it. Because it wasn't necessary to mention it. But now it is. To prove exactly what kind of person Al Sharpton is.
Actually, most people in America have known for years what kind of person Sharpton is.
That's what makes it so shocking the folks at NBC News would actually give him his own show to race-bait from.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/16/bill-oreilly-accuses-al-sharpton-lying-once-again-national-television#ixzz2cAJwh0J6
If you are white Al hates your guts lib or repub.
-
I dont think you read well Tony.
Try reading my post again. I just called Al a racist.
-
Sharpton is a typical race pimping thug maggot
I don't don't about typical - he is quite... bombastic. But he's certainly a race-pimping thug and, arguably, a racist.
-
I don't don't about typical - he is quite... bombastic. But he's certainly a race-pimping thug and, arguably, a racist.
What he did w Freddy's should have landed him in prison.
-
What he did w Freddy's should have landed him in prison.
Huh? I'm not sure i know what you're talking about. I don't follow Al's shenanigans too closely. By which I mean I don't follow them at all.
-
Huh? I'm not sure i know what you're talking about. I don't follow Al's shenanigans too closely. By which I mean I don't follow them at all.
Look it up - he fomented a riot resulting on a really bad situation
-
O'Reilly has been on fire lately. 8)
-
I would rather see people like Jason enjoying themselves while on food stamps than the typical food stamp recipient. Lets be real, Jason is a young kid enjoying life right now, pretty soon he will mature, get a career and get off food stamps for good. All the while many others will sit at home with no intention of ever working, sling dope, or maybe even sell the food stamps for dope. Filt!
-
Exposing Sharpton as a liar isn't very hard. You only have a 100% chance of doing so every time he opens his mouth.
-
Exposing Sharpton as a liar isn't very hard. You only have a 100% chance of doing so every time he opens his mouth.
Very well said... I laughed a good one. The only time he isn't lying is when hes eating. Well, hes still lying but hes not saying anything.
-
O'Reilly has been on fire lately. 8)
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/098/235/VWkZl.jpg)
-
Fox News should be ashamed of itself for portraying this guy (Jason the Surfer) as representative of the typical recipient of SNAP benefits
But then again Fox knows that the majority of their viewers are morons who will gobble up this shit hook, line and sinker and beg for more
Fox's Shameless Misrepresentation Of SNAP Recipients
Blog ››› August 9, 2013 11:00 PM EDT ››› SAMANTHA WYATT
Baier: "When A Safety Net Becomes A Hammock"
In an attempt to make a surfing freeloader the face of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, a Fox News special profiled Jason Greenslate, "a blissfully jobless California surfer" who has taken advantage of SNAP benefits. In reality, Greenslate bears no resemblance to the overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients, many of whom are elderly, children, or rely on the program for a short time while looking for work.
Prior to its August 9 airing, Fox News hyped the special, "The Great Food Stamp Binge," on Fox News Insider, FoxNews.com, and several of its daytime shows. Each preview focused on Jason Greenslate, a freeloading surfer who Fox correspondent John Roberts interviewed in Southern California. FoxNews.com described Greenslate at length in an article that teased the "new documentary":
The Fox News Reporting documentary profiles, among others, a California surfer and aspiring musician named Jason Greenslate. Greenslate shows how he supports his beach-bum lifestyle with food stamps, while dismissing the idea of holding down a regular, steady job.
"It's not that I don't want a job, I don't want a boss. I don't want someone telling me what to do. I'm gonna live my own life," Greenslate tells Fox News' John Roberts. "This is the way I want to live. And I don't really see anything changing. I got the card. It's $200. That's it."
As promised, "The Great Food Stamp Binge" labeled Greenslate "the new face of food stamps," devoting two full segments to his lifestyle in a shameless attempt to characterize SNAP recipients as freeloaders.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service, the fraud and waste rate in SNAP is roughly 1 percent, contrary to recent Fox claims that the program is rife with fraud.
Unlike Greenslate, 41 percent of food stamp recipients live "in a household with earnings," and use SNAP benefits to supplement their primary source of income. Furthermore, the USDA reports that most food stamp recipients stay in the program for only a short period of time:
Half of all new SNAP participants received benefits for 10 months or less in the mid 2000s, up from 8 months in the early 2000s. Single parent families and elderly individuals tended to stay in the program longer than did working poor individuals, childless adults without disabilities, and noncitizens. Seventy-four percent of new participants left the program within two years. This is an increase from 71 percent in the early 1990s.
Fox's attempt to demonize food stamp recipients as a caricature of willful dependency ignores the fact that SNAP kept 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011, many of whom are children or the elderly. Unlike Greenslate, the majority of these individuals relied on the program not because of laziness, but necessity.
Surely it would not have been difficult for Fox to find a realistic face of food stamp recipients, as 76% of SNAP households include a child, elderly person, or disabled American. This dishonest depiction of SNAP is the latest example of Fox's longstanding tradition of maligning the poor.
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/098/235/VWkZl.jpg)
LOL
-
Fox News should be ashamed of itself for portraying this guy (Jason the Surfer) as representative of the typical recipient of SNAP benefits
But then again Fox knows that the majority of their viewers are morons who will gobble up this shit hook, line and sinker and beg for more
Exactly bro, this guy is nowhere near the typical food stamp user. And like I said pretty soon he will mature and get a job and pay the govt 10s of thousands of dollars in taxes. And they make it sound like he is getting a shit ton of food stamps. Probably turns out to be less than 2 grand per year.
