Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#202 Jan 08 2013 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem I run into with many posters on this forum is that I look at data in the world around me, apply my own logic to them, and derive my own conclusions.


And then refusing to compare that to any other conclusions from other people who have witnessed similar data, means that it is your opinion, which you treat like fact, which makes you a tool.

Just so you know.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#203 Jan 08 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The problem I run into with many posters on this forum is that I look at data in the world around me, apply my own logic to them, and derive my own conclusions.


And then refusing to compare that to any other conclusions from other people who have witnessed similar data, means that it is your opinion, which you treat like fact, which makes you a tool.


I'm sorry. Could you point to where someone presented a competing conclusion (with explained reasoning, etc) for comparison to my own? I seem to recall a mere "cite?" response to my post, which kinda isn't close to the same thing. I'm more than willing to compare my conclusions to others, but it's somewhat hard to do that when no one else is willing to actually bother to present said conclusions (much less the logic behind them) in the first place.

Quote:
Just so you know.


That something I'm not doing makes me a fool? Um... Thanks, I guess!

I don't treat my opinions as fact. I treat them as my opinions. I do ask that if others disagree that they at least present a counter opinion/conclusion/whatever as part of their argument. Seems only fair.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#204 Jan 08 2013 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
First, I said Tool, not Fool.

Second, you put forth your opinions as fact, which is why I respond to you.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#205 Jan 08 2013 at 10:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
First, I said Tool, not Fool.

Second, you put forth your opinions as fact, which is why I respond to you.


I find that when engaging in argument or debate, it's useful to present my opinions as though they are fact (well, correct. The word "fact" has other connotations) and require that the other guy present an argument in opposition to mine. Doing otherwise kinda defeats the purpose. If you're unable to present a good argument in opposition to mine, then my opinions ought to be treated as though they are a correct model of the issue being discussed. I mean, we don't toss out the theory of gravity until someone else has a better explanation for why objects fall to the ground, right? Even if imperfect, an idea/theory/opinion/whatever that explains and/or matches observed data is better than one that doesn't.


You're free to disagree with my explanation of things, but to do that you really have to present a counter which covers the same set of data and adequately explains them. Why, for example, do people borrow money from pawshops or payday loans every single month, only to pay it back on payday? Clearly, they could have more money if they didn't do this than if they do, but they do it anyway. And not just once in awhile, if they have an unexpected expense. The same people habitually do this month after month. There's no rational explanation for that behavior, yet we try to assume that everyone acts rationally with their spending habits (including things like food stamps). My argument is that many people *aren't* rational with their money. Thus we should not assume they act rationally with regard to food stamps. This then, explains far better why some people continually come up short in terms of buying sufficient food, despite access to programs like food stamps. It's an explanation that fits the observed data.


What's the counter? That we just don't give them enough money? Isn't that really what we're talking about here? Again, we have lots of data which suggests that for some people, how much money/assistance we provide for them wont matter. You're free to make a counter case, but then make it. Don't just nip around the edges of what I'm saying and insist that I must be wrong. Provide a counter that better matches the data. If you can't do that, then you must accept that my "opinion" is the best one with regard to the issue at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#206 Jan 08 2013 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
First, I said Tool, not Fool.

Second, you put forth your opinions as fact, which is why I respond to you.


I find that when engaging in argument or debate, it's useful to present my opinions as though they are fact (well, correct. The word "fact" has other connotations) and require that the other guy present an argument in opposition to mine. Doing otherwise kinda defeats the purpose. If you're unable to present a good argument in opposition to mine, then my opinions ought to be treated as though they are a correct model of the issue being discussed. I mean, we don't toss out the theory of gravity until someone else has a better explanation for why objects fall to the ground, right? Even if imperfect, an idea/theory/opinion/whatever that explains and/or matches observed data is better than one that doesn't.


But it is usually confirmed with the observed data of others. Other observed data is accepted, not to mention expected, in order to corroborate the conclusion of the observed data. Yours does none of that.

gbaji wrote:
You're free to disagree with my explanation of things

Gee, Thanks!

gbaji wrote:
But to do that you really have to present a counter which covers the same set of data and adequately explains them.

No, I really don't. I am allowed to take the datum you give me, compare it to the datum that I have collected and form my own conclusion. The end. What I don't do is tell everyone, and I do mean everyone, that they are wrong for disagreeing with me.

gbaji wrote:
Why, for example, do people borrow money from pawshops or payday loans every single month, only to pay it back on payday? Clearly, they could have more money if they didn't do this than if they do, but they do it anyway. And not just once in awhile, if they have an unexpected expense. The same people habitually do this month after month.

