Food Stamps There is a purpose for food stamps. The biggest issue with food stamps is fraud. I knew a person that would sell it cheap just to get cash. Even use it to buy drugs and other stuff. I'm not saying everyone that gets them are fraudulent, there are cases where they actually help the people that it's intended for.
When I was a kid my dad got laid off from a job, we went on food stamps for nearly 4 months until my dad was able to find enough odd jobs to make up for the lost money from the layoff. A month later he had another job and the rest is history. But for the 7 people in our household at the time, it was something like $75-$100 a month. For 7 people that's not that much, though my parents were able to deal with it. Nowadays, if someone got lees than a few hundred they would probably scream how unjust it is. I believe there is a need for assistance.
We need to put their ass's to work, if the Liberals want to give out other peoples money so bad, at least make the people receiving the assistance do something in return. Pick up roadside trash, use whatever expertise they have to help. I know it's a lot to ask people to work, but imagine if all those lazy fucks actually had to be productive, we would probably get some shit done! At least I know where to go when I get hungry, Obama seems to be handing that shit out like it's going out of style! /facepalm
You do know that the "Food Stamp Act" was a bi-partisan effort passed in 1964? You would have a lot more credibility Wolfgang if you took that "Liberal" rhetoric out of your posts and replaced it with "Politicians".
If you think the GOP is a party that is for you, then either you are delusional or you make more then $250k a year. The DNC isn't that much better, they are intent on creating massive government as the far left is just as guilty as the far right for screwing all of us, taypayer and trustee.
A researcher compared food prices in Seattle's Rainier Valley and Queen Anne neighborhoods and found that a family of four living on the maximum allowable amount of food stamps can barely afford the basics here.
Jamillah Jordan, a fellow with the Congressional Hunger Center in Washington, D.C., shopped for groceries -- apples, potatoes, bagels, corn flakes, macaroni, canned peaches, ground turkey and other items -- and discovered what those on limited incomes know well: Even the basics cost families a little more than food stamp benefits allow.
A study from the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that looks at the increase in obesity rates across the U.S. The report notes higher obesity rates nationally among low-income adults. “More than 33% of adults who earn less than $15,000 per year were obese, compared with 24.6% of those who earn at least $50,000 per year,” the authors state.
Read the article again, with a critical eye. For one thing, people are talking about "organic" in it. Food does not have to be certified "organic" to be healthy, in fact "organic" is mostly a marketing gimmick these days. But "organic" can be much much more expensive.
Thats just one criticism. The article has no data period, just a few people talking about their feelings basically. Though some of the people featured do admit that by paying attention, they can in fact eat healthy on a low budget.
I had to use "Find: Organic" to see what you are talking about.
Here it is:
Quote:
In a food-conscious city such as Seattle, where consumers are willing to pay a premium for all things wild, organic and locally grown, chances are pretty good that you can find and buy healthful food wherever you live.
Please explain how you reached conclusion that this article was talking about buying organic food on food stamps?
Article is talking about "a nutritious diet", they further list foods: "apples, potatoes, bagels, corn flakes, macaroni, canned peaches, ground turkey and other items".
As to "lack of data" claim, while I aknowledge your point, I think you are holding it to unrealistically high standard. You are also ignoring expert opinions of 1) the director of the University of Washington's Center for Public Health Nutrition 2) a fellow with the Congressional Hunger Center in Washington 3) a professor at Tulane University.
Meanwhile people who actually need food stamps to survive can barely to afford to eat.
I drive by a church that has a food bank and gives out food like many others in the area do. If people are barely eating it's because someone isn't letting them eat.
Again when my parents had to go on food stamps for a few months we had food. We didn't have prime rib or filet Minot. I remember eating a lot of vegetables & fruits during that time, those are healthy right?