-
Fox News should be ashamed of itself for portraying this guy (Jason the Surfer) as representative of the typical recipient of SNAP benefits
But then again Fox knows that the majority of their viewers are morons who will gobble up this shit hook, line and sinker and beg for more
He's probably not typical, but he's still defrauding the system which is fucked up and he's hurting people who legitimately need the help but can't get it because he does, or won't because they'll be seen as potential fraudsters too.
Generally speaking, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing money for food to people. Still I can understand how people sometimes need a helping hand and I am willing to grudgingly support some measures to help people in need, but only if I can be assured that my money doesn't help someone freeload off of me and doesn't create a culture of dependency, the program is cost-effective and helps people improve their lives.
And I don't feel assured, because of people like Jason the Surfer, who ought to get kicked from the program and investigated for fraud.
-
He's probably not typical, but he's still defrauding the system which is fucked up and he's hurting people who legitimately need the help but can't get it because he does, or won't because they'll be seen as potential fraudsters too.
Generally speaking, I don't think the government should be in the business of providing money for food to people. Still I can understand how people sometimes need a helping hand and I am willing to grudgingly support some measures to help people in need, but only if I can be assured that my money doesn't help someone freeload off of me and doesn't create a culture of dependency, the program is cost-effective and helps people improve their lives.
And I don't feel assured, because of people like Jason the Surfer, who ought to get kicked from the program and investigated for fraud.
shouldn't he be investigated for fraud first and then kicked off if committing said fraud
what fraud do you think he might be committing ?
-
^
The funny thing is he is not defrauding the system. He's following the rules in place. From what I understand basically is if you don't have a job then you qualify.
-
^
The funny thing is he is not defrauding the system. He's following the rules in place. From what I understand basically is if you don't have a job then you qualify.
that's why I asked avxo what fraud this guy is committing
-
shouldn't he be investigated for fraud first and then kicked off if committing said fraud
Of course – he should first be investigated. I don't believe in summary execution, nor do I believe that what some guy says on an Internet forum should be dispositive.
what fraud do you think he might be committing ?
It's quite obvious that he is capable of working but just doesn't care to, choosing instead to freeload. I find that unacceptable and believe that his freeloading is likely to be a violation of the letter of the law. According to http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm):
Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations.
With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program.
And yet, here is this guy whose routine is to "wake up, go down to the beach, hang out with my friends, hit on some chicks, start drinking". Well fuck! How long has been receiving assistance? How long has he been without a job? If nothing else, he seems pretty able-bodied, and I am forced to wonder, has he registered for work, been offered suitable employment (whatever "suitable" means here) and taken part in employment and training programs to which he was referred to by the local office? Was he even referred to anything by the local office? I think these are all legitimate questions that I have a right to ask, seeing how I'm paying for him.
Now, it's possible that everything is kosher. But even if that's the case, I'd argue that this is a violation of the spirit of the law. Ultimately, if you need to rely on public assistance you have a moral and ethical obligation to get a job – ANY job to reduce the burden that you place on other people; not just hang out at the beach, drink, hit on chicks and surf. Because nobody has a right to be a leech on other people nor to stake claim on other people's hard work.
If I sound angry, it's because I am. I bust my ass day in and day out, working really hard and way over 60 hours a week, every month. And for what? So this guy can hang out on the beach? What will he do if stop supporting him? It would be really easy you know; all I need to do is quit my job. I have enough saved to live comfortably for a while and a long, relaxing vacation would be very welcome. What would Jason the Surfer – and all other Jasons out there – do then?
I have no problem giving my fellow citizens a helping hand (although I dislike being forced to do it at the point of the government's gun) when they need it provided they work to better themselves and get to a point where they no longer need my help. I do have a problem with being used and treated as someone else's slave.
And you know what? When I see this asshole living la vida loca, I feel like his slave.
-
that's why I asked avxo what fraud this guy is committing
Just using the rules set in place to benefit him. Same thing rich people do daily. All legal.
-
Of course – he should first be investigated. I don't believe in summary execution, nor do I believe that what some guy says on an Internet forum should be dispositive.
It's quite obvious that he is capable of working but just doesn't care to, choosing instead to freeload. I find that unacceptable and believe that his freeloading is likely to be a violation of the letter of the law. According to http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm):
And yet, here is this guy whose routine is to "wake up, go down to the beach, hang out with my friends, hit on some chicks, start drinking". Well fuck! How long has been receiving assistance? How long has he been without a job? If nothing else, he seems pretty able-bodied, and I am forced to wonder, has he registered for work, been offered suitable employment (whatever "suitable" means here) and taken part in employment and training programs to which he was referred to by the local office? Was he even referred to anything by the local office? I think these are all legitimate questions that I have a right to ask, seeing how I'm paying for him.
Now, it's possible that everything is kosher. But even if that's the case, I'd argue that this is a violation of the spirit of the law. Ultimately, if you need to rely on public assistance you have a moral and ethical obligation to get a job – ANY job to reduce the burden that you place on other people; not just hang out at the beach, drink, hit on chicks and surf. Because nobody has a right to be a leech on other people nor to stake claim on other people's hard work.
If I sound angry, it's because I am. I bust my ass day in and day out, working really hard and way over 60 hours a week, every month. And for what? So this guy can hang out on the beach? What will he do if stop supporting him? It would be really easy you know; all I need to do is quit my job. I have enough saved to live comfortably for a while and a long, relaxing vacation would be very welcome. What would Jason the Surfer – and all other Jasons out there – do then?