Is this something you have observed? I would love to know when and where you observed it.

gbaji wrote:
There's no rational explanation for that behavior

So you are also an expert in sociology, as well as psychology? Cool

gbaji wrote:
yet we try to assume that everyone acts rationally with their spending habits (including things like food stamps)

Who is we?

gbaji wrote:
My argument is that many people *aren't* rational with their money. Thus we should not assume they act rationally with regard to food stamps. This then, explains far better why some people continually come up short in terms of buying sufficient food, despite access to programs like food stamps.

see, this is what your whole post boils down too. The rest is just verbal diarrhea and emotional ************ on your part, which is unnecessary, and is why I don't take you seriously

gbaji wrote:
What's the counter? That we just don't give them enough money? Isn't that really what we're talking about here? Again, we have lots of data which suggests that for some people, how much money/assistance we provide for them wont matter. You're free to make a counter case, but then make it. Don't just nip around the edges of what I'm saying and insist that I must be wrong. Provide a counter that better matches the data. If you can't do that, then you must accept that my "opinion" is the best one with regard to the issue at hand.


See, the "Data" is what you have "Observed", but you didn't take notes, or have witnesses, or a control group. Stop acting like you are the final arbiter of truth.

Tool
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#207 Jan 08 2013 at 11:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Gbaji,

I read your article, and your post.

First off you should go back and read your article again. This study was done to compare how low income households compared to food stamp participants in Food security, which they defined as having enough food to feel comfortable in attaining all required nutrients for a healthy life.

The comparisons in this article are entirely personal opinion of those related to the study on whether or not they feel that they can provide food to their households.

It continues to tell us that of those who are ineligible for FSP only 10% felt they could not provide.
It tells us of those who participate but are not entitled to full benefits only 12% felt they could not provide.
It tells us of those receiving full assistance 18% felt they could not provide.
It tells us all of those markers fell short of the US governments goal.
The provision is food, and what they are not feeling is being able to confidently (securely) supply food to their families.

Congratulations Gbaji you found the income gap.

As for this...
Quote:
The results have been inconclusive and the authors have warned against drawing causal inferences from their research.


Is in relation to the articles main objective...are food stamps enough. The testing being done is to find out whether or not Food Stamps are working as intended, and should their be a more assistance available. As for your closing quote,

Quote:
The authors' most reliable models indicated that food stamps did not affect the probability of being classified as food insecure, although they offered “tentative evidence” that food stamps reduced the level of food insecurity among those who are categorized as food insecure. The authors warned that establishing cause and effect with propensity score matching “might not be possible in some instances, given the magnitude of the selection effects.”


Yes getting assistance would generally help someone feel more secure. I would say that it is definitely true. An extra 500 a month to feed your family vs not having 500 a month to feed your family, but since they are still short of the US GOV benchmark (7.5%) they are still classified as insecure........I could go on but this isn't rocket science man.

As for your personal opinion.

You don't know what poor is, you are not entitled to an opinion.







Edited, Jan 9th 2013 12:27am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#208 Jan 09 2013 at 6:39 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts

I find that when engaging in argument or debate, it's useful to present my opinions as though they are fact


The **** you say!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#209 Jan 09 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji doesn't like facts, as they have connotations
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#210 Jan 09 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem I run into with many posters on this forum is that I look at data in the world around me, apply my own logic to them, and derive my own conclusions.
The problem everyone has with you is the world around you that you find your data in is some make believe conservative Narnia, and not reality.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#211 Jan 09 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
gbaji wrote:
I look at data in the world around me....
Unless ur god, that's called an anecdote.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#212 Jan 09 2013 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I look at data in the world around me....
Unless ur god, that's called an anecdote.

gbaji previously wrote:
Anecdotes are data.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#213 Jan 09 2013 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,756 posts
Become a scientist, make your own facts. Smiley: cool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#214 Jan 09 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I look at data in the world around me....
Unless ur god, that's called an anecdote.

gbaji previously wrote:
Anecdotes are data.

Smiley: lol Well that came back to bite me in the ****.....
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#215 Jan 09 2013 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,361 posts
So you're saying that all the kids in America who go hungry at night do so as a result of "poor choices" ?

They chose to have deadbeat parents. Of course. It's just obvious!

Unlike gbaji, I'm not afraid of facts. Or citations.

Childhood Hunger in America wrote:
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life. Although food insecurity is harmful to any individual, it can be particularly devastating among children due to their increased vulnerability and the potential for long-term consequences. (Source.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#216 Jan 09 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
But it is usually confirmed with the observed data of others. Other observed data is accepted, not to mention expected, in order to corroborate the conclusion of the observed data. Yours does none of that.


Um... I've presented observed data that supports my position. It's not my job to make your argument for you. You're doing the equivalent of demanding that I prove a negative (ie: Failing to present data countering my position somehow proves that I'm not considering all the data when arriving at my conclusion). If you believe there's data which counters my position then you need to find and present it.

What "observed data" are you talking about that isn't confirming my conclusions?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
But to do that you really have to present a counter which covers the same set of data and adequately explains them.

No, I really don't. I am allowed to take the datum you give me, compare it to the datum that I have collected and form my own conclusion.


Great! Then do that. I'll wait.

Quote:
The end. What I don't do is tell everyone, and I do mean everyone, that they are wrong for disagreeing with me.


