StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:10 PM) I never said private charities are free of corruption. I don't think robust implies that a given program would be free of corruption, but it does imply oversight to prevent it, or at the very least, curtail it. I doubt there is a single instance in the history of government where you won't find corruption when oversight doesn't exist. And I never said public programs would be 100% free of corruption and in fact never mentioned corruption, so I still don't know what set you off in the first place. Any government program would have some level of fraud/corruption (so would any large private program, it's the nature of large programs!) and would also have oversight mechanisms in place. I never said or implied otherwise.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:07 PM) s***ty charity > No charity is the point youre missing. Who is talking about supporting this charity anyway? Should the shelter close down and should they throw out everyone else now? Or maybe, just maybe the fact that theyre helping some homeless people (no matter how ridiculous the circumstances are) better than not helping anyone? I'm not missing that point. I was using the story to illustrate a different point (religious charities sometimes do s***ty things for religious reasons), so it's not particularly relevant. Ideally, the shelter just doesn't do the dumb thing it did. There's no need for them to close down, but there was no need to ship women and children out and bar any more from coming, either. If their funding comes from donations, I'd hope people send their money to shelters that wouldn't do the same things they did, but again not really central to the point.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:03 PM) When one uses the word "robust" to describe a government program, they're often including "with strict oversight as to avoid corruption" as part of the "robustness" of that program. So nice try on the feigned ignorance. "Derp, I don't see that word on my monitor...derp." Go play dumb with someone else...or stop using the word robust. Robust as in wide-ranging and encompassing everyone in need; strongly funded, resourced and staffed. I don't know why you think robust implies free from corruption (though, again, plenty of private charities have corruption problems). There's no feigned ignorance there, there's just you insisting that your idiosyncratic definition is the right one and is obviously how someone else must have used the word.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 04:59 PM) I dont agree with what this shelter did but at the same time charity is charity, and if you took the time to read absolutely anything else about the situation than "RawStory" (lol) Youd see they didnt toss out women and children, they sent them to a different shelter. Granted its weird and not everyone is going to agree with why they did it but you have to see the irony of some SJW crying about a charities policy despite the fact that the charity has likely helped more people in one day than they have in their entire lives. s***ty, discriminatory charity is still charity, but it sucks that it's s***ty and there's nothing wrong with calling it out for being s***ty. There are non-s***ty charities that don't make stupid moves like this one did for s***ty reasons, and those are the charities that should be supported. eta sending them to a different shelter 30 minutes away is still tossing them out

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 04:55 PM) Because when the government runs things, it will be free of all corruption and discriminatory practices!!! What a joke. Weird, my posts don't have anything about "corruption" when I see them on my screen. Maybe I should get my monitor checked? As for discrimination in government programs, yes, it happens, but legally it shouldn't be happening and generally speaking, the programs are structured in non-discriminatory ways. There are, on the other hand, a lot of private groups that are explicitly discriminatory.

Larry Summers on the Fed taking away the punch bowl just as the party was getting started: http://larrysummers.com/2015/12/15/what-sh...-and-have-done/

The narrative is that you're a s***ty person for tossing out women and children because some women might be having sex with some men at the shelter. eta: good lesson in why relying on private charity instead of robust, nondiscriminatory public programs is not always the best idea, though!

Goddamn women and their whorin', temptin' ways!!! (Psst! It takes TWO people to have sex! And you look like a giant asshole when you blame only the women and throw them out of shelters!)

The potential downside of having heavily religious charities is that some of them will pull garbage like this: Kentucky shelter tosses out all women days before holidays because they tempt men with ‘ungodly’ sex

The Corporate Takeover of the Red Cross Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern, who was hired to revitalize the charity, has cut hundreds of chapters and thousands of employees.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) Nanny was in our home. In home daycare provider was a small group of up to 8 kids in HER home. Basically, she was registered as a business with the state and used her home as the location. Ah got it, thought you meant in-your-home daycare provider.

Bernstein is sour on the deal, shocking

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) Nah. Your acting is if they added a 4+ WAR player the past two years with elite D and solid power at our weakest position or something. Lol

So of course our cat decides to pee on the basement couch again this morning. Thanks Steve

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) This trade sucks nah

Looks like a longer-term budget deal has been worked out:

Oh yeah probably not but it's related to this season and I guess is a 'potential' spoiler?

Spoiler Alert:

What is the difference between a nanny and an in home daycare provider

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 12:24 PM) This is insulting. I went to public school in Lockport :fistbump:

Renal failure is pretty common in cats, could be that.

He is a crazy lunatic and an asshole, so yes.

Historic climate deal reached in Paris with almost two hundred nations.

PP provides a lot of free or severely discounted health care.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-th...he-world/"" target="_blank">Meet The 80 People Who Are As Rich As Half The World