I have no problem giving my fellow citizens a helping hand (although I dislike being forced to do it at the point of the government's gun) when they need it provided they work to better themselves and get to a point where they no longer need my help. I do have a problem with being used and treated as someone else's slave.
And you know what? When I see this asshole living la vida loca, I feel like his slave.
Given that this guy is dumb enough to allow himself to be on TV bragging about this it's quite likely that if he is breaking any rules it won't be for much longer. He also may not be breaking any rules at all if he's being held to the standards from your own link:
Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations.
With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program.
The real fraud is Fox calling this guy "the new face of food stamps" as if he is representative of the majority of people on food stamps and not the 1% of people or perhaps even the one tenth of one percent.
-
Fox News should be ashamed of itself for portraying this guy (Jason the Surfer) as representative of the typical recipient of SNAP benefits
But then again Fox knows that the majority of their viewers are morons who will gobble up this shit hook, line and sinker and beg for more
This is comical considering you're the guy who had the phrase "Christians, like soldiers, ask no questions" under his avatar for years. You are a gigantic hypocrite.
You seem upset that SNAP fraud was exposed. You do know that it was documented in NYC that food stamps are being used to buy food that is then shipped off to be sold in places like the Dominican Republic, right? Of course not. ::)
-
This is comical considering you're the guy who had the phrase "Christians, like soldiers, ask no questions" under his avatar for years. You are a gigantic hypocrite.
You seem upset that SNAP fraud was exposed. You do know that it was documented in NYC that food stamps are being used to buy food that is then shipped off to be sold in places like the Dominican Republic, right? Of course not. ::)
Fairy, you are by fair the dumbest person on this board
If you were capable of reading my posts you would understand what my issue is with this phony story by Faux News
You should be happy SNAP exists because when your parents finally kick you out of the house you're probably going to need it
btw dunce - that quote was from Jerry Falwell
-
Given that this guy is dumb enough to allow himself to be on TV bragging about this it's quite likely that if he is breaking any rules it won't be for much longer. He also may not be breaking any rules at all if he's being held to the standards from your own link:
Perhaps, but that would only prove that the rules need to change!
The real fraud is Fox calling this guy "the new face of food stamps" as if he is representative of the majority of people on food stamps and not the 1% of people or perhaps even the one tenth of one percent.
So a pundit known for exaggerating and sensationalizing things on a network known to exaggerate and sensationalize things exaggerated and sensationalized things... I should be surprised why?
-
Fairy, you are by fair the dumbest person on this board
If you were capable of reading my posts you would understand what my issue is with this phony story by Faux News
You should be happy SNAP exists because when your parents finally kick you out of the house you're probably going to need it
btw dunce - that quote was from Jerry Falwell
No, he's not...he's dead-on.
You're crying because Fox is using one example to apply it across the board.
Yet you're the same one who keeps trying to act as though ONE Congressman calling ONE action of Repubs stupid means Republicans consider themselves stupid, or as you like to use, by their own admission. ::)
You do exactly what Fox is doing and you do it all the time and you're too much of a bitch to own up to it.
-
No, he's not...he's dead-on.
You're crying because Fox is using one example to apply it across the board.
Yet you're the same one who keeps trying to act as though ONE Congressman calling ONE action of Repubs stupid means Republicans consider themselves stupid, or as you like to use, by their own admission. ::)
You do exactly what Fox is doing and you do it all the time and you're too much of a bitch to own up to it.
if you dont quit fuking making sense youre going to send this retard to an early grave
-
if you dont quit fuking making sense youre going to send this retard to an early grave
lol...all the hate Strawman has is gonna put him in an early grave already.
-
lol...all the hate Strawman has is gonna put him in an early grave already.
That won't happen... He's delusional.
-
That won't happen... He's delusional.
He and Blacken are the two stupidest people on this forum. Wouldn't surprise me if those two were one in the same.
-
LOL. I can see the Confederacy of Dunces have convened on this thread?
I completely understand that you are all having the pre-destined emotional response to this story but no one has shown any proof that this guy is in violation of any rules or that he in any way represents the "new face" of food stamp fraud. And apparently this program actually has
a very low level of fraud compared to most other programs.
Gotta love the dunces who spent time crying about a guy getting a few hundred dollars a week for food while we have contractors bilking the country for hundreds of millions or more.
-
LOL. I can see the Confederacy of Dunces have convened on this thread?
I completely understand that you are all having the pre-destined emotional response to this story but no one has shown any proof that this guy is in violation of any rules or that he in any way represents the "new face" of food stamp fraud. And apparently this program actually has
a very low level of fraud compared to most other programs.
Gotta love the dunces who spent time crying about a guy getting a few hundred dollars a week for food while we have contractors bilking the country for hundreds of millions or more.
How do you come about this idea that there is "apparently" LESS fraud in this program compared to others? Less fraud because there are no rules and requirements maybe.
Get in line at a busy grocery store in a major metro area and see what you think. Last time I was behind somebody who used them at the grocery store they took the bags home in a new black Escalade. ::)
You know a few hundred a week multiplied by 47 million is also hundreds of millions right?
-
How do you come about this idea that there is "apparently" LESS fraud in this program compared to others? Less fraud because there are no rules and requirements maybe.