When said disagreement is not accompanied with any sort of logical rational, then it can be safely dismissed.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Why, for example, do people borrow money from pawshops or payday loans every single month, only to pay it back on payday? Clearly, they could have more money if they didn't do this than if they do, but they do it anyway. And not just once in awhile, if they have an unexpected expense. The same people habitually do this month after month.

Is this something you have observed? I would love to know when and where you observed it.


Yes. I've observed this personally. If you've ever watched any of those pawn shows, you also know it's true. You could also read sites like this one or this one in case you still aren't convinced. Most customers of pawn shops and payday loans are repeat customers. Do your own searching if you aren't satisfied with mine (again, I'm not the one who needs to disprove my own position). These industries (and btw, the credit card industry) rely on repeat customers. People who are constantly borrowing money to make it through the month are how they make most of their money. And as I've said repeatedly, it's an irrational set of choices for anyone doing that regardless of their income level.

My point is that people make those irrational choices. They tend to keep spending until they literally can't spend anymore. The function and use of these lending industries should constitute strong evidence for this. The conclusion I'm drawing from this is that simply giving people more money doesn't solve this problem. Most people will simply increase their spending. In fact, one can also conclude that people *can* live on the income sources they have, but have a psychological need to be in debt as much as they can prior to stabilizing at that spending level. This is clear when you consider someone who gets a $500 payday loan every month, and pays $100 in interest on it once the first comes around and they get paid. They do this every month, meaning that they're actually living on $100 fewer than they earn each month. They can live on that much, but when they have the opportunity to borrow money they will do it anyway. The net effect is that they decrease the actual money they have to live on, but fulfill the need to feel like they're spending as much as they can (or at least, that's how I see it).

Do you have another explanation which better fits those data? I'll point out again that this isn't about how much money people make. The same behavior occurs with credit cards for those with higher incomes. How many people do you know who make good salaries walk around with their credit cards maxed or near to maxed? So they're paying hundreds of dollars in interest every single month, which suggests that they could have lived on the income they earn, but for some reason were compelled to spend much more money until they reached the maximum they could borrow and only then reduced their spending to what they could afford (which is now lower than it would have been had they not gone through the process in the first place.

There's abundant evidence to support the behavior pattern I'm talking about.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
yet we try to assume that everyone acts rationally with their spending habits (including things like food stamps)

Who is we?


We is everyone who attempts to argue for spending on benefits based on the assumption that those who receive them will spend them in the ways we want them to. As I observed way back in the beginning of this thread, for most recipients of food stamps, the food stamps don't actually affect the total dollars they spend on food each month. It does affect the dollars they spend on other things though. We look at our "food insecurity" statistics (or whatever we're calling it this year), conclude that a lot of people could cover that shortage with just a little bit of extra money available for food, provide them with that little bit, and then are stunned when those we're providing for are still just a "little bit short" when it comes to food each month.

My suggestion is that the problem isn't the funding side, but the spending side. Which is why I suggest that methods which actually provide food for people rather than money (or stamps, or whatever) that can be used to purchase food might be a better way to go.

Quote:
see, this is what your whole post boils down too. The rest is just verbal diarrhea and emotional ************ on your part, which is unnecessary, and is why I don't take you seriously


So do you agree with what I said though? The rest of my posts exist because people keep insisting that I'm wrong, forcing me to write over and over and over again all the different arguments and examples and rationals supporting what I'm saying. If you agree with my statement that people don't spend money rationally, so we should not approach funding for things like food stamps as though they do, then we're good, right?

Quote:
See, the "Data" is what you have "Observed", but you didn't take notes, or have witnesses, or a control group. Stop acting like you are the final arbiter of truth.


I'm not claiming to be the final arbiter of anything. I'm expressing my opinion and giving support for why I think my opinion is correct. It's up to those who disagree to provide an alternative opinion/explanation and support their position. But what I run into is people who argue endlessly that I'm wrong, demand endless "proof" from me, but never actually bother to present a counter position, much less support for one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Jan 09 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
catwho wrote:
So you're saying that all the kids in America who go hungry at night do so as a result of "poor choices" ?


No. I said that many do. Stop projecting an absolute argument onto me.

Quote:
They chose to have deadbeat parents. Of course. It's just obvious!


Poor choices are made by the parents, not the children. If a parent chooses to spend money on beer and cigarettes and trips to the local casino and at the end of the month, the fridge is bare, it was poor choices which caused their children to go hungry. My whole point is to question the method we're using to try to address such hunger. Currently, we give the parents food stamps which we expect them to spend wisely in order to ensure their children don't go hungry. Our system depends on the parents making good choices with not just the food stamps themselves, but whatever other sources of income they have in order to prevent their children from going hungry. So I think pointing out the consistency with which many parents in that situation make poor choices instead of wise ones is pretty darn relevant when discussing whether our current methodology is effective.

Quote:
Unlike gbaji, I'm not afraid of facts. Or citations.

Childhood Hunger in America wrote:
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life. Although food insecurity is harmful to any individual, it can be particularly devastating among children due to their increased vulnerability and the potential for long-term consequences. (Source.)