You can sit there and use that article all you want, it comes down to choices. You can CHOOSE to go to the grocery store and find creative ways to eat healthy food. Sure it's not like going to a fast food place ordering a fried chicken sandwich and diet soda. You can eat healthy with little money if you "CHOOSE" to! It's just to easy to stop by McDonald's and order off the dollar menu. I'm sure that's the "REAL" reason for the Obesity thing among poorer people. I've said before there's nothing wrong with some assistance, but damn he's handing out twice as much as anyone else. Makes you wonder if he's just trying to keep the masses happy by keeping them fat!
Meanwhile people who actually need food stamps to survive can barely to afford to eat.
If people are barely eating it's because someone isn't letting them eat.
I am going to quote this ignorance so you can't get out of it later.
So you're saying there's no help in America if you're hungry? I guess if you're paranoid that a church or soup kitchen is going to kidnap you and force you into a labor camp, then maybe it wouldn't be worth asking for a meal. But in reality that's not the case.
I know people go hungry here, but there is help other than Uncle Sam handing it out. I get you think society can't function without Government being up every Orpheus holding your hand.
I had to use "Find: Organic" to see what you are talking about.
Here it is:
Quote:
In a food-conscious city such as Seattle, where consumers are willing to pay a premium for all things wild, organic and locally grown, chances are pretty good that you can find and buy healthful food wherever you live.
Please explain how you reached conclusion that this article was talking about buying organic food on food stamps?
Article is talking about "a nutritious diet", they further list foods: "apples, potatoes, bagels, corn flakes, macaroni, canned peaches, ground turkey and other items".
As to "lack of data" claim, while I aknowledge your point, I think you are holding it to unrealistically high standard. You are also ignoring expert opinions of 1) the director of the University of Washington's Center for Public Health Nutrition 2) a fellow with the Congressional Hunger Center in Washington 3) a professor at Tulane University.
-------------------------------------------------------------- - "I believe organic and very fresh or frozen food would be optimum for me, but I have to make compromises because of the money."
------------------------------- "Being on a set fund, I couldn't eat the way I was used to eating," she said. "I couldn't afford all the good things I used to buy, like lean meats."
She used to buy locally grown grapes, plums and apples when they were in season, but it's rare if she can afford a red pepper at $1 or $2 apiece. These days, she tends to buy frozen dinners when they're on sale at 10 for $10.
I know which TV dinners she is talking about, and yeah they are terrible. My question would be, why the flying fuck doesnt she buy a bag of rice or cornmeal, and why is she talking about peppers , which at 1$ are no doubt out of season, and the rainly cloudy Seattle weather is not conducive to growing peppers in the first place. I mean seriously.
Has she ever heard of cooking the fat off? Besides, fat doesnt make you fat - in fact you can get more calories for less cost and less food by using less lean meat. Its not how much volume you eat, its how many calories you intake. If this person took 30 minutes to educate herself, it is readily apparent she could save a lot of money. The fact that the writers of this article use these types of people as examples discredits their ability to make valid judgements on the subject.
Now on to the poor/fat linkage. Using the case of the women previously quoted, do you not think it possible , just a little, that she is pigging out because she has been stressed out?
The fact is, the poor/fat linkage does not withstand even mild critical scrutiny. Its like saying more ice cream is sold on the beach in summer, and more shark attacks occur on the beach in summer - therefore shark attacks are happening because people are selling ice cream.
I agree in principle with what you say, but when I tried to fit into Thrifty Food Plan budget, I couldn't. I normally cook all of my meals from scratch, avoid prepared meals and very aware of per-pound cost of any food I buy. Going with "economy" budget was only a question of changing menu to work with much cheaper ingredients. Couple things I noticed - spices, flavoring and oils that I normally use were clearly out of budget (I used them anyways); any fresh milk, cheese or dairy were out; most fresh vegetables were out of budget with exception of onions and carrots; any meat cuts that easy to work with was out of budget.
As to points you brought up about organic, way I read it was more of "it would be nice to have organic, but I can't with this budget" than "I tried to eat organic, but run over the budget". Frozen dinner comments - yes, I agree, but unless you are a good cook, that is your only choice.
Hmmm, well need to seperate the arguments out. I think it is self evident, that fatness cannot be caused directly by poverty. Skinnyness, sure.
However, vitamin nutrition and obesity are not the same. Is there a possibility that someone could not get the USDA recommended vitamins/etc per day on a low budget? Possibly so, I cannot say authoritatively until I think that one through a little bit. But the simple answer to poverty/obesity is tied to stress. Eating is well documented mechanism for dealing with stress, and poverty also has a well documented correlation with lack of education.
In other words, it is perfectly logical that stressed out people who are frustrated and know little or nothing about dietary science, or simply dont care , could be readily tied to obesity. If it was high calorie food - eat half as much, simple answer.
Also, in regards to eating inexpensively but well - my personal recommendation is to examine what does happen to be inexpensive in your area, then cross reference it with ethnic dishes comprised of similar ingredients. In truth, most "ethnic" dishes came about because people with limited economic resources worked very hard at making what they did have more palatable. There is no one universal answer, but many clues can be found.
Personally, when I was working with less money in my own food budget the things I found invaluable were a rice cooker and a wok.
I will say part of the problem regarding actual nutrition, is how much nutrition has been bred out of many vegetables and leafy plants in favor of appearance and shelf life. But that is a different topic.
The link talks about the decline in the nutrients in veg/fruits. Mostly due being breed to grow faster and bigger, which doesn't allow them to get the minerals in as great a quantity. If you want to feed 300 million people something has to give. It would be great if we all could grow our own food.
Thats an interesting take. Its an EarthTalk article, not an actual SciAm. I wouldn't doubt that it has some truth though. Mostly thought its attributed to the reasons I listed, though the ones cited in the article are certainly factors as well. ( especially pest resistance )
The bottom line though, is none are bred for nutrition.
One tip though for healthy eating - broccoli for some reason bucks the trend, and is generally your best bang for buck regarding good nutrition. For whatever reason, broccoli maintains stable levels of nutrition across genetics and growing methods.
I have an advantage here though, actually working in the industry.
I think it is self evident, that fatness cannot be caused directly by poverty.
I still don't agree with this. Sure, poor master-chef with PhD in nutrition probably could, with a lot of self-discipline, maintain healthy diet and weight. Rest of us will eat until they are sated, and it takes a lot more calories to get full when you eat a diet full of processed food with artificial sweeteners. Why do you eat crappy diet of processed food? Well, for one because it is cheap and doesn't take time and skill to plan and prepare. When you are well-off, you don't need to compromise quality of your food nearly as much if you want convenience.
Saying, well just eat until you consume your daily ration of calories, is ignoring how human beings operate.
I will give you argument on stress and poverty, it is probably a factor.
Last but not least - I'd willing to be that people who cook most of their meals are clear minority in any demographic and income level.
No, I realize full well that this is what many people do. I am just saying that me being socially responsible for them when they choose to do it is quite unreasonable.
To me, saying I have a social responsibility to not let people who have less starve to death, or go malnourished makes sense. Saying I have a social responsibility to make their lives more convenient is a completely different argument.
Given economic and governmental realities - it is unfortunately quite possible right now that people be poor even though they are working and/or willing to work. This situation may not be their choice. How and what they eat, and how much attention they pay to their diet is however their choice. It is entirely up to them whether they spend $15 on cheap TV dinners and scarf until they think they are full - or take that $15 and buy a bag of rice, some less expensive cuts of/or types of meat and a couple heads of broccoli.
Plus some people even count generic/store brands as "unacceptable", when is most cases there is no real difference, in fact I prefer store brands for some things.
I have had times in my life where my food budget was similar to some of those people mentioned. I also have a very very high metabolism and need more calories than most people just to maintain weight. However, I never applied for food stamps. I did however put some thought into what I was doing. I figure if I can do it, on my own dime... then there is no reason that other people cannot also do it... especially if they are also on my dime. The bottom line is I am not expecting anything from anyone else, that I do not expect from myself.
