Put me in charge

[LedZap]

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX 18 Nov 2010




Put me in charge ...
Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

[yee-haw]

This would actually work only thing is you got the pansie ass left wingers who would be whinning on how un-fair!


I agree, you want to be taking care of instead of earning your living well then you have to do shit this way!!!

Lazy bastards!

[Carrot]

Agree with everything there.

A not so comfortable, basic safety net. Thats what it needs to be and all it ever should be.

[Patt]

Vote for Alfred !

[yee-haw]

Or.. vote for ALF!

[Patt]

Or.. vote for ALF!

Alf never had feet - can't do it. Nope, just can't.

[Florida0829]

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX 18 Nov 2010




Put me in charge ...
Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

Can I Still keep my Gold Teeth Covers ,

And My Gold Chains ?????

Dad Gummed man , WORK , Ya Can't be for real ....

[eyeonyou]

Or.. vote for ALF!


Alf never had feet - can't do it. Nope, just can't.

How about Mork from Ork?

[Patt]

How about Mork from Ork?

Mork had feet - he's electable. :D

[eyeonyou]

Mork had feet - he's electable. :D

He had a good heart too. I think. He did have a heart didn't he? http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/th_Huh.gif

[Patt]

He had a good heart too. I think. He did have a heart didn't he? http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/th_Huh.gif

If he didn't he couldn't have secretly been in love with Mindy, could he?

[eyeonyou]

If he didn't he couldn't have secretly been in love with Mindy, could he?

True, he was, but Mindy was so very cute, so many were.

Here is a pic of the two of them in happier times before Harm came and framed Mork for espionage and sent him away to prison and took the girl.

http://a69.g.akamai.net/n/69/10688/v1/img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/rsz/434/x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/66/26/12/18922964.jpg

ShozBot!

[yee-haw]

Mork had feet - he's electable. :D

But he'll bring mindy and she was dingy like a clinton so i can't see this working out either.

[eyeonyou]

But he'll bring mindy and she was dingy like a clinton so i can't see this working out either.

Yea, but she was cute. Now when was the last time we had a cutie in office? Even as 1st Lady?

[Patt]

Yea, but she was cute. Now when was the last time we had a cutie in office? Even as 1st Lady?

Laura Bush. :D

[Florida0829]

Yea, but she was cute. Now when was the last time we had a cutie in office? Even as 1st Lady?

Hey , To Find the Cuties in the Office ,

Ya , Gotta look Under the Desk ....

Oh Wait Even She wasn't that Great ....

BUTT , Better than Billirery ....

[eyeonyou]

Laura Bush. :D She wasn't cute. She was a good First Lady and of average looks. Of course now back a few years ago..........But Al Gore had almost all of her images from then wiped off his internet!

At least you didn't say Barbara. LOL

[eyeonyou]

Hey , To Find the Cuties in the Office ,

Ya , Gotta look Under the Desk ....

Oh Wait Even She wasn't that Great ....

BUTT , Better than Billirery ....

Naw, she wasn't, but yes, better than her for sure.

[Rec]

First Ladys are to be first ladies not cuties!!! But handsome or elegant ladies...............

[MrRee]

Was Monica Bills first ?

[Patt]

She wasn't cute. She was a good First Lady and of average looks. Of course now back a few years ago..........But Al Gore had almost all of her images from then wiped off his internet!

At least you didn't say Barbara. LOL

Babs would as soon skin your face off as make nice nice when push comes to shove. But, I still have my Barbara Bush pearls when needed for those power occasions! And, if I do say so myself, they work like a charm.

[1stoic1]

We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”


It's a decent article, except for this ridiculous jab at car paraphernalia that's associated with a certain culture. A noninflammatory statement along the lines of - "We will sell your excessive valuables" - should have occurred to him, but he's probably just racist.

[yee-haw]

It's a decent article, except for this ridiculous jab at car paraphernalia that's associated with a certain culture. A noninflammatory statement along the lines of - "We will sell your excessive valuables" - should have occurred to him, but he's probably just racist.