Get in line at a busy grocery store in a major metro area and see what you think. Last time I was behind somebody who used them at the grocery store they took the bags home in a new black Escalade. ::)
You know a few hundred a week multiplied by 47 million is also hundreds of millions right?
see my post on page 1
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service, the fraud and waste rate in SNAP is roughly 1 percent, contrary to recent Fox claims that the program is rife with fraud.
this story on Faux News exists solely to elicit an emotional response from certain kinds of people and you can see that it worked perfectly from the responses on this thread
the purpose of course it to get you mad about the entire foods stamps program which you can also see on this thread
Mission Accomplished Faux News
-
He and Blacken are the two stupidest people on this forum. Wouldn't surprise me if those two were one in the same.
berzurk fairy the 26 year old mama's boy :D :D :D :D :D :D let's take a poll,who here is 26 and still lives with mommy besides the fairy :D :D
-
That's my point. The oversight authority that claims less than 1% fraud is the same that hands the benefits out. I can trust what I actually see occur at least.
I don't think the response is only based on emotion. Common sense would have anyone primed for a response as this continues and increases.
The surfer dude...he doesn't have a whole family to raise apparently - so we're getting off cheap on him. He just wants to get a buzz and surf, haha.
-
That's my point. The oversight authority that claims less than 1% fraud is the same that hands the benefits out. I can trust what I actually see occur at least.
I don't think the response is only based on emotion. Common sense would have anyone primed for a response as this continues and increases.
The surfer dude...he doesn't have a whole family to raise apparently - so we're getting off cheap on him. He just wants to get a buzz and surf, haha.
so you're suggesting that the USDA is not reporting fraud accurately?
since you trust what you can actually see then tell us what your comprehensive review of the millions of people on the program have told you. I'm sure you know better than to believe that one or even 100 egregious example of what may or may not be fraud is not nearly large enough to draw a conclusion
again, this type of story by Faux News is designed to elicit exactly the type of response it is getting here
-
I would suggest they don't even look for fraud in earnest, as is inherent most large subsidy programs.
Some of us trust large federal gov't programs to be within a certain range of slop on numbers and some don't(see all recent economic gov't data).
Those of us who are old enough felt that way before Fox was around. You would generalize basic conservatism as being taught by news but it's the other way around. Liberalism is taught.
-
I would suggest they don't even look for fraud in earnest, as is inherent most large subsidy programs.
Some of us trust large federal gov't programs to be within a certain range of slop on numbers and some don't(see all recent economic gov't data).
Those of us who are old enough felt that way before Fox was around. You would generalize basic conservatism as being taught by news but it's the other way around. Liberalism is taught.
do you have anything to back this up other than your gut feeling
-
Boy, you really ignored the rest of that post didn't you?
No, I didn't google an internal report to regurgitate if that is the question.
All of my interaction with gov't spending at the village, city, township, county, state and federal levels is enough I think. A county can take a 3 mile contract for blacktop and somehow the commissioner's brother ends up with a 10 million dollar contract, haha.
I don't need to reverse-engineer a choice to fit my politics as far as if it's more evil to grossly overspend on war or social programs since we are clearly doing both. I don't think anyone would argue that the gov't gets pennies on the dollar back due to inefficiency in ANY program. I'm good with that sort of generalization.
-
LOL. I can see the Confederacy of Dunces have convened on this thread?
I completely understand that you are all having the pre-destined emotional response to this story but no one has shown any proof that this guy is in violation of any rules or that he in any way represents the "new face" of food stamp fraud. And apparently this program actually has
a very low level of fraud compared to most other programs.
Gotta love the dunces who spent time crying about a guy getting a few hundred dollars a week for food while we have contractors bilking the country for hundreds of millions or more.
Oh yea dude, you're on a like a completely advanced level of logic, lol.
You do exactly what Fox is doing and you do it all the time and you're too much of a bitch to own up to it.
-Skip, circa yesterday
-
Oh yea dude, you're on a like a completely advanced level of logic, lol.
-Skip, circa yesterday
;D
LOL. He's definitely operating on a different frequency. ::)
-
LOL. I can see the Confederacy of Dunces have convened on this thread?
I completely understand that you are all having the pre-destined emotional response to this story but no one has shown any proof that this guy is in violation of any rules or that he in any way represents the "new face" of food stamp fraud. And apparently this program actually has
a very low level of fraud compared to most other programs.
Gotta love the dunces who spent time crying about a guy getting a few hundred dollars a week for food while we have contractors bilking the country for hundreds of millions or more.
Actually, you're reading into something that's not even there in regards to my emotion... The core is that you do the exact same thing, but pretend that when Fox does it, it's some travesty.
You're not even honest with yourself.
I'm not even talking about whether or not the fucktard is the new "face of foodstamps"... Whether he is or is not isn't really the issue.
The issue is that it's obvious fraud... Whether it's 1% or .001%... If you're going to have a million foot soldiers in the federal government spending dollars, then there should be more than a few people stopping blatant abuses.
(which isn't even the point of my statement... my statement was just that you're delusional.
That's pretty obvious.
-
Oh yea dude, you're on a like a completely advanced level of logic, lol.
-Skip, circa yesterday
no, it's pretty basic really but apparently still beyond your grasp
btw - I've never said there is one stupid Republican and therefore they are all stupid.
I've said there are many many stupid Republicans and they have a deep bench
If you're going to apply a position to me then don't make up a lie and pretend it's my position.
you have enough quotes that you can actually use my words
they've got a pretty deep bench so no shortage of disasters on deck for the mid-terms and Repubs can't seem to stop talking about abortion so that's going to be front and center next year as well
no doubt
you teabagger have a deep bench of morons ready to step up and fill the gap left by this idiot though granted the next person will have some big clown shoes to fill
-
Actually, you're reading into something that's not even there in regards to my emotion... The core is that you do the exact same thing, but pretend that when Fox does it, it's some travesty.