Nothing in that quote refutes a single thing I've said. I'm not arguing that hunger doesn't exist. I'm arguing that food stamps aren't that effective at dealing with the problem of hunger.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218 Jan 09 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
I'm arguing that food stamps aren't that effective at dealing with the problem of hunger.


I guess when I had food stamps last year, trying to start over in MT, those **** things didnt put food in my apartment.

Look, presenting opposition to your claim. Experience, and so of course I can't provide a link to show my source.
#219 Jan 09 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
see, this is what your whole post boils down too. The rest is just verbal diarrhea and emotional ************ on your part, which is unnecessary, and is why I don't take you seriously


So do you agree with what I said though? The rest of my posts exist because people keep insisting that I'm wrong, forcing me to write over and over and over again all the different arguments and examples and rationals supporting what I'm saying. If you agree with my statement that people don't spend money rationally, so we should not approach funding for things like food stamps as though they do, then we're good, right?


I don't agree with you. And if you didn't present everything as though you were the final arbiter of truth, I wouldn't have used that phrase. I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.

I am not even sure why I am bothering to type this.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#220 Jan 09 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
I'm arguing that food stamps aren't that effective at dealing with the problem of hunger.


I guess when I had food stamps last year, trying to start over in MT, those **** things didnt put food in my apartment.


Did they put more food in your apartment then you would have had otherwise? More broadly, do they do this for most people who use them. If you make $1000/month, and currently spend $150 on food, and squeak by on the rest of your expenses, and the government gives you $150/month in food stamps, do you now buy $300/month in food? Or do you shift $150/month that you were spending on food into other expenses?

If instead of giving you $150/month in food stamps, we simply provided you with $150/month in food, it has the same effect on your finances (money being fungible and all that), however it ensures that you will receive $150/month in actual food. The problem is that some people will get that $150 in food stamps, and not spend it on food, or spend it on snacks, soda, or other wasteful things. Then they'll come up short at the end of the month and not have food to eat. If instead of giving you food stamps, we simply sent you food each week, or gave you a coupon to a food bank, where you could pick up a box of pre-selected food items, then you wouldn't have an issue with running out of food at the end of the month no matter how poor your spending habits are.

There are a lot of different ways to deal with the problem. I just happen to think that food stamps aren't a very good one. Easy? Yes. Effective? Not at all.

Quote:
Look, presenting opposition to your claim. Experience, and so of course I can't provide a link to show my source.


I'm not expecting one. Cause I'm reasonable like that. I'm not discounting your personal experiences at all. I'm asking people to actually look at the logical steps between "some people will go hungry without help" and "food stamps are the solution". Proving the problem exists doesn't prove that a given solution is the best one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#221 Jan 09 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
see, this is what your whole post boils down too. The rest is just verbal diarrhea and emotional ************ on your part, which is unnecessary, and is why I don't take you seriously


So do you agree with what I said though? The rest of my posts exist because people keep insisting that I'm wrong, forcing me to write over and over and over again all the different arguments and examples and rationals supporting what I'm saying. If you agree with my statement that people don't spend money rationally, so we should not approach funding for things like food stamps as though they do, then we're good, right?


I don't agree with you.


Ok. Why? See. you keep saying "I disagree with you", and I keep waiting for the argument behind your position. I'm still waiting.

Quote:
And if you didn't present everything as though you were the final arbiter of truth, I wouldn't have used that phrase.


If you don't agree with me, then present an argument in opposition to what I'm saying. Simply repeating "you're wrong" and "you're not the final arbiter of truth" over and over isn't an argument.

Quote:
I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.


Facts are not arguments though. I'm waiting for an argument.

Quote:
I am not even sure why I am bothering to type this.


Because you believe something, are sure you're correct, but see me saying something which does not match your belief. Nothing wrong with that at all. Ironically though, you attack my position by claiming it has the very weaknesses your own does (projection). Apply your own accusations to your own position. You have not presented any facts to support your position. You have not attempted an argument using those facts. You have simply declared yourself correct and me wrong over and over. Yet you keep insisting that I don't present facts, or data, or argument. You insist that I'm just arbitrarily declaring my position "true" and all others false.

Look in the mirror sometime. Better yet, try to meet the same standards you demand of me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#222 Jan 09 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Facts are not arguments though.

They refute arguments.

You: Employers can not hire people because they're black if they feel like it.
Me : Nope.

No argument required. See how that works?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#223 Jan 09 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Stupid Monkey wrote:
I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#224 Jan 09 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Gbaji, decide if you want your words to be taken literal or figuratively when you make your claims(point). I quoted what you said that food stamps aren't effective. You mean that, in your experience, people are not wise about it.

More of the story, omitting other details of course, was I moved from FL earning roughly 2 grand a month. I had a car payment and insurance that followed me totaling about 800 a month. The food stamps made it so I did not die cause of lack of food. I am a diabetic of 27 yrs. When I got on my feet a month before I had to renew my food stamps assistance I did not bother. It achieved its purpose. How big or small of a percentage my attitude falls into is not something you can just pull out of your ***. When you make those claims, you are expected to pull up varifiable sources. That is just decency.
#225 Jan 09 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Gbaji, decide if you want your words to be taken literal or figuratively when you make your claims(point). I quoted what you said that food stamps aren't effective. You mean that, in your experience, people are not wise about it.


