Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This plan was about allowing the children to Only Buy USED Clothing.
I read the links quite well, no one here supported that proposal to only allow them to buy USED clothing, I'm criticizing your "just give it to the parents to do whatever with" attitude.. ITS THE CHILDRENS MONEY!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Now you want to spin it to being about worthless liberals wanting to deny children clothing allotments.
No, it was YOU that wanted to spin this into Republicans hating the poor thread. Whats the matter, dont like it when the tables are turned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I do have profound respect for Foster parents and I commend your efforts.
Thanks but I dont need your approval, I simply posted this to dispute YOUR argument that we Republicans HATE these individuals.. Again, what have YOU done?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I will not share too much personal information on this forum.
Afraid people will find out who you are? Mother Teresa, is this you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I have done more to care for children than You would ever believe.
I did plenty about it.
Oooh I get it.. you had no problem using this as an example as to how we HATE the poor, but you arent willing to show examples how you have shown in your own life that you dont. Whats another poster to think about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I did plenty about it.
I guess we'll have to take your word for it while you sit here calling us GOP members hateful...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
Can we pull pack on the hyperbole just a tad? I think we know that no one here hates foster kids.
Then why arent you responding to the Democrats who say we hate foster kids and the poor? I see, that hyperbold was just fine with you..
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
The thorniness here, I think, is not the suggestion that there should be assurances that money allotted for clothes for foster kids should be spent on clothes. Rather, I think by linking that spending to a stigmatized store-type, you run the risk of exacerbating an already-negative situation.
The proposal linking the spending went no where as it should have gone. I guess that means we all hate the poor though.. I also stated on this thread that other stores would obviously have gotten on board to take the card, Target, Walm-Mart etc.. Do you really think big businesses who sell clothes wouldnt want these "poor" kids money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
I mean, I shop at thrift stores from time to time for certain things, and find them to be a terrific bargain for lots of items. Still, what if the kid needs some new items? Or what if the local thrift stores are crappy? Some are.
The story said the allotment was a whopping $80 a year.. Do you think a kid can get new clothes and only spend $80 a year? I dont.. I'm betting they would have to do what they do now, which is get money off the foster parents.. The amount in question was ONLY the SPECIFIC amount of money which was to be allocated to the CHILD to spend.. it didnt forbid any additional money from being spent..
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
But beyond all of that, I think a lot of the negative reaction here is based more on the implied insult some may interpret from such a provision.
Again, which is why the provision went no where, but next time, why dont you call out the real hyperbold, which is we HATE the poor.. utter nonsese trash...
I read the links quite well, no one here supported that proposal to only allow them to buy USED clothing, I'm criticizing your "just give it to the parents to do whatever with" attitude.. ITS THE CHILDRENS MONEY!!!
No, it was YOU that wanted to spin this into Republicans hating the poor thread. Whats the matter, dont like it when the tables are turned?
Thanks but I dont need your approval, I simply posted this to dispute YOUR argument that we Republicans HATE these individuals.. Again, what have YOU done?
Afraid people will find out who you are? Mother Teresa, is this you?
Oooh I get it.. you had no problem using this as an example as to how we HATE the poor, but you arent willing to show examples how you have shown in your own life that you dont. Whats another poster to think about that?
I guess we'll have to take your word for it while you sit here calling us GOP members hateful...
Then why arent you responding to the Democrats who say we hate foster kids and the poor? I see, that hyperbold was just fine with you..
The proposal linking the spending went no where as it should have gone. I guess that means we all hate the poor though.. I also stated on this thread that other stores would obviously have gotten on board to take the card, Target, Walm-Mart etc.. Do you really think big businesses who sell clothes wouldnt want these "poor" kids money?
The story said the allotment was a whopping $80 a year.. Do you think a kid can get new clothes and only spend $80 a year? I dont.. I'm betting they would have to do what they do now, which is get money off the foster parents.. The amount in question was ONLY the SPECIFIC amount of money which was to be allocated to the CHILD to spend.. it didnt forbid any additional money from being spent..
Again, which is why the provision went no where, but next time, why dont you call out the real hyperbold, which is we HATE the poor.. utter nonsese trash...
Nobody need care what you said anymore than any other poster.
I was suggesting leaving the choice to the parent as to what clothing to buy and where. I was responding to Repubs posting implications that parents cannot be trusted, ect. and worse. That still side tracks the original issue in the OP post and that senators understanding of complex issues and solutions.