You're not even honest with yourself.
I'm not even talking about whether or not the fucktard is the new "face of foodstamps"... Whether he is or is not isn't really the issue.
The issue is that it's obvious fraud... Whether it's 1% or .001%... If you're going to have a million foot soldiers in the federal government spending dollars, then there should be more than a few people stopping blatant abuses.
(which isn't even the point of my statement... my statement was just that you're delusional.
That's pretty obvious.
great
tell us how this kid is committing OBVIOUS fraud since
avxo posted a link to the guidelines for receiving SNAP and I posted the requirement from the link so tell us exactly how this kid is committing fraud
I don't think I ever said he wasn't. I just said it hadn't been proven but since it's obvious to you then you can clear it up for me
-
great
tell us how this kid is committing OBVIOUS fraud since
avxo posted a link to the guidelines for receiving SNAP and I posted the requirement from the link so tell us exactly how this kid is committing fraud
I don't think I ever said he wasn't. I just said it hadn't been proven but since it's obvious to you then you can clear it up for me
The kid admitted he didn't want a "Boss" so he went and got a SNAP card.
You're saying it's NOT obvious fraud?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
If you are saying it's not fraud... because fuck all... it's not obvious to YOU, then I don't see why anything you EVER say has any validity... You're just another person who should be ignored because they are DELUSIONAL.
-
The kid admitted he didn't want a "Boss" so he went and got a SNAP card.
You're saying it's NOT obvious fraud?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
If you are saying it's not fraud... because fuck all... it's not obvious to YOU, then I don't see why anything you EVER say has any validity... You're just another person who should be ignored because they are DELUSIONAL.
again, you tell me since it obvious to you.
here are the employment requirements.
Given your vast information on this kid and exactly what he is doing tell us (again, since it's obvious) how he is committing fraud.
Try to keep in mind that I never said he wasn't committing fraud. I just don't know what it is because I don't have your depth of knowledge of his particular situation
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm
Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations.
With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program.
-
again, you tell me since it obvious to you.
here are the employment requirements.
Given your vast information on this kid and exactly what he is doing tell us (again, since it's obvious) how he is committing fraud.
Try to keep in mind that I never said he wasn't committing fraud. I just don't know what it is because I don't have your depth of knowledge of his particular situation
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm
The kid is SURFING when he should be out finding a JOB... OH wait... HE SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT A BOSS.
If you are continuing down this path, I have nothing else to say to you EVER.
It's obvious to anyone with any ounce of common sense.
-
The kid is SURFING when he should be out finding a JOB... OH wait... HE SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT A BOSS.
If you are continuing down this path, I have nothing else to say to you EVER.
It's obvious to anyone with any ounce of common sense.
so you've got an emotional response to this kid (as I've been saying all along and which is what the story was no doubt designed to elicit) but you can't articulate the fraud you claim is so obvious ?
I've provided you the employment requirements and you've got a whole link of other requirements so tell us the obvious fraud
-
The kid is SURFING when he should be out finding a JOB... OH wait... HE SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT A BOSS.
If you are continuing down this path, I have nothing else to say to you EVER.
It's obvious to anyone with any ounce of common sense.
Key point here. StrawAnus doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. He's driven entirely by emotion and what the talking heads on MSNBC tell him. A fool's fool.
-
Key point here. StrawAnus doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. He's driven entirely by emotion and what the talking heads on MSNBC tell him. A fool's fool.
Hey Fairy,
Looks like TU is unable to point out the fraud he claimed was so obvious so maybe you would like to take a run at it
You're much dumber than TU but maybe you can make that work to your advantage somehow
All the links and info you need have been provided so when you get your next break from the fryer station why don't you give it a shot
-
As with MSNBC...looking to emotional directives as valid ammunition against common sense.
Posted real-world knowledge and he vaporized from the discussion. I'll just take my straw scalp and move on with life.
-
As with MSNBC...looking to emotional directives as valid ammunition against common sense.
Posted real-world knowledge and he vaporized from the discussion. I'll just take my straw scalp and move on with life.
how did I vaporize from the discussion ?
I provided you info from the USDA that fraud was around 1% and was actually lower as a percentage than it has been in prior years. I had more links ready but asked you to provide some proof of your "gut instinct" claim that the USDA doesn't look for fraud and you could provide nothing more than claimed interaction with state and local governments as some kind of support for your claim as if that is proof of even evidence that I'm supposed to take seriously?
If that's the best you can do then you should move on and take your make believe scalp with you or whatever other pretend toys you're playing with today
-
You confuse gut instinct with common sense.
Links aren't going to change the fact that gov't burns money in whatever it does, and then covers it in layers of creative accounting and bureaucracy.
-
You confuse gut instinct with common sense.
Links aren't going to change the fact that gov't burns money in whatever it does, and then covers it in layers of creative accounting and bureaucracy.
you're confusing your personal experiences with some parts of government with a working knowledge of a what appears to be a fairly well run government program (albeit not perfect or without some fraud)
Here is what you wrote
That's my point. The oversight authority that claims less than 1% fraud is the same that hands the benefits out. I can trust what I actually see occur at least.
so I asked you to give some examples of what you saw in regard to this specific program that would allow you to draw this conclusion and for me to take it seriously and you can't provide anything other than your experience with other aspects of government (I have no idea what that even is or how it would make you capable of rendering an opinion that I should trust)
btw - I was not suggesting that your statement about the USDA not making an effort to combat fraud as an "emotional response"
The emotional response were people reacting to this surfer guy. I can easily understand why hardworking people (myself included) would have that type of reaction but we still have no proof that this guy is committing any kind of fraud which is all I ever asked anyone to prove....given that they claimed it was obvious
-
so you've got an emotional response to this kid (as I've been saying all along and which is what the story was no doubt designed to elicit) but you can't articulate the fraud you claim is so obvious ?