Yes. Which is part of the reason why they aren't effective.

Quote:
More of the story, omitting other details of course, was I moved from FL earning roughly 2 grand a month. I had a car payment and insurance that followed me totaling about 800 a month. The food stamps made it so I did not die cause of lack of food.


No. The food stamps allowed you to not have to choose between food and a car. The food stamps paid for part of your car and insurance, not the food. If you had not had food stamps, which would you have done: Starved to death? Or sold the car? Assuming you would not have actually starved to death, then the food stamps helped you keep your car.

Which is the point I was making.

Quote:
I am a diabetic of 27 yrs. When I got on my feet a month before I had to renew my food stamps assistance I did not bother. It achieved its purpose. How big or small of a percentage my attitude falls into is not something you can just pull out of your ***. When you make those claims, you are expected to pull up varifiable sources. That is just decency.


You just provided the best source I could use to convince *you* of what I'm talking about. I'll ask again: Imagine there was no food stamps. What would you have done? Food is an incredibly inelastic product. People will buy enough so that they don't actually starve. This is why we use terms like "food insecurity" btw. Almost no one starves in the US because of poverty, so we focus on whether people have what we've determined to be a sufficient amount of food instead. You *would* have survived without food stamps. You'd just have had to focus more of your own efforts on food instead of other things. This is why I made the claim that food stamps mostly end out paying for things other than food.

In your case, the food stamps helped make your car payments.

Unless you would have chosen to make a car payment and consigned yourself to starvation? That seems incredibly unlikely.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 5:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Jan 09 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Gbaji, decide if you want your words to be taken literal or figuratively when you make your claims(point). I quoted what you said that food stamps aren't effective. You mean that, in your experience, people are not wise about it.


Yes. Which is part of the reason why they aren't effective.


Seeing as they kept me fed, they were very effective.

Quote:
No. The food stamps allowed you to not have to choose between food and a car. The food stamps paid for part of your car and insurance, not the food. If you had not had food stamps, which would you have done: Starved to death? Or sold the car? Assuming you would not have actually starved to death, then the food stamps helped you keep your car.

Which is the point I was making.


At no point in time do I remember paying my car or insurance with food stamps. I clearly remember them going towards food at the grocery store.

Quote:
I am a diabetic of 27 yrs. When I got on my feet a month before I had to renew my food stamps assistance I did not bother. It achieved its purpose. How big or small of a percentage my attitude falls into is not something you can just pull out of your ***. When you make those claims, you are expected to pull up varifiable sources. That is just decency.


Quote:
You just provided the best source I could use to convince *you* of what I'm talking about. I'll ask again: Imagine there was no food stamps. What would you have done? Food is an incredibly inelastic product. People will buy enough so that they don't actually starve. This is why we use terms like "food insecurity" btw. Almost no one starves in the US because of poverty, so we focus on whether people have what we've determined to be a sufficient amount of food instead. You *would* have survived without food stamps. You'd just have had to focus more of your own efforts on food instead of other things. This is why I made the claim that food stamps mostly end out paying for things other than food.

In your case, the food stamps helped make your car payments.

Unless you would have chosen to make a car payment and consigned yourself to starvation? That seems incredibly unlikely.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 5:17pm by gbaji


I have starved for weeks at a time. Not the greatest thing for myself but it was the choice I made. The first four months being in MT I did not have food stamps. The end of second month/ beginning of third I got them. I ate very little and completely @#%^ed up the bit of stability I had til then.

Also way to avoid directly answering what I asked in the first place. You have, however, clearly shown that you want what you said taken as "this suits my argument" and as such will respond to what you directly said. To be clear: food stamps are not people and so can not choose to be misused or abused. Way to go buddy.


Edited, Jan 9th 2013 8:48pm by Zymunn
#227 Jan 09 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
No. The food stamps allowed you to not have to choose between food and a car. The food stamps paid for part of your car and insurance, not the food. If you had not had food stamps, which would you have done: Starved to death? Or sold the car? Assuming you would not have actually starved to death, then the food stamps helped you keep your car.

Which is the point I was making.


At no point in time do I remember paying my car or insurance with food stamps. I clearly remember them going towards food at the grocery store.


Irrelevant. Did you also, during the time period you received food stamps, continue to pay for your car and insurance? if you had not received food stamps and were forced to choose between paying for your car and starving to death, which would you have chosen? Assuming you would have dropped the car payments prior to actually starving to death, then we can conclude that what the food stamps really did was allow you to both buy food *and* keep your car. Clearly, if you'd just stopped paying for the car, you'd have had $800/month more money. I'm assuming that you could easily have purchased enough food to avoid starvation with that.

It was about a choice for you, not a necessity. Which is what I've been saying all along. The food stamps allowed you to obtain what you needed (food) and what you wanted (a car). You could easily have afforded food if you'd been willing to give up the car. But you didn't. That was a choice.