Could be... maybe he's just fed up with the ignorant ghetto rats who throw spinners and low profiles on 80's model monte carlos and brand new escalades bought with crack money?

[1stoic1]

Could be... maybe he's just fed up with the ignorant ghetto rats who throw spinners and low profiles on 80's model monte carlos and brand new escalades bought with crack money?

As if they're the only irresponsible and wasteful welfare recipients?

[yee-haw]

As if they're the only irresponsible and wasteful welfare recipients?

I swear if there was a bush full of pussy growing in your yard you would not stop looking until you found the one dick growing there would you?


....Fuck them thuggish ghetto rats, They're worthless.. A generstion of fucktards raised by fucktards!

"Look yo!!!! they be spinnin' dawg... that be off the chain fo real"

[Rec]

As if they're the only irresponsible and wasteful welfare recipients?

No they are NOT, just the highest number of recipients!

[1stoic1]

No they are NOT, just the highest number of recipients!

Do you have evidence?

[yee-haw]

Do you have evidence?

I do it's called monday morning at the welfare office..come see for yourself!

[Rec]

Do you have evidence?


Just a couple of days waiting in the lobby and car for a lady that has been abused and abandoned that I took for help......the majority of people in and out of the office were either of color or another nationality......it was very surprising to me to sit and average out the numbers. So yeah, I think that is a fair assessment!!!!

[Rec]

I swear if there was a bush full of pussy growing in your yard you would not stop looking until you found the one dick growing there would you?


....Fuck them thuggish ghetto rats, They're worthless.. A generstion of fucktards raised by fucktards!

"Look yo!!!! they be spinnin' dawg... that be off the chain fo real"


The pun in the first sentence of your post is so dang funny Haw!!!!!! ROFLMBO

[Carrot]

It's a decent article, except for this ridiculous jab at car paraphernalia that's associated with a certain culture. A noninflammatory statement along the lines of - "We will sell your excessive valuables" - should have occurred to him, but he's probably just racist.

Has it occured to you that maybe you associating it with a particular culture makes you just as racist?

But now making references to rims is "too much".

[1stoic1]

Just a couple of days waiting in the lobby and car for a lady that has been abused and abandoned that I took for help......the majority of people in and out of the office were either of color or another nationality......it was very surprising to me to sit and average out the numbers. So yeah, I think that is a fair assessment!!!!

And you confirmed that all of their cars had rims and\or sound systems? I highly doubt it.

Your experience at an office isn't evidence anyhow; I require data from a nationwide survey.

[1stoic1]

Has it occured to you that maybe you associating it with a particular culture makes you just as racist?


Of course not. Certain cultural items are more prevalent among specific ethnicities than others.

[Phoenix]

Of course not. Certain cultural items are more prevalent among specific ethnicities than others.
Of course, you realise that the definition of the word discriminate is to tell apart?

[Carrot]

Of course not. Certain cultural items are more prevalent among specific ethnicities than others.

Do you have data from a nationwide survey?


Why do you make the assumption it refers to the ethnicity and not people who have rims? If I said I didn't like people who tapdance would that mean I'm predujice towards the irish?

[1stoic1]

Do you have data from a nationwide survey?

Yes, there is sufficient data on the cultural evolution of rims and sound systems.


Why do you make the assumption it refers to the ethnicity and not people who have rims? If I said I didn't like people who tapdance would that mean I'm predujice towards the irish?

It would depend on the context. So you think the author of that article is only resenting those specific items, and not a group of people? That must mean that all other lavish items are fair game, which doesn't make sense. I'm giving the author the benefit of the doubt to at least make sense.

[Carrot]

Yes, there is sufficient data on the cultural evolution of rims and sound systems.

Source?


It would depend on the context. So you think the author of that article is only resenting those specific items, and not a group of people? That must mean that all other lavish items are fair game, which doesn't make sense. I'm giving the author the benefit of the doubt to at least make sense.

