Bill O'Reilly Exposes Al Sharpton for Lying 'Once Again' on National Television

[tu_holmes]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[tu_holmes]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Fury]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[SOMEPARTS]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[SOMEPARTS]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[avxo]

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.

[Straw Man]

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/

[avxo]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[avxo]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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

  

[avxo]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[avxo]

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

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.

[Straw Man]

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


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

[avxo]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[avxo]

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?

[Straw Man]

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)