Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Just another couple of examples......Follow

#1 Apr 21 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Sub-Default
**
738 posts
Just another couple of examples of why liberals should never be given power of any kind.

California is in financial ruin but hey people on welfare vote too.

Florida where everyone is super!!! or least should feel like it.

#2 Apr 21 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,178 posts
If you're not going to make even the slightest effort, I'm not either.
#3 Apr 21 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Wow, I'm actually kind of amazed that the capes only came to $2.33 each. Did they have logos or something?

I have a better article on stuff in Florida. And look! It's whites killing whites in horrific violent crimes! Yay! Varus will be pleased!

Oh, Florida Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#4 Apr 21 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Not to mention Florida is like the Elephant's Graveyard for old people. Just can't catch a break.

And shaped like a *****.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Apr 21 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
It's funny when the party that gave us concealed weapons in bars talks about common sense.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#6 Apr 21 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Turin wrote:
If you're not going to make even the slightest effort, I'm not either.


Well, for the California thing, it's pretty simple. A few years ago, California expanded its food stamp program to allow for a credit card like system. The thinking was that this would reduce the stigma of paying for food with stamps of some kind. I think about a year ago, it was revealed that the credit card system was basically just a debit account with a declining balance. It had no checks in it for what could be purchased, meaning you could buy chips in a Vegas casino or alcohol or tobacco or basically anything at all. They close the loophole for vacations, but haven't yet closed it for alcohol and tobacco, despite the fact that some of that funding comes from federal dollars and it's a violation of federal regulations for that money to be spent on such things.

So the Republicans introduced a bill to close the loophole, but the Democratic majority shot it down. Well, you're probably thinking there must be some kind of poison pill in the bill, since this should be a no-brainer, right? Wrong:

Quote:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 10072.6 is added to the Welfare and
Institutions Code, to read:
10072.6. (a) The electronic benefits transfer system designed
pursuant to this chapter shall be designed to prevent a recipient
from using an electronic benefits transfer card for the purchase of
alcohol or tobacco products.
(b) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the use of an
electronic benefits transfer card to access federal Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in any manner authorized
by federal law.


That is the entirety of the proposed legal change. No poison pills. No obtuse wording. No unforseen side effects. Just a straight clean bill to prevent the ebt cards from being used to purchase products which the existing food stamp program already prohibits. But apparently, the Dems don't want poor people going on vacations, but they do want them smoking and drinking.


Way to go Dems!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Apr 21 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Speaking of things shaped like penises.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Apr 21 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You can read the actual senate analysis of the bill here. The bill never made it out of committee (a fact the "article" neglects to mention, making it sound as though it was voted on by the full assembly).

At least part of the argument against it was that it placed a burden upon the vendor to not accept the card since the system isn't designed to electronically deny items. Accepting the card (intentionally or otherwise) could result in a "stiff penalty". It also discusses how disabling the card for ATMs in those locations is a manual process of identifying and entering ATM codes and can wind up shutting users from their local ATM just because it's in a location deemed unsuitable.

I don't know and don't care how significant these reasons are but I'll admit they don't sound as good in an opinion column as "Democrats want people to buy alcohol with tax money!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Apr 22 2011 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
You do know Florida is largely conservative, right?
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#10 Apr 22 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
Sweetums wrote:
You do know Florida is largely conservative, right?

Except during spring break.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#11 Apr 22 2011 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
ThiefX wrote:

Florida where everyone is super!!! or least should feel like it.

If I were a Floridian, I'd quit my job for one of them capes!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#12 Apr 22 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Elinda wrote:
ThiefX wrote:

Florida where everyone is super!!! or least should feel like it.

If I were a Floridian, I'd quit my job for one of them capes!


I didn't get a cape! Grrrr!
#13 Apr 22 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nadenu wrote:
I didn't get a cape! Grrrr!

Gotta be level 20.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Apr 25 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
At least part of the argument against it was that it placed a burden upon the vendor to not accept the card since the system isn't designed to electronically deny items. Accepting the card (intentionally or otherwise) could result in a "stiff penalty". It also discusses how disabling the card for ATMs in those locations is a manual process of identifying and entering ATM codes and can wind up shutting users from their local ATM just because it's in a location deemed unsuitable.


Are you kidding? The "argument for the opposition" states the following:

Quote:
The Western Center on Law and Poverty believes that this bill undermines the goals of CalWORKs and the EBT system - to integrate welfare recipients into the world of work and personal responsibility and that it promotes negative stereotypes of low-income people. The Center also believes the bill will bring confusion to vendors, puts unnecessary responsibility on retailers, and will have little or no impact on alcohol and tobacco use. The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations believes there is no evidence that EBT cards are being used to buy alcohol or tobacco.


It was killed (yes, in committee. What of it?) by lobbyists. Or is anyone mistaking where that opposition comes from? It's like they just wrote a generic boilerplate opposition and all the Dems in the committee voted to kill the bill. Which is almost certainly exactly what happened.

Gotta love this one: "The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations believes there is no evidence that EBT cards are being used to buy alcohol or tobacco". Hahahahahahaha <breathe> hahahahahaha!


