Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20290
Online
« #570 : March 26, 2013, 09:40:43 AM »

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.


Lol, the first post I made on the subject illustrates the "trick" in your advocacy piece. Also, it doesn't matter if the author addresses argument on both sides, the PURPOSE of the study is to DEBUNK charitable choice. That is the point, the reason it was done, the conclusion that was worked backwards from.

The flailing is almost funny. Just admit what you did.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #571 : March 26, 2013, 04:23:14 PM »

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.


Lol, the first post I made on the subject illustrates the "trick" in your advocacy piece. Also, it doesn't matter if the author addresses argument on both sides, the PURPOSE of the study is to DEBUNK charitable choice. That is the point, the reason it was done, the conclusion that was worked backwards from.

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.


Lol, the first post I made on the subject illustrates the "trick" in your advocacy piece. Also, it doesn't matter if the author addresses argument on both sides, the PURPOSE of the study is to DEBUNK charitable choice. That is the point, the reason it was done, the conclusion that was worked backwards from.

The flailing is almost funny. Just admit what you did.

Translation: I have nothing factual that I can present to disprove anything in the piece, so I will create scarecrows to scream at and accuse the author of lying about his data based on nothing other than the fact that it is at odds with my position and I don't like that.

I know, Vinny, and so does the idiot smurf. He, like you, is just too much of a dishonest coward to admit it.


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #572 : March 26, 2013, 04:25:42 PM »

lol

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #573 : March 26, 2013, 04:45:21 PM »

Also, it doesn't matter if the author addresses argument on both sides, the PURPOSE of the study is to DEBUNK charitable choice. That is the point, the reason it was done, the conclusion that was worked backwards from.

Name of the piece:

Debunking Charitable Choice

The evidence doesn't support the political left or right

Notice the buffoon leaves off the second part of the title of the article, which expresses the intent of the piece, which was to debunk ALL assumptions made about charitable choice, REGARDLESS of which side they come from. You are a lying sack of crap who cherry picked just enough of the article to create your straw man arguments against, What a pathetic fraud you are, counselor.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #574 : March 26, 2013, 05:17:24 PM »

Just to illustrate how stupid that is, the very large catholic church in my community does NOT have a "dedicated staff member" serving the POOR . . .

Exactly.

The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 2 percent of the median congregation’s total budget.

Note the qualifiers.  First the author is talking only about CONGREGATIONS and money that DIRECTLY supports a social service program.  In my real world example, the CONGREGATION of the catholic church in my area offers DIRECT social services for the poor, but these direct services are rather modest, dinners, food handouts, etc. part of the reason the DIRECT contributions are modest is because the church is located in a wealthy area.  HOWEVER, the congregation of this church INDIRECTLY supports social service programs, like St. Vincent de Paul, through MILLIONS in donations.  No staff member, the priest is not directly helping the poor, but MILLIONS are INDIRECTLY provided for social services.

Re-read the statement, you idiot. The author says 2% of the budget goes directly towards supporting social service programs. He isn't saying that this is the amount of money that the church spends on personally opening it's doors to the hungry and feeding them at the church. He's saying that this is the median percentage of income that churches DIRECTLY SPEND IN SUPPORT OF SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS, as opposed to something else, like paying it's staff, or sending money to the Vatican, for example. He makes no reference to these programs being the churches actual programs. You manufactured that distinction. His statement suggests that this is the median amount of income that a church spends in direct support of social programs. Programs that include, idk, St. Vincent de Paul, perhaps?

There is no way to indirectly support a social program. Either you support it monetarily, you support it with your time, or you don't support it. You invented a qualifier in which to argue against. Par for the course, I suppose.
« : March 26, 2013, 05:20:53 PM CBWx2 »


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20290
Online
« #575 : March 26, 2013, 05:29:54 PM »

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.


Lol, the first post I made on the subject illustrates the "trick" in your advocacy piece. Also, it doesn't matter if the author addresses argument on both sides, the PURPOSE of the study is to DEBUNK charitable choice. That is the point, the reason it was done, the conclusion that was worked backwards from.

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.


Lol, the first post I made on the subject illustrates the "trick" in your advocacy piece. Also, it doesn't matter if the author addresses argument on both sides, the PURPOSE of the study is to DEBUNK charitable choice. That is the point, the reason it was done, the conclusion that was worked backwards from.

The flailing is almost funny. Just admit what you did.

Translation: I have nothing factual that I can present to disprove anything in the piece, so I will create scarecrows to scream at and accuse the author of lying about his data based on nothing other than the fact that it is at odds with my position and I don't like that.

I know, Vinny, and so does the idiot smurf. He, like you, is just too much of a dishonest coward to admit it.