Quote:
I have starved for weeks at a time. Not the greatest thing for myself but it was the choice I made.


Yes. A choice. You choose to go hungry rather than give up other things. See how my point about people making irrational choices is valid?

Quote:
The first four months being in MT I did not have food stamps.


You survived for 4 months without any food? Assuming you didn't, then food stamps were not actually necessary for you to obtain food. Maybe not as much as you would have liked, but then there's that pesky business of $800/month you could have had if you'd sold your car (plus the cash for selling the car).

Quote:
The end of second month/ beginning of third I got them. I ate very little and completely @#%^ed up the bit of stability I had til then.


Ok. Maybe you meant 4 weeks in that earlier sentence then? Either way, you made a choice. I'm assuming you didn't actually eat zero food in that first month (nearly two). You just didn't have as much as you'd have liked. I'll again point out that this was a choice you made. I'm not even saying it was the wrong choice. I'm just saying that it was one.

I'll ask again though. If things had really gotten bad, and you were really hungry and weren't getting enough food, would you have stopped paying for the car, or just allowed yourself to become weak with hunger until you could no longer get out of bed and then die? I'm assuming at some point you'd have made the choice to get rid of the car payment well prior to actually dying from hunger. Which is why I keep saying that it was a choice, and that food stamps enabled you to both buy food *and* keep your car.

Quote:
Also way to avoid directly answering what I asked in the first place.


I may have missed your question. What was it again?

Quote:
You have, however, clearly shown that you want what you said taken as "this suits my argument" and as such will respond to what you directly said. To be clear: food stamps are not people and so can not choose to be misused or abused. Way to go buddy.


Huh? Are you claiming that I directly said that food stamps were people? I'm kinda at a loss as to how to even respond to this bit.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 6:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#228 Jan 09 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,956 posts
Quote:
I had a car payment and insurance that followed me totaling about 800 a month.


Why were you carrying liabilities of that size with such low income? Were you between jobs?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#229 Jan 09 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Gbaji, decide if you want your words to be taken literal or figuratively when you make your claims(point).


I said question but it was me wanting an answer more then phrasing that as a question.

Instead of quote directly just gonna save space. I spent two months, 8 weeks, paying for food, rent, my car, insurance. At that point the money I arrived with and what I was earning would not have kept me: employeed, with meds, food and a place to sleep. You are an idiot for thinking that me giving up my car would be the smart choice. Explain how a person would get around to earn the money, in my case Montana, to eat and pay bills. I starved, obviously not to death and so assuming starving means you die without question is just genius.

My choice to starve myself before, not just when I moved, was stupid how exactly. Seeing as I helped to take care of three younger siblings and my disabled mother while me and my dad worked our asses off is irrational how. Get your head out of your *** and enter the real world.

Quote:
Huh? Are you claiming that I directly said that food stamps were people? I'm kinda at a loss as to how to even respond to this bit.


You placed the blame on an inanimate object. It can not think, act, speak, do a thing. Living beings can however. You're responces all continue to support that food stamps are people. Food stamps are liable/to blame for people making "irrational" choices.
#230 Jan 09 2013 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Instead of quote directly just gonna save space. I spent two months, 8 weeks, paying for food, rent, my car, insurance. At that point the money I arrived with and what I was earning would not have kept me: employeed, with meds, food and a place to sleep. You are an idiot for thinking that me giving up my car would be the smart choice. Explain how a person would get around to earn the money, in my case Montana, to eat and pay bills. I starved, obviously not to death and so assuming starving means you die without question is just genius.

You appear to be (or have been at least) a fucking mess. You're not a great argument for food stamps. Better mental health and education programs, yes. You're pretty much the argument against food stamps as a practical matter. Most people using food stamps aren't doing so because the can't afford food and their $800 a month transportation tab.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#231 Jan 09 2013 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...

I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.


See sig.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#232 Jan 09 2013 at 9:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Gbaji, decide if you want your words to be taken literal or figuratively when you make your claims(point).


I said question but it was me wanting an answer more then phrasing that as a question.


Oh. You were serious? Sorry. I forget that you're new here. Everyone else knows how futile that would be. Literally. Smiley: tongue

Quote:
Instead of quote directly just gonna save space. I spent two months, 8 weeks, paying for food, rent, my car, insurance. At that point the money I arrived with and what I was earning would not have kept me: employeed, with meds, food and a place to sleep. You are an idiot for thinking that me giving up my car would be the smart choice. Explain how a person would get around to earn the money, in my case Montana, to eat and pay bills. I starved, obviously not to death and so assuming starving means you die without question is just genius.


Perhaps giving up a car that cost you $800/month and buying a more reasonable one would have been a better choice though. Maybe you were exaggerating the cost, but that's a huge amount for a car plus insurance. You should easily be able to afford a "normal" vehicle for half of that. And gee! That would mean $400/month for food. Plenty.

Quote:
My choice to starve myself before, not just when I moved, was stupid how exactly.