Vendors are already responsible for separating food stamp purchases (or WIC, or whatever the **** they're calling it). It would be no more of a burden for them to program their POS systems to flag non-qualifying ebt items, and not allow them to be included in an ebt card purchase. It would be trivially easy relative to the work they already did to incorporate the various stamps and cards into effect in the first place. This is opposition for the sake of opposition and nothing more. They want to buy political points for "supporting the rights of the poor", no matter how silly and absurd it really is.


Quote:
I don't know and don't care how significant these reasons are but I'll admit they don't sound as good in an opinion column as "Democrats want people to buy alcohol with tax money!!"


Honestly? Looking at the details makes the Dems look worse. How far into a special interest's pocket do you have to be to be influenced to vote against that bill by that opposition statement? Be honest now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Apr 25 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
At least part of the argument against it was that it placed a burden upon the vendor to not accept the card since the system isn't designed to electronically deny items. Accepting the card (intentionally or otherwise) could result in a "stiff penalty". It also discusses how disabling the card for ATMs in those locations is a manual process of identifying and entering ATM codes and can wind up shutting users from their local ATM just because it's in a location deemed unsuitable.


Are you kidding? The "argument for the opposition" states the following:

Quote:
The Western Center on Law and Poverty believes that this bill undermines the goals of CalWORKs and the EBT system - to integrate welfare recipients into the world of work and personal responsibility and that it promotes negative stereotypes of low-income people. The Center also believes the bill will bring confusion to vendors, puts unnecessary responsibility on retailers, and will have little or no impact on alcohol and tobacco use. The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations believes there is no evidence that EBT cards are being used to buy alcohol or tobacco.


It was killed (yes, in committee. What of it?) by lobbyists. Or is anyone mistaking where that opposition comes from? It's like they just wrote a generic boilerplate opposition and all the Dems in the committee voted to kill the bill. Which is almost certainly exactly what happened.

Gotta love this one: "The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations believes there is no evidence that EBT cards are being used to buy alcohol or tobacco". Hahahahahahaha <breathe> hahahahahaha!


Vendors are already responsible for separating food stamp purchases (or WIC, or whatever the **** they're calling it). It would be no more of a burden for them to program their POS systems to flag non-qualifying ebt items, and not allow them to be included in an ebt card purchase. It would be trivially easy relative to the work they already did to incorporate the various stamps and cards into effect in the first place. This is opposition for the sake of opposition and nothing more. They want to buy political points for "supporting the rights of the poor", no matter how silly and absurd it really is.


Quote:
I don't know and don't care how significant these reasons are but I'll admit they don't sound as good in an opinion column as "Democrats want people to buy alcohol with tax money!!"


Honestly? Looking at the details makes the Dems look worse. How far into a special interest's pocket do you have to be to be influenced to vote against that bill by that opposition statement? Be honest now.


You make it sound like special interests don't have a hold on both sides of the aisle (note: I am not saying that it is ok that the Dems do it because the Pubs do it, I am saying that it is happening and that it is a large part of the problem with our government)
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#16 Apr 25 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Are you kidding? The "argument for the opposition" states the following:

You meant to say "States the following (in part)". Next time you cherry-pick only the parts that suit your argument, be honest about it. There's a reason I linked to the entire thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Apr 25 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
You make it sound like special interests don't have a hold on both sides of the aisle (note: I am not saying that it is ok that the Dems do it because the Pubs do it, I am saying that it is happening and that it is a large part of the problem with our government)


Sure. Doesn't remove or eliminate the point being made though. You're free to point to the presence of special interest groups operating behind the scenes for GOP legislative actions as well.


It's just that in this case, it was so blatant, so ridiculous, and so petty. I get a party going with the flow on behalf of special interests on some big ticket item. I get special interests having a hand in things like health care reform, tax reform, farm subsidies, etc because those are big "bang for the buck" issues from the perspective of the interest groups themselves. But this? Really? That's what they're spending political capital on?

Or, as is suggested in the OP, has this just become such a "business as usual" thing in a nutty-left state like California, that their interest groups swoop in on the most minor and absurd of issues and figure that no one will call them to the mat for it? Have they so dominated the political scene in this state that they don't even think of it as spending political capital at all? And isn't that a problem? What other silly things happen every day because some special interest group just writes the position they want their side to take and they get their way every time without hardly a notice?

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 7:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Apr 25 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Are you kidding? The "argument for the opposition" states the following:

You meant to say "States the following (in part)". Next time you cherry-pick only the parts that suit your argument, be honest about it. There's a reason I linked to the entire thing.


Ok. And there are two sections at the end, one titled "arguments in support", and the other titled "arguments in opposition". I quoted the entirety of the latter section. The entire rest of the words on the link you presented come from the "author" of the bill, who also writes the section in the "arguments for support" and are generally positive towards the bill (duh!). Thus, the *only* section of that link which comes from opponents of the bill was the section I quoted.

WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Apr 25 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Whoops, I was thinking of the "Discussion" section which elaborated more on it.

WTFOMGBBQ?!?!?!?!?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CST
Poldaran, Samira, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (47)