I've provided you the employment requirements and you've got a whole link of other requirements so tell us the obvious fraud
As I mentioned before, even if he is within the letter of the law, he's violating the spirit of the law. And while I don't think that people should be prosecuted for violating the spirit of the law, such violations should highlight the need to fix the law in question.
Because, frankly, I work too damn hard and I find it insulting that some asshole chooses to chill by the beach, surf, hit on girls and drink instead of working, and then takes my money – money taken from me at the point of the government's proverbial gun – to go eat sushi.
-
As I mentioned before, even if he is within the letter of the law, he's violating the spirit of the law. And while I don't think that people should be prosecuted for violating the spirit of the law, such violations should highlight the need to fix the law in question.
Because, frankly, I work too damn hard and I find it insulting that some asshole chooses to chill by the beach, surf, hit on girls and drink instead of working, and then takes my money – money taken from me at the point of the government's proverbial gun – to go eat sushi.
again, I fully understand how this guy laughing about collecting food stamps elicits the predictable (and fully justifiable response) but how to you know this guy is even violating the spirit of the law.
how do you know for example (based on the link you posted) that he doesn't live in one of the areas that doesn't have a work requirement
I fully agree that this guy is a POS but I don't know or see any proof that he is committing obvious fraud (as some have suggested) which is all I ever asked making this claim to support
This guy sums up the situation pretty well and basically mirrors most of what I have written in this thread
http://www.inquisitr.com/901153/jason-greenslate-beach-bum-supposedly-living-off-food-stamps-rattles-fox-news/
-
again, I fully understand how this guy laughing about collecting food stamps elicits the predictable (and fully justifiable response) but how to you know this guy is even violating the spirit of the law.
how do you know for example (based on the link you posted) that he doesn't live in one of the areas that doesn't have a work requirement
Because the spirit of the law is to help people who want to work but can't and are in need, not people who don't feel like working but want to party.
-
Because the spirit of the law is to help people who want to work but can't and are in need, not people who don't feel like working but want to party.
the spirit of the law is to help people to avoid starvation or malnutrition and not necessarily to help people who "want to work but can't"
In fact, (again, according to USDA) 41 percent of food stamp recipients live "in a household with earnings," and use SNAP benefits to supplement their primary source of income. Furthermore, the USDA reports that most food stamp recipients stay in the program for only a short period of time
using it as a short term assistance is probably more the spirit of the law than anything else although I do suspect that people in chronic long term poverty most likely stay on it longer but then again we're talking about $200 of month for food. I really don't have a problem with that when my government wastes BILLIONS to kill people.
-
the spirit of the law is to help people to avoid starvation or malnutrition and not necessarily to help people who "want to work but can't"
You and I disagree, fundamentally, on what the spirit of the law is. You see, I think the spirit of the law is to help people who are trying; you think it's to help everyone. The other big difference between you and I is that I have no problem with people being malnourished or even starving to death if that is their choice; and by choosing to not work, people who aren't independently wealthy and can afford not to work are choosing to be malnourished and yes, to even starve to death.
In fact, (again, according to USDA) 41 percent of food stamp recipients live "in a household with earnings," and use SNAP benefits to supplement their primary source of income. Furthermore, the USDA reports that most food stamp recipients stay in the program for only a short period of time
I have no problem with people who work but can't make ends meet getting help. What I have a problem with is people who choose not to work and then want me to subsidize their food.
-
You and I disagree, fundamentally, on what the spirit of the law is. You see, I think the spirit of the law is to help people who are trying; you think it's to help everyone. The other big difference between you and I is that I have no problem with people being malnourished or even starving to death if that is their choice; and by choosing to not work, people who aren't independently wealthy and can afford not to work are choosing to be malnourished and yes, to even starve to death.
I have no problem with people who work but can't make ends meet getting help. What I have a problem with is people who choose not to work and then want me to subsidize their food.
I think it's to help people avoid starvation and malnutrition whether they are "trying" as you put it or not (we know this because some areas don't have a work requirement)
Again, I understand how this guys story elicits emotions and anger because this guy is flaunting his use of the system
I'd rather people have access to enough food to not starve to death even if it allows a few douche bags like this guy to slip through the cracks
-
I think it's to help people avoid starvation and malnutrition whether they are "trying" as you put it or not (we know this because some areas don't have a work requirement)
Again, I understand how this guys story elicits emotions and anger because this guy is flaunting his use of the system
I'd rather people have access to enough food to not starve to death even if it allows a few douche bags like this guy to slip through the cracks
::) ::)
-
I'd rather people have access to enough food to not starve to death even if it allows a few douche bags like this guy to slip through the cracks
And you can help achieve that goal by donating money (or food) to various charitable organizations which feed people with no questions asked.
Do you really believe that because you'd rather people have access to enough food to not starve to death, somehow that becomes my responsibility?
I really ought to quit my job. I have enough saved to be able to live comfortably for a while. That way I can focus on doing the things I like and I can avoid having my blood sucked by leeches who believe that their ends justify the use of my means.
-
And you can help achieve that goal by donating money (or food) to various charitable organizations which feed people with no questions asked.
Do you really believe that because you'd rather people have access to enough food to not starve to death, somehow that becomes my responsibility?