I made no reference to hate. You did. I spoke of politics and policy.
I do not need to prove anything to any arrogant, nor do I need believe anything they may claim.
Let people judge for themselves. It should seem clear enough.
Last edited by oldtimer2; 04-25-2011 at 01:23 AM..
Maybe your misunderstanding is a reading comprehension problem.
If you read the OP and followed up on what that Republican Senator originally proposed, the ethic is pretty clear.
I read what the Senator originally proposed and it went no where for a reason. I guess you want me to just pretend it went further than a press release just to suit your imaginary need for a villian. The fact that I understood it was just a press release doesnt mean I have a comprehension problem, it means that the public, nor the GOP supported the plan and because you aparantly need to make the GOP out to be some mean evil spirited hateful group, you simply dont like others that prove you wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Nobody need care what you said anymore than any other poster.
If you are going to accuse me of having a comprehension problem, or befor eyou accuse me of being mean and hateful, maybe you should care about what I said first
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
In your case, you spun the story off track with Walmart, ect., to draw away from the original post and points being made.
Nope.. again, the proposal went no further than a press release.. at that point the issue was dead. its YOU who need to expand the press release into something that its not, pretending its a GOP policy or that it had some mass appeal and support from those on the right. IT DIDNT.. And because I pointed out that no only did it go no where, but that the plan might have merits if expanded into Wal Mart etc, you want to ignore the points being made and return to the original posting which was DEAD because facts dispute your claim about how hateful we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I was suggesting leaving the choice to the parent as to what clothing to buy and where
They arent the childs parents.. Foster parents cant even choose to cut the childrens hair, and the money given for clothes IS THE CHILDS, not the parents..
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I was responding to Repubs posting implications that parents cannot be trusted, ect. and worse.
Maybe you can point out these imaginary postings saying the parents can not be trusted. Saying the money is THE CHILDS, doesnt mean a distrust for the adults in the picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
That still side tracks the original issue in the OP post and that senators intent.
The intent from the Senator is to make sure a clothing allotment was used for clothing.. And you are objecting to that..
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I made no reference to hate. You did.
This isnt hate for the GOP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
This thread sure illustrates the cold heartless reality of Right Wing beliefs and ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
This is all about Republicans trying to label the disadvantaged and poor as less than for political reasons.
More of the same... turn the middle against the poor, and end all subsidies and social service safety nets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Greedy phony Republicans espouse smaller government and less intervention, and then turn around and offer these types of policies. Blinded by their own greed, they then attempt to justify them.
Why is it that the Right seldom is?
If it looks like hate, smells like hate.. its hate. Tell me, why do you hate so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
You now play people for stupid.
No, I simply quoted YOU
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I do not need to prove anything to any arrogant, nor do I need believe anything they may claim.
I dont give a rats patute if you believe me or not.. You can find postings of mine going back years where I've discussed adoption of my children. Again, how many children have you adopted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Let people judge for themselves. It should seem clear enough.
Yep.. I quoted you just nicely for people to judge for themself..
I read what the Senator originally proposed and it went no where for a reason. I guess you want me to just pretend it went further than a press release just to suit your imaginary need for a villian. The fact that I understood it was just a press release doesnt mean I have a comprehension problem, it means that the public, nor the GOP supported the plan and because you aparantly need to make the GOP out to be some mean evil spirited hateful group, you simply dont like others that prove you wrong.
If you are going to accuse me of having a comprehension problem, or befor eyou accuse me of being mean and hateful, maybe you should care about what I said first
Nope.. again, the proposal went no further than a press release.. at that point the issue was dead. its YOU who need to expand the press release into something that its not, pretending its a GOP policy or that it had some mass appeal and support from those on the right. IT DIDNT.. And because I pointed out that no only did it go no where, but that the plan might have merits if expanded into Wal Mart etc, you want to ignore the points being made and return to the original posting which was DEAD because facts dispute your claim about how hateful we are.
They arent the childs parents.. Foster parents cant even choose to cut the childrens hair, and the money given for clothes IS THE CHILDS, not the parents..
Maybe you can point out these imaginary postings saying the parents can not be trusted. Saying the money is THE CHILDS, doesnt mean a distrust for the adults in the picture.
The intent from the Senator is to make sure a clothing allotment was used for clothing.. And you are objecting to that..
This isnt hate for the GOP?
If it looks like hate, smells like hate.. its hate. Tell me, why do you hate so much?
