Rex Kickass

I think its easier to fund aid for things we don't see every day. Which is strange to me because you think its the other way around... but I've noticed a tendency among people, myself included, to see problems next to me and try to hide from them or take out their frustration on the people who represent the problem rather than the problem itself. EM: you're missing my point. We live in a country that has created a basic safety net to protect the weakest among us. Some of these people need help for life. In my view, a responsible society would do a little to keep these people both safe for themselves and ourselves. I don't know this dude who lives down your street. I don't know his family, I don't know thing one about him. I just know that I would rather have the government provide enough for him to stay fed and housed rather than hungry and on the street, and more likely to do something that would keep him in prison. Not just because its the right thing to do, but because it would be cheaper. It costs a lot of money to put a guy away. For every guy on SSI that f***ed himself with drugs, there's a vet who developed a psychosis in his 30's that has made him unable to cope with life. Not harmful enough to be hospitalized, but not capable of functioning in our society normally. There's a mentally retarded adult who's parents have finally passed on and he has no other way of supporting himself. There's a woman who was brain damaged because of being in a car that was hit by a drunk driver and, through no fault of her own, is now unable to work. If taking care of the hundreds of thousands of people means the occasional excess, I'm not going to call for the destruction of the entire system. I'm not happy with fraud, but fixing it doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well EM, I just assume that you wouldn't accept unemployment if you were eligible then. After all, if you hadn't screwed up by working for a s***ty company or gotten yourself fired or whatever, you'd still have your job.

ie

That's the point, right now there is no alternative short of this guy on the street. Not unless you hospitalize the guy and that would cost far more than a grand a month if he's even receiving that much. You say put the onus on his family. What if his family won't take care of him? What then? Are you saying its preferable to let him live in the street and steal to feed himself than to spend whatever pittance the guy receives to keep him marginally alive?

NJ is expensive. I hope to save up for a cardboard box one of these days. I really wanna be an Owner

I never questioned your charity. I just proposed an alternative to his social security payments. You called someone who's disabled, be it by his means or not, a waste of air. And you act like you should get a pat on the back. Listen dude, life's tough. If you can't take having your views being challenged, don't give them.

Really? I believe my war cry has had little to do with Farhenheit 9/11. And F9/11 wasn't about Michael Moore. Unless he got elected president 4 years ago and nobody told me.

So wait, his house IS a cardboard box on your corner?

Tex: Well said

You should be fine so long as you stay out of Austin. Kinky Freidman for Governor!

So lemme see. Michael Moore makes a movie questioning the motives about our president. Rather than address the questions, you'd rather question the motives about a fat guy who makes egocentric movies. Riiight.

Kap, you just attributed the thoughts of an Iranian scholar to John Kerry. Here's the quote in full context. Here's what the Kerry camp said about Iran in the article. There's a bit of a difference there between what he said and what you thought he said.

EM: you got it exactly right. Those f***ers would be better off if we made them live on our streets. I got an idea, how about you try to convince him to return the SS checks in exchange for a cardboard box at your corner?

race2004.net is actually better.

Yes that freedom loving KGB agent Vlad Putin who took the independent out of independent TV during his watch by having the state run Natural Gas company purchase the network. Great endorsement. Oh by the way, didn't the Russians profit from Oil for Food too?

Depends on the poll. For every poll that shows Bush up in FL and OH, there's another showing Kerry up. Bush has a slight edge in FL. The last four polls from FL show this. Bush - 50 Kerry 49. (Zogby) Bush - 47 Kerry - 46 (Rasmussen) Bush 49 - Kerry 50 (Survey USA) and Bush 48 - Kerry 45 (Mason Dixon). Four poll average. Bush - 48.75%, Kerry 48.0% Undecideds usually break 2-1 for challenger. The last four polls from OH show this. Bush 51 - Kerry 48 Nader 0.4 (Zogby) Bush 47 - Kerry 45 Nader - 3(Opinion Dynamics/FOX) Bush 47 - Kerry 47 (Rasmussen) Bush 47 - Kerry 49 (Survey USA) Four poll average. Bush 48.25%, Kerry 47.75%, Nader 0.8%

Snow monkeys. heh.

Personally, I think Bush'd be better off focusing on Ohio and Florida exclusively. If he can't win at least one of these states, it'd be almost impossible for him to carry the election.

From the Associated Press.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/13361/

My bad, guess I was wrong. I had heard he had stopped campaigning in PA. But polls are showing the state breaking towards Kerry.

I have watched occasionally Gotti. It's the Saved By The Bell, VH1 rule, I watch til commercial and then am snapped out of the crappy show hypnosis.

That is prettyawesome.

So does that mean that they never endorse a mayoral candidate? Polls between now and Nov 2 are worthless. At this point four years ago, Bush had a 13 point lead in the Gallup poll. It's all about GOTV.

Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush for re-election. From The Tampa Tribune