I really ought to quit my job. I have enough saved to be able to live comfortably for a while. That way I can focus on doing the things I like and I can avoid having my blood sucked by leeches who believe that their ends justify the use of my means.
when did I say my personal belief is your responsibility
I'm sure my taxes go to pay for shit that you support that I don't like
All I said is that I'd rather than have the program there helping people to avoid starvation and malnutrition even if it means a few douchebags appear to take advantage of the system
Fox did a great job finding an example that perfectly elicits the anger response from a certain segment of the audience (and who cares if they chose to lie about the level of fraud and abuse)
The goal is to get people to transfer their anger at this kid to anger toward the program in general and from reading this thread it seems to have worked perfectly
-
when did I say my personal belief is your responsibility
I was being somewhat facetious. Surely if a guy can surf, eat, drink and fuck all day long, I can crack a joke that's free ;D
I'm sure my taxes go to pay for shit that you support that I don't like
All I said is that I'd rather than have the program there helping people to avoid starvation and malnutrition even if it means a few douchebags appear to take advantage of the system
I'm curious. Would you support a system where the government simply provides every household with a basic "food cart" every week or every month or what have you free of charge (i.e. paid for by taxes)?
Fox did a great job finding an example that perfectly elicits the anger response from a certain segment of the audience (and who cares if they chose to lie about the level of fraud and abuse)
The goal is to get people to transfer their anger at this kid to anger toward the program in general and from reading this thread it seems to have worked perfectly
I agree that this guy was chosen to elicit the maximum emotional response. But that's what pundits do. They pick topics, hype them until they can't be hyped any more, and whip their crowd into a frenzy. I pointed this very thing out before – not sure if it was in this thread or another thread.
-
I was being somewhat facetious. Surely if a guy can surf, eat, drink and fuck all day long, I can crack a joke that's free ;D
I'm curious. Would you support a system where the government simply provides every household with a basic "food cart" every week or every month or what have you free of charge (i.e. paid for by taxes)?
I agree that this guy was chosen to elicit the maximum emotional response. But that's what pundits do. They pick topics, hype them until they can't be hyped any more, and whip their crowd into a frenzy. I pointed this very thing out before – not sure if it was in this thread or another thread.
why would the government (I assume you mean the US government and not for example the Cuban government) need to provide every household with a basic food cart every week?
what' that got to do with providing meager assistance to people who actually need it
-
why would the government (I assume you mean the US government and not for example the Cuban government) need to provide every household with a basic food cart every week?
what' that got to do with providing meager assistance to people who actually need it
Why not? After all, such a thing would ensure that everyone had at least the basics. No?
-
Why not? After all, such a thing would ensure that everyone had at least the basics. No?
To answer your question then I would say no
Why would the government provide food to people who don't need assistance in that area
I assume this is a joke or going to lead to some other angle?
-
To answer your question then I would say no
Why would the government provide food to people who don't need assistance in that area
I assume this is a joke or going to lead to some other angle?
The only "angle" it leads to is why should the government be in the business of providing assistance to anyone?
-
The only "angle" it leads to is why should the government be in the business of providing assistance to anyone?
you mean like tax credits to oil companies or farm subsidies or other transfer of our tax dollars to wealthy corporations and individuals
is that what you're referring to
do you really think that suggesting the government give food to people who don't need assistance is an argument against giving a bit of assistance to people who actually need it to live
did it occur to you that maybe the government has an interest in it citizens not starving to death (shit maybe some of those getting assistance will grow up and pay taxes someday like a few posters on this board whose parents utilized food stamps when they were kids - I won't mention their names)
-
you mean like tax credits to oil companies or farm subsidies or other transfer of our tax dollars to wealthy corporations and individuals
Tax credits are somewhat different – but, fundamentally I don't think the government should be handing out subsidies to oil companies, farms and so on.
do you really think that suggesting the government give food to people who don't need assistance is an argument against giving a bit of assistance to people who actually need it to live
No. But if you believe that government has a responsibility to provide food to people who can't afford it, I wanted to understand if you consider it a basic, fundamental right to have food on the table.
did it occur to you that maybe the government has an interest in it citizens not starving to death (shit maybe some of those getting assistance will grow up and pay taxes someday like a few posters on this board whose parents utilized food stamps when they were kids - I won't mention their names)
The question isn't whether the government has an interest. The question is whether the government has a legitimate interest.
As for your example it's really quite silly. Surely, by the same token, the government has an interest in every aspect of your life, and its interest makes it your master, not your servant.
-
Tax credits are somewhat different – but, fundamentally I don't think the government should be handing out subsidies to oil companies, farms and so on.
No. But if you believe that government has a responsibility to provide food to people who can't afford it, I wanted to understand if you consider it a basic, fundamental right to have food on the table.
The question isn't whether the government has an interest. The question is whether the government has a legitimate interest.
As for your example it's really quite silly. Surely, by the same token, the government has an interest in every aspect of your life, and its interest makes it your master, not your servant.