So, you can never give examples of anything, otherwise it must mean everything you don't list isn't included.

Right.

This isn't a legal document saying "all sound systems and fancy rims will be confistcated".

[1stoic1]

Source?

You can research lowriders from numerous publications (ie Convicted Artist, Lowrider Magazine, Street Low Magazine) and countless articles on the internet. If you find any information stating that it didn't originate in the Chicano communities, or that it and it's derivatives aren't entertained most by them and other minorities today, then please share that finding.


So, you can never give examples of anything, otherwise it must mean everything you don't list isn't included.

Right.

Rather than simply saying "all unnecessary assets", he targeted a demographic by giving only specific inter-related examples. It is fairly obvious.


This isn't a legal document saying "all sound systems and fancy rims will be confistcated".

That's exactly what it is: "We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

[Carrot]

You can research lowriders from numerous publications (ie Convicted Artist, Lowrider Magazine, Street Low Magazine) and countless articles on the internet. If you find any information stating that it didn't originate in the Chicano communities, or that it and it's derivatives aren't entertained most by them and other minorities today, then please share that finding.

Magazines don't classify as nationwide studies, nor do they specify race.

If you find any infrmation that specifying rims encompasses an entire race, please share that finding.



Rather than simply saying "all unnecessary assets", he targeted a demographic by giving only specific inter-related examples. It is fairly obvious.

I didn't realise plama tvs, xboxes, frozen pizaa, steak, tattoos, cigaretts, piercings, drugs, and alcohol were ALL specific inter-related examples!

How about you list what things poor people might spend money on unneccesarily.


That's exactly what it is: "We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

This isn't a legal document.

For one thing, legal documents aren't in the second person and don't list frozen pizza and xboxes.

[1stoic1]

Magazines don't classify as nationwide studies, nor do they specify race.

If you find any infrmation that specifying rims encompasses an entire race, please share that finding.

Magazines contain studies, and they do specify race when it is relevant to the subject (ie presenting lowrider culture).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowrider
"Since the early 1990s, lowriders have become common in urban youth culture in general, primarily in West Coast hip hop. Today, the lowriding scene is diverse with many different cultures, vehicle makes and visual styles, however, it remains an important part of the Chicano community." ~ Convicted Artist

Media (ie movies, TV, and music) is also indicative of the predominant ethnicities who entertain these items.


I didn't realise plama tvs, xboxes, frozen pizaa, steak, tattoos, cigaretts, piercings, drugs, and alcohol were ALL specific inter-related examples!

I was referring to the valuables mentioned in the article that the author would like to confiscate and sell off. If you already have a plasma TV and Xbox, then I suppose you can keep them (according to him), and that's probably because they don't resonate from a minority culture.


How about you list what things poor people might spend money on unneccesarily.

Whatever would interest them. I'm not going to generalize the poverty-stricken.


This isn't a legal document.

For one thing, legal documents aren't in the second person and don't list frozen pizza and xboxes.

I know it's not an official legal document, but what bearing does that have on the discussion?

[Carrot]

Magazines contain studies, and they do specify race when it is relevant to the subject (ie presenting lowrider culture).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowrider
"Since the early 1990s, lowriders have become common in urban youth culture in general, primarily in West Coast hip hop. Today, the lowriding scene is diverse with many different cultures, vehicle makes and visual styles, however, it remains an important part of the Chicano community." ~ Convicted Artist

Media (ie movies, TV, and music) is also indicative of the predominant ethnicities who entertain these items.

"Common in urban youth culture in general".

There you go, not specific.

It remaining an important part of a culture is irrelevant. English is an important aspect of britain, but not liking english doesn't make you anti-british.


I was referring to the valuables mentioned in the article that the author would like to confiscate and sell off. If you already have a plasma TV and Xbox, then I suppose you can keep them (according to him), and that's probably because they don't resonate from a minority culture.


Didn't read it very carefully?
If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

Th valuables were things that you would be PREVENTED (practically equal to confiscating) from purchasing if you use welfare.

And again, you fail (or choose not to) to realise that providing one or two examples doesn't mean that's everything you mean. Do you assume a plasma tv and xbox wouldn't be allowed, but a jaccuzi would be? No? hat's because you can't impose your claims of racism on that.


Whatever would interest them. I'm not going to generalize the poverty-stricken.

I'm sure there are studies on what low income families buy, you seem happy to do it with hispanics and rims.



I know it's not an official legal document, but what bearing does that have on the discussion?

Me: This isn't a legal document.
You: That's exactly what it is.
Me: No it isn't.
You: I know, what bearing does this have?

[1stoic1]

"Common in urban youth culture in general".

There you go, not specific.

Urban youth culture, a.k.a. Hip-hop culture, is fairly specific. There are diverse ethnicities within said culture, but it originated from, and continues to be predominantly made up of minorities.


It remaining an important part of a culture is irrelevant. English is an important aspect of britain, but not liking english doesn't make you anti-british.

Disliking rims & speakers isn't the problem, it's being discriminatory.


Didn't read it very carefully?
If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

Th valuables were things that you would be PREVENTED (practically equal to confiscating) from purchasing if you use welfare.

My mistake, but I don't see how preventing someone from buying a tv, which spares them their money, is practically equal to seizing rims and selling them off without returning the money.



And again, you fail (or choose not to) to realise that providing one or two examples doesn't mean that's everything you mean. Do you assume a plasma tv and xbox wouldn't be allowed, but a jaccuzi would be? No? hat's because you can't impose your claims of racism on that.

I didn't fail to realize what you're saying. If he had said "We will sell your xbox, jacuzzi, and rims", then it would have gone unquestioned; instead he listed inter-related examples of a particular culture.


I'm sure there are studies on what low income families buy, you seem happy to do it with hispanics and rims.

I didn't claim that Hispanics are prone to buying rims, and I wont claim what the impoverished are prone to buying either.


Me: This isn't a legal document.
You: That's exactly what it is.
Me: No it isn't.
You: I know, what bearing does this have?

The author proposes a legal confiscation of items, and that is what I meant by saying "that's exactly what it is". Now, can you explain how your "this isn't a legal document" criticism is relevant at all?

[Carrot]

Urban youth culture, a.k.a. Hip-hop culture, is fairly specific. There are diverse ethnicities within said culture, but it originated from, and continues to be predominantly made up of minorities.

Aka hiphop culture?

Source?

Anyway, so let me get this straight.

Steps.
1. "if you want benefits, you have to sell your rims and speakers before you do" (along with not getting steak, pizzas, xboxes, plama tvs, alcohol, drugs, nicotine etc).
2. 2 Items on that list coincide with the hip-hop culture.
3. The hip hop culture predominantly consists of minorities.
4. Racist!

Even though the items ARE unnecessary, aren't specific to race, and are seen in poorer neighbourhoods.



Disliking rims & speakers isn't the problem, it's being discriminatory.

Where is he discriminatory?


My mistake, but I don't see how preventing someone from buying a tv, which spares them their money, is practically equal to seizing rims and selling them off without returning the money.

Preventing someone from buying tv: They recieve benfits, spares their money and benefits go on useful items.

Seizing rims: They can recieve benefits, without also having luxury items.The money is effectively returned through benfits recieved. The seizing onlyoccurs if they agree to the terms for recieving benefits.



I didn't fail to realize what you're saying. If he had said "We will sell your xbox, jacuzzi, and rims", then it would have gone unquestioned; instead he listed inter-related examples of a particular culture.

Again, are you claiming that the other articles listed (xbox, pizza, plasma tvs, speakers, nicotine, drugs, alcohol and tatoos) are all inter related examples of a particular culture.



I didn't claim that Hispanics are prone to buying rims, and I wont claim what the impoverished are prone to buying either.

So what exactly are you trying to show with your sources?

Also, why won't you claim what poor, city dwellers might spen on non-essentiall? Do y think it might overlap with many of the items listed. Do some research even, I'll wait.


The author proposes a legal confiscation of items, and that is what I meant by saying "that's exactly what it is". Now, can you explain how your "this isn't a legal document" criticism is relevant at all?

Because listing a couple of examples is a perfectly acceptable and normal way of getting a general point across outside official settings.

This obviously isn't meant as a legal document, and only a legal document would require saying "luxury items" and how they were to be identified.

[yee-haw]

Sic em' Mr. Orange!!


I approve of your post!

[1stoic1]

Aka hiphop culture?

Source?

The source is from the same article I have already offered. "Urban youth culture" is hyperlinked.


Anyway, so let me get this straight.

Steps.
1. "if you want benefits, you have to sell your rims and speakers before you do" (along with not getting steak, pizzas, xboxes, plama tvs, alcohol, drugs, nicotine etc).
2. 2 Items on that list coincide with the hip-hop culture.
3. The hip hop culture predominantly consists of minorities.
4. Racist!

Even though the items ARE unnecessary, aren't specific to race, and are seen in poorer neighbourhoods.

But none of the other items necessarily reflect a particular culture, and the items that do reflect a particular culture are not the only items seen in poorer neighborhoods. I have seen mud bogging trucks, ATV's or go-karts, bass & airboats, and gun collections in poorer neighborhoods.

Also, I said the author is probably racist.


Where is he discriminatory?

He is being discriminatory by singling out a particular culture as the freeloaders of society. The "Redneck" culture isn't only made up of whites, but it is predominantly white, and so if a black person had written this article and listed mud bogging trucks and bassboats instead of rims and speakers, then I'd say he or she is probably racist too.


Preventing someone from buying tv: They recieve benfits, spares their money and benefits go on useful items.

Seizing rims: They can recieve benefits, without also having luxury items.The money is effectively returned through benfits recieved. The seizing onlyoccurs if they agree to the terms for recieving benefits.

He says the money would go towards the "common good", whatever that means. It very well could be in the form of social benefits, but not necessarily any benefits that the rims owner would receive. Why not just lump the items together under shared consequences? Prevent people from buying both tv's and rims, and confiscate the items if they are bought. Moreover, listing specific items is just plain unnecessary. The author's language is too superfluous to be innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt, of any insinuations.


So what exactly are you trying to show with your sources?

Also, why won't you claim what poor, city dwellers might spen on non-essentiall? Do y think it might overlap with many of the items listed. Do some research even, I'll wait.

I was showing that rims and speakers are affiliated with a culture primarily made up of minorities. I was not claiming that Hispanics are prone to buying rims and speakers.

I wont claim what the impoverished are prone to buying because being poor doesn't miraculously integrate your interests with that of other poor people. I don't indulge in any of the items listed in that article, and that wouldn't change if I lost all of my funds either. If you're looking for validation of your argument, then you can do your own research.


Because listing a couple of examples is a perfectly acceptable and normal way of getting a general point across outside official settings.

This obviously isn't meant as a legal document, and only a legal document would require saying "luxury items" and how they were to be identified.

Listing examples isn't the problem, it's being discriminatory. Just because you're "outside of official settings", that doesn't justify xenophobic rants.

[1stoic1]

Sic em' Mr. Orange!!


I approve of your post!

That's interesting, considering that he's arguing against the notion of rims and speakers being associated with "ghetto rats" (as you put it), and that "maybe it's racist" to do so (as you have done).

[yee-haw]

That's interesting, considering that he's arguing against the notion of rims and speakers being associated with "ghetto rats" (as you put it), and that "maybe it's racist" to do so (as you have done).

My official position is fuck the ghetto rats!!
And all them little wanna be thugs, And fuck you too if ya can't take a joke!

[MrRee]

Wish they would come up with a remote control device the would BLOW up the speakers on the vehicles of the dipshits who have the damn crap they think is a form of music so damn loud!
The assholes rattle windows with their ungodly shit and I hope it turns them stone deaf fast!