No, I simply quoted YOU
I dont give a rats patute if you believe me or not.. You can find postings of mine going back years where I've discussed adoption of my children. Again, how many children have you adopted?
Yep.. I quoted you just nicely for people to judge for themself..
You really need to lighten up.
Pointing out that the Republicans promote rather sick social policies, belief structures, and obvious dislike for the poor and less fortunate, as reflected by their political ideology, is not the same thing as hate.
But now that you mention it, I detest the modern Republican Party and may like to live long enough to see it completely disintegrate.
I see them as a dangerous threat to our freedoms and to all of mankind. In fact, I consider them to be Fascists.
Their political pathology promotes the welfare and power of the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else.
That does not mean I hate Republicans. I just do not want them making any of our laws ever again.
Pqh... "Maybe you can point out these imaginary postings saying the parents can not be trusted. Saying the money is THE CHILDS, doesnt mean a distrust for the adults in the picture."
Senator:.. “My sole goal in this proposal is to make sure that children receive the clothing allowance that the state has provided for them and not have it used for anything else,”
Then what does it imply?
Michigan Radio... "The Department of Human Services gives families an $80 annual stipend for clothing. Caswell said state money set aside to buy clothes for foster children and children from families of the working poor is used in the most effective way. “I never had anything new,” Caswell told Michigan Radio."......http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...hillsdale.html (broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
I was suggesting leaving the choice to the parent as to what clothing to buy and where.
Dqh... "They arent the childs parents.. Foster parents cant even choose to cut the childrens hair, and the money given for clothes IS THE CHILDS, not the parents.."
So, it appears that this original plan also affects the working poor, not just foster kids.
Last edited by oldtimer2; 04-25-2011 at 02:34 AM..
But, take a good look at the Ryan budget plan. It has many clues.
That's the thing, though, it's not about not caring about others, it's about wanting personal responsibility (foster parents need to care for the children properly) and fiscal responsibility (on the part of gov't spending).
Nobody has yet to make a valid case for why a rule like this should not be passed. I understand it's really a non-issue now, but since you brought it up....
Instead of all the extremist crap thats being said on here, how about a moderate position.
1. I was dressed in thrift clothes and hand me downs for most of my first 18 years of life. I survived. I caught some crap for some horribly outdated stuff in middle school, but I survived. I'll probably dress my kids in thrift store clothes when the time comes.
2. I don't ever remember seeing underwear or socks in thrift stores.
3. This is a good idea, could save a lot of money. However it should not be the sole source of funding for these kids. If the thrift store doesn't have it, should the kid go without? What about a proper fitting coat? Shoes? I could never find shoes my size in thrift stores. Lets see the details of the bill. As always thats where the devil is.
4. This just shows how sad our culture is, Michigan, the state thats been in the hole for years, that now has a governor wanting to cut taxes for businesses, has legislators wanting to save money by skimping on clothing for foster kids. Whats next, foster kids can only shop at save-a-lot? (I've shopped there and their produce is lacking, and most of the other options aren't that healthy). What does it say about us when this is what we'll do so corporate America gets their tax cuts? How much will this bill save? What does this bill say about us and our priorities?
Again, I don't think shopping at thrift stores is a bad idea, I just think its bad that we are doing this to foster kids in order to maintain tax cuts for the wealthy. where's the shared sacrifice? If foster kids are sacrificing, maybe the elites should too........
Translation.. Dont call you out on anything you say
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Pointing out that the Republicans promote rather sick social policies, belief structures, and obvious dislike for the poor and less fortunate, as reflected by their political ideology, is not the same thing as hate.
It is when you have to make things up like you just did again. Again, how many less fortunate individuals have YOU adopted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
But now that you mention it, I detest the modern Republican Party and may like to live long enough to see it completely disintegrate.
So not only do you have to make things up about a political party in order to "detest" them, but now you dream about their demise.. That still sounds like hate.. You arent helping your argument out at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
I see them as a dangerous threat to our freedoms and to all of mankind. In fact, I consider them to be Fascists.
Just when I thought it couldnt get any more pathetic you prove me wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
Their political pathology promotes the welfare and power of the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else.
Its a shame to see an "oldtimer" not know the difference between promoting the RIGHT to PURSUE and the real fascism which limits those rights..
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2
That does not mean I hate Republicans. I just do not want them making any of our laws ever again.
Just stop.. You have me falling off my chair laughing so hard..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