I'm not sure how this refute my point that most people go hungry, not because they absolutely cannot feed themselves, but because they make choices to spend money on other things instead of food. You're really proving my point for me perfectly. Thanks!

Quote:
Seeing as I helped to take care of three younger siblings and my disabled mother while me and my dad worked our asses off is irrational how. Get your head out of your *** and enter the real world.


That's wonderful and all, but it does not change the fact that you did exactly what I've been saying people tend to do. Not all of them, mind you, but a high enough percentage that we ought to take it into account when making decisions like how we help people get food. In your case, the food stamps were utterly unnecessary towards the purpose of preventing hunger. I can be called callous for observing that many people on food stamps really don't need the money (and am, quite often), but when hearing a story like yours, it should make people think that maybe a bit of callousness is what's needed.

That or a swift kick in the side of the head.

Quote:
Quote:
Huh? Are you claiming that I directly said that food stamps were people? I'm kinda at a loss as to how to even respond to this bit.


You placed the blame on an inanimate object. It can not think, act, speak, do a thing. Living beings can however. You're responces all continue to support that food stamps are people. Food stamps are liable/to blame for people making "irrational" choices.


A really hard kick.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#233 Jan 09 2013 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
297 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Instead of quote directly just gonna save space. I spent two months, 8 weeks, paying for food, rent, my car, insurance. At that point the money I arrived with and what I was earning would not have kept me: employeed, with meds, food and a place to sleep. You are an idiot for thinking that me giving up my car would be the smart choice. Explain how a person would get around to earn the money, in my case Montana, to eat and pay bills. I starved, obviously not to death and so assuming starving means you die without question is just genius.

You appear to be (or have been at least) a fucking mess. You're not a great argument for food stamps. Better mental health and education programs, yes. You're pretty much the argument against food stamps as a practical matter. Most people using food stamps aren't doing so because the can't afford food and their $800 a month transportation tab.


I went from earning roughly 2 grand a month, not on any govt assistance, easily afforded the 1600ish a month in bills I had. Moved across the country, one friend and her husband the only people I knew there and had it rough for a short while. 27 years of being a diabetic, never in the hospital for complications. My health is better then it should be. Blood test always showed I was within the parameters that doctors want for people in general.

As for mental health, can't clarify or deny any of that. I only take insulin for meds. Never had problems, other then extreme low blood sugar, dealing with anything on a mental level. I suffered for short periods of time which were far between and came out of it all.

For what its worth, I never followed a **** diet for my diabeties. I eat candy randomly, stuff myself full of carbs, no greenier as I just don't like it. My eye sight has remained the same and I have no complications related to diabeties. So yeah I am a wreck.
#234 Jan 09 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...

I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.


See sig.


And as I said back then, facts alone don't mean anything. You have to use them in some form of argument if you want to refute what someone else is saying. 1+1=2 is a true statement. A fact, even. But it doesn't support or oppose the claim that "We're spending too much money" (or anything else really). Surely you can understand that?

Far too many people think that if they repeat true facts, that it makes their position true as well. They are wrong.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 7:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#235 Jan 09 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Zymunn wrote:
I went from earning roughly 2 grand a month, not on any govt assistance, easily afforded the 1600ish a month in bills I had. Moved across the country, one friend and her husband the only people I knew there and had it rough for a short while.


Instead of telling us what you went "from", why not tell us what you went "to"? How much were you earning while still paying $800/month for a car and insurance? And frankly, even when you were making $2k/month, $800/month on a car and insurance is way way way too much. That's about what you should be paying for housing at that income rate (housing ideally being about half or less of your income if you can manage it). It sounds like you were making some really poor spending choices even before this change. But when you moved, you continued to spend money on the least necessary expense and went without on the most important.

You didn't need food stamps. You needed to take a home economics class.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 7:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Jan 09 2013 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
My car payment, which I am almost done with, is 379 a month. My insurance, a year ago with some ****** state agency, was 430ish. No the greatest driving record as I grew up.

So I make less of a sacrifice, food, to be able to move. I starved, not let myself die from lack of food. Small difference to some, big enough difference in the end. By eating cheap ramen or some soda crackers with some cheese twice a day I had enough strength to make it through three weeks of having almost zero to eat. The once a week meal my friend held for her extended family helped as well.

My family did not recieve food stamps when me and my dad busted our asses to keep us all going. I cannot say if he refused to get the help, he is prideful, or if we got denied. Either case, no food stamps for us. Simple foods like rice maybe some beans and whatever meat we had or could get. I acctually still enjoy rice with spam or vienna sausages.
#237 Jan 09 2013 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
why not tell us what you went "to"?


Now I am back in FL at the job I left. Got a raise and something of a promotion. Work in a warehouse in the office mostly so less hours. I bring home now 2200 a month and bills are about the same 1700. Slightly hirer rent, living in an apartment that allows my gf to ride the bus to and from campus.

I did make alot of stupid choices growing up. Which is why I left everything and everyone I grew up.
#238 Jan 09 2013 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...

I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.


See sig.