CBW shuffle

1. Present the CONCLUSIONS of an advocacy piece as "fact"
2. When someone points out the flaw in the CONCLUSIONS (ie result-oriented, agenda driven advocacy piece), say "oh yeah, but you can't disprove the facts (really conclusions of an advocate)

Lmao. The flaw is disproving it. And saying "oh yeah, you can't disprove it" is laughable, it's like this:

CBW: the moon was once made of cheese and inhabited by little green men
Dolo: that's not true
CBW: it is true, here's a study written by a PhD that says the moon was once made of cheese and inhabited by little green men
Vin: the study was commissioned by the "Moon Once Made if Cheese/Little Green Men Society," a group of people dedicated to proving your claim CBW
CBW: surrender noted because you can't disprove it

ROFLMAO. - wasting everyone's time CBW

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
« #576 : March 26, 2013, 05:32:06 PM »

There is no way to indirectly support a social program. Either you support it monetarily, you support it with your time, or you don't support it. You invented a qualifier in which to argue against. Par for the course, I suppose.

A couple of things that stood out about that "study."

1. A survey of "12" churches. Great.

2. A lot of the reference to churches were individual churches. A lot of the Black, Baptist and other Protestant churches have a tendency to be pretty fragmented. Therefore their programs are more locally direct as the article suggest. i.e. food and clothe drives.

However, churches like the Catholic Church, some Baptist denominations, Presbyterians etc have a central structure which allows coordinated action. Subsequently, the Catholic church can, and does spend billions on "social" programs. That is at the diocese level for example which I am pretty confident does not come under the au**CENSORED**es of "congregational" action. That is on top of what is done locally.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20290
Online
« #577 : March 26, 2013, 05:33:05 PM »

In the real world churches support social service and a "study" published by a group trying to prevent the government from giving money to charities does not change the reality that churches support social services.

Well ... Maybe in some people's world

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #578 : March 26, 2013, 05:59:56 PM »

There is no way to indirectly support a social program. Either you support it monetarily, you support it with your time, or you don't support it. You invented a qualifier in which to argue against. Par for the course, I suppose.

A couple of things that stood out about that "study."

1. A survey of "12" churches. Great.

The author's study wasn't just a survey of 12 churches. Not even sure where you got that.

2. A lot of the reference to churches were individual churches. A lot of the Black, Baptist and other Protestant churches have a tendency to be pretty fragmented. Therefore their programs are more locally direct as the article suggest. i.e. food and clothe drives.

However, churches like the Catholic Church, some Baptist denominations, Presbyterians etc have a central structure which allows coordinated action. Subsequently, the Catholic church can, and does spend billions on "social" programs. That is at the diocese level for example which I am pretty confident does not come under the au**CENSORED**es of "congregational" action. That is on top of what is done locally.

This is true, but how much funding for these organizations comes from tithing, or from direct contributions? When you donate money specifically to St. Vincent de Paul, that is not a religious donation, it is a human services donation. The purpose of the research isn't to say that religious organizations as a whole don't engage in charitable acts, nor have I ever made that claim. The purpose was to show that religious donations, that is to say, donations made specifically to one's church, do not go towards funding social services, at least not in any great measure.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17871
Online
« #579 : March 26, 2013, 06:50:21 PM »


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

danlowe748

****
Starter

Posts : 355
Offline
« #580 : March 26, 2013, 07:31:44 PM »



Paying for Lobster and Steak with food stamps.   I'm sure this is not what people have envisioned for the food stamp program.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17871
Online
« #581 : March 26, 2013, 07:41:25 PM »



Paying for Lobster and Steak with food stamps.   I'm sure this is not what people have envisioned for the food stamp program.

It's true that churches don't serve Surf-n-Turf to the needy....no wonder the Comrade finds all thier good deeds to be trivial and pointless.... :P

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

danlowe748

****
Starter

Posts : 355
Offline
« #582 : March 26, 2013, 08:04:13 PM »

Something has gone wrong with the system over the years.   I worked at a grocery store back when I was 16.   Back then, only certain items were eligible to use food stamps on.   For example, Kaboom cereal, but not Captain Crunch.   You could not buy just any cereal.   Only certain butters, etc.   Everything on the allowable list was on the low price end and had to be approved as a nutritious value for money.   Lobster certainly was not on the list of allowable items.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #583 : March 26, 2013, 08:22:44 PM »



Paying for Lobster and Steak with food stamps.   I'm sure this is not what people have envisioned for the food stamp program.

It's true that churches don't serve Surf-n-Turf to the needy....no wonder the Comrade finds all thier good deeds to be trivial and pointless.... :P

The useless idiot smurf strikes  again. I wonder if the virtuous olaf is going to blast you for completely making this up, given that I've never said anything about the church's deeds being trivial or pointless? I suspect not. Apparently, his crusade doesn't extend to everyone who disrupts the harmonious flow of message board discussion.


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #584 : March 26, 2013, 08:59:07 PM »

awww, poor little spinmeister's wittle feelings are hurt ..... go cry to vinnie peanuts some more about mean olaf "flaming" and you guys can discuss "stalking" while you are at .....
  Page: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools