Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To me, being "pretty poor" means that while you weren't starving or homeless, you regularly had to go without any real luxuries. You didn't go out to eat, or have soda in the fridge. If you owned a car, it was a cheap one. You couldn't afford special activities. What else would you think this means? If someone has some other definition, I'd love to hear it.
Called what? That you have a ridiculous definition of "pretty poor"?
Quote:
And that isn't "pretty poor", It's the low end of middle class but not "poor".
Um... No. It's not. The low end of middle class means you have to buy a used Lexus instead of a new one, and your house in the suburbs only has 2 bathrooms instead of 3. And you don't have a pool.
Are you kidding me? Massive excluded middle going on here.
Quote:
And the pants story is plumb idiotic.
ALSO: A lie.
ALSO: A lie.
No. It's not. Is it really so hard for you to grasp that someone who is not poor today might actually have been pretty poor at a point in his life while growing up? Why do you have such a mental block about this. You accept that some black kid from the inner city can be poor, but not a white kid from a working poor neighborhood? Or is it because I'm a conservative? I can't know what being in need is because it doesn't fit the Strawman narrative you've been taught about the evil motivations of greedy conservatives? You're so afraid of anyone succeeding on their own because it might damage the argument for big government social services that you just have to reject even the possibility itself?
That's just nutty thinking.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 2:45pm by gbaji