And as I said back then, facts alone don't mean anything.
EXCEPT FOR YOUR FACTS, AMIRITE?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#239 Jan 09 2013 at 11:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Quote:
Far too many people think that if they repeat true facts, that it makes their position true as well. They are wrong.


Smiley: laugh

Quote:
And as I said back then, facts alone don't mean anything
.

Smiley: lol

Did you reread your awesome cite full of facts you used to derive your laughable conclusion from yesterday yet by the way?

Smiley: rolleyes

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#240 Jan 10 2013 at 2:39 AM Rating: Good
Okay, I'm genuinely curious. What kind of stupid *** **** did you do to have that expensive of car insurance? I'm 29, and granted I have no speeding tickets or accidents on my record and I pay about $50 a month for liability and emergency towing. Only bad mark I have against me is a bad credit score.

While I do think Gbaji makes a relatively decent point about the high expense of your vehicle, you are absolutely correct that cars in this day and age are pretty much a necessity. If you live somewhere without public transportation anyways. When trying to decide between food and my car, I'd have a really difficult time figuring that out where I currently live. I've got a 10 minute drive from my home to my work, so if I didn't have a car I'd be pretty much screwed. I guess I could sell the car and buy a bike? But still, where I live it's extremely rainy during the winter months. When you're desperate though, you're desperate.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#241 Jan 10 2013 at 5:13 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,847 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Okay, I'm genuinely curious. What kind of stupid *** sh*t did you do to have that expensive of car insurance? I'm 29, and granted I have no speeding tickets or accidents on my record and I pay about $50 a month for liability and emergency towing. Only bad mark I have against me is a bad credit score.


When I was 21 or so, the insurance company I was with wanted me to pay about 400 dollars a month for just PLPD (Michigan's term for just Liability and Property Damage, bare bones insurance). It started out high, when I first started driving with them in High School, and increased every year for no reason other than they could. I remained accident free and moving violation free. I didn't even have any parking violations, even though those don't count against you. You act as though insurance companies trying to charge outrageous prices for basic coverage to young drivers is unusual?

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 7:02am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#242 Jan 10 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
While I do think Gbaji makes a relatively decent point about the high expense of your vehicle, you are absolutely correct that cars in this day and age are pretty much a necessity. If you live somewhere without public transportation anyways

Having a car means you're making poor choices with your money since you could sell it and live off the profits and savings.
On the other hand, public transportation is a tool of liberal indoctrination and social engineering and true freedom only comes from living in communities where you need a car to get anywhere.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. At least the liberals let you get groceries, I guess be it via food stamps or bus routes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#243 Jan 10 2013 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
While I do think Gbaji makes a relatively decent point about the high expense of your vehicle, you are absolutely correct that cars in this day and age are pretty much a necessity. If you live somewhere without public transportation anyways

A car, yes, a car that costs you $45,000 over 5 years, somewhat less so.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#244 Jan 10 2013 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...

I have never once seen you concede a point, no matter how many facts have been thrown your way.


See sig.


And as I said back then, facts alone don't mean anything. You have to use them in some form of argument if you want to refute what someone else is saying. 1+1=2 is a true statement. A fact, even. But it doesn't support or oppose the claim that "We're spending too much money" (or anything else really). Surely you can understand that?

Far too many people think that if they repeat true facts, that it makes their position true as well. They are wrong.

Edited, Jan 9th 2013 7:22pm by gbaji
If someone says to you, "1+1 = 2". And you say, "we're spending too much money".

Then what day of the week is it?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#245 Jan 10 2013 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... I've presented observed data that supports my position.
Sure, you've said you've observed the data, but have never provided any evidence of such. The most recent being the "the election is going to be really close" arguments where your observed data made you absolutely certain how well Romney was doing, regardless of what all the actual data was saying.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#246 Jan 10 2013 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,322 posts
Nothing burns my *** more than getting behind a first of the monther at the grocery store and looking in their buggy. I always see cases of name brand pop, multiple bags of name brand chips, top of the line steaks/meats, name brand bags of candy, etc. Then I look in mine, a person who works for a living, and I see store brand everything, little to no pop, chips, candy and the cheaper steaks/meat.

I don't think they should be able to buy any type of soda.
____________________________
Hi
#247 Jan 10 2013 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,956 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
While I do think Gbaji makes a relatively decent point about the high expense of your vehicle, you are absolutely correct that cars in this day and age are pretty much a necessity. If you live somewhere without public transportation anyways

A car, yes, a car that costs you $45,000 over 5 years, somewhat less so.


This.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#248 Jan 10 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Its because its a Lexus.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#249 Jan 10 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,361 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Its because its a Lexus.


A used Lexus.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#250 Jan 10 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Introducing the new 2013 Lexus Proletariat. It's a used 2008 Lexus we sell to the middle class.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Jan 10 2013 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Introducing the new 2013 Lexus Proletariat. It's a used 2008 Lexus we sell to the middle class.
Lower middle class, Jophiel!.Smiley: mad


Edited, Jan 10th 2013 11:56am by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Snorre, someproteinguy, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (59)