I never said the government had a "responsibility" to provide food to anyone
I think they (we) have a human and socioeconomic interest in not allowing people to starve to death but in doing so that doesn't mean we need to provide food to everyone, even if they don't need help
how is my example silly
don't you think that people who receive assistance may someday actually pay a lot in taxes (I'm not suggesting that's the governments motivation at all)
how do you take that and extrapolate "by the same token" that the government has an interest in every aspect of your life
here's my simple bottom line
the government has an economic interest (and even a human interest) in keeping it's citizens healthy and nourished and if some need temporary assistance with that it's well worth it in both human and economic terms
-
To answer your question then I would say no
Why would the government provide food to people who don't need assistance in that area
I assume this is a joke or going to lead to some other angle?
do you not understand that this guy doenst need assistance but your ok with him getting it?
you just contradicted yourself
-
do you not understand that this guy doenst need assistance but your ok with him getting it?
you just contradicted yourself
read my posts and stop asking stupid questions
-
read my posts and stop asking stupid questions
Your posts boil down to "yes, I'm ok with him getting free food even if he chooses to not be able to afford food, because the spirit of the law is to provide food to those who can't afford food and he, by choosing not work, can't afford food."
Has it occurred to you that this approach might mean that a single mother of two, who works but still can't afford to feed her children, might have to send them to bed hungry, so people who choose to not work can eat sushi and hang out by the beach?
-
Your posts boil down to "yes, I'm ok with him getting free food even if he chooses to not be able to afford food, because the spirit of the law is to provide food to those who can't afford food and he, by choosing not work, can't afford food."
Has it occurred to you that this approach might mean that a single mother of two, who works but still can't afford to feed her children, might have to send them to bed hungry, so people who choose to not work can eat sushi and hang out by the beach?
how about rather than making up something you just use my actual quotes
here are a few examples
if you can't figure out my point of view by now then there is no point in going further but don't "make up" a point of view and then assign to to me
again, I fully understand how this guy laughing about collecting food stamps elicits the predictable (and fully justifiable response) but how to you know this guy is even violating the spirit of the law.
how do you know for example (based on the link you posted) that he doesn't live in one of the areas that doesn't have a work requirement
I fully agree that this guy is a POS but I don't know or see any proof that he is committing obvious fraud (as some have suggested) which is all I ever asked making this claim to support
This guy sums up the situation pretty well and basically mirrors most of what I have written in this thread
http://www.inquisitr.com/901153/jason-greenslate-beach-bum-supposedly-living-off-food-stamps-rattles-fox-news/
I think it's to help people avoid starvation and malnutrition whether they are "trying" as you put it or not (we know this because some areas don't have a work requirement)
Again, I understand how this guys story elicits emotions and anger because this guy is flaunting his use of the system
I'd rather people have access to enough food to not starve to death even if it allows a few douche bags like this guy to slip through the cracks
-
Why would the government provide food to people who don't need assistance in that area
I think it's to help people avoid starvation and malnutrition whether they are "trying" as you put it or not
do you not see how a govt program that gives ppl a certain set of food would help avoid starvation and malnutrition?
youre supposedly for that in one instance and then against it in the other, bc ppl may not need it...
THIS GUYS DOESNT NEED IT!!!!
-
do you not see how a govt program that gives ppl a certain set of food would help avoid starvation and malnutrition?
youre supposedly for that in one instance and then against it in the other, bc ppl may not need it...
THIS GUYS DOESNT NEED IT!!!!
the very fact that he doesn't have a job PROVES he quite likely needs it
try to remember that the basic gripe on this board is that everyone believes he is committing fraud (though no one yet can prove it) and that he is capable of working but CHOOSES not to
the CHOOSING NOT TO part is the part you're supposed to be angry about.....remember ?
Try to pay attention to what Fox News wants you to get angry about
-
the very fact that he doesn't have a job PROVES he quite likely needs it
you cannot be this fucking stupid!!!!
-
you cannot be this fucking stupid!!!!
says the guy who has no other response and can't counter anything I've said
-
says the guy who has no other response and can't counter anything I've said
the fact he doenst have a job by CHOICE is PROOF that he needs food stamps to you?
-
the fact he doenst have a job by CHOICE is PROOF that he needs food stamps to you?
Who would voluntarily be on welfare and food stamps ???
Is the welfare check really that fat?
-
Who would voluntarily be on welfare and food stamps ???
Is the welfare check really that fat?
Article posted the other day pointing out that welfare recipients in a few areas receive more money than the salary of an entry level programmer.
-
Sharpton should be tried for a thousand hate crimes, inciting riots and civil unrest, and labeled a racist, then be beaten relentlessly with shoes about the face and hung from the nearest tree.
-
LOL
-
Who would voluntarily be on welfare and food stamps ???
Is the welfare check really that fat?
the problem are the guys making money and not reporting the income so that they can get government assistance. it's a pretty easy system to abuse. the lower income returns aren't audited like the high income returns.
I can't tell you how many time I've heard, "No I can't send him a 1099 it will screw up his welfare and/or unemployment."
at least 10-15 times every January.
guys get away with it year after year after year. if I did it ONCE I would probably get audited.
it's a fairly easy thing to catch by an auditor. but they roll the dice and they're usually OK. but if the employer gets caught he's gotta fork over the e-ee and e-er portion of the payroll taxes. So they think they're being a nice guy but they never realize just how nice they're being. good luck asking the guy who YOU did a favor for his portion of the payroll taxes you got pinched for.
for the record, the welfare system is fair when used fairly. but its not. thousands and thousands of people abuse the shit out of it. and none of them EVER think what they're doing is wrong. EVER.
-
Fox News should be ashamed of itself for portraying this guy (Jason the Surfer) as representative of the typical recipient of SNAP benefits
But then again Fox knows that the majority of their viewers are morons who will gobble up this shit hook, line and sinker and beg for more
That's the best you can do ... call conservatives morons. Really.
-
That's the best you can do ... call conservatives morons. Really.
Dont mind him. He is a paid shill for the left
-
Dont mind him. He is a paid shill for the left
And a dumb one at that.