Yes, its not your social responsibility, but you can save 10% on food stamp budget making your point all while double your medicare budget to treat obesity and related effects.
Generally speaking, social programs are cheaper than incarceration and education is cheaper than social programs. Right now as a society we are cutting down social programs and education, well we will pay more than that in increased incarceration costs.
Well, if the govt wanted to provide links to USDA dietary info or something or have fliers with the food stamp cards I wouldnt object. Also, plenty of people with plenty of money still eat really poorly. Theres plenty of expensive food out there that is just as bad for you when over consumed. More food stamp cash is no guarantee for lower health bills later.
But your last point gets to the heart of one of the primary reasons why I absolutely do not like the type of massive Federal health programs that the Fed govt would enforce on the entire population. IE: Its not even social responsibility in many cases, its paying for other peoples poor choices or willful ignorance.
You also might be surprised to know that I vote in favor of all sorts of locally funded and administered programs.
I indeed would be surprised, but I always suspected that somewhere under all that dogma is hiding rational human individual that if not out of compassion, but at least from practicality would be willing to compromise.
I don't like paying for "other peoples poor choices or willful ignorance" myself, but what the alternative? My strong preference is non-dogmatic cost effectiveness, given that baseline level of humane treatment is met.
Be honest though, you dont actually pay much attention to what people actually say, or think through the ramifications several steps out.
I guess I wish, for the purposes at least of having interesting discussions... that you would stop with the accusations of dogma, take part in discussions as they are - and not the imaginary discussion that apparently happens in your head. If I ever decided to run for office, and you wanted to say " you dont trust what I say, this is what you really think so I wont vote for you " - I would say fine - fair enough. But no one is running for office here, its just a discussion.
You say willingness to compromise, but compromise what? My positions as stated have not changed. In fact they have been pretty plain if you ever chose to actually look.
As far as putting people in your neat little groups, I find it utterly amazing that you think that I am close in many regards to some people that have posted on this forum. Sure, there is some agreement... but as you yourself pointed out in a separate thread ( that I reallly wanted to jump into, but didnt) , different sets can have overlap but still be very dissimilar overall.
You say willingness to compromise, but compromise what?
You will hate me for answering this way, but to answer your question honestly - to not blindly and unquestionably following your dogma that explicitly says that any and all social program are the spawn of Satan.
Still, even conservative dogma is a moving target these days, just like Romney learning the hard way that being a successful businessman is considered a bad thing amongst conservatives these days.
I guess I wish, for the purposes at least of having interesting discussions...
If I was having conversation only with you, I would consider, but so far I have seen too many "graceful exist" followed by "release the hounds!" ...
Quote:
As far as putting people in your neat little groups, I find it utterly amazing that you think that I am close in many regards to some people that have posted on this forum. Sure, there is some agreement... but as you yourself pointed out in a separate thread ( that I reallly wanted to jump into, but didnt) , different sets can have overlap but still be very dissimilar overall.
If you have disagreements, or even ever condemn any shenanigans, you are awfully quiet about it and don't act on it at all.
I mention that before, I will mention it again - if you want to differentiate yourself from conduct of others you cannot be "thick as thieves" throughout the argument, then quietly slip away once things turn ugly and pants-on-your-head behavior start coming into play. Like voting my profile to 1 star then going passive-aggressive when I retaliated. Your choices are : a) not participate at all b) participate and take responsibility c) participate and condemn actions.
Sorry for the derail, but I think Food Stamps argument was coming to a close, so I took this opportunity to have a frank conversation.
P.S. Your PM box is full and was that way for a long while.
You say willingness to compromise, but compromise what?
You will hate me for answering this way, but to answer your question honestly - to not blindly and unquestionably following your dogma that explicitly says that any and all social program are the spawn of Satan.
But, oddly enough that has never been my dogma. Perhaps you could explain would you are insistent that this is so.
I guess I wish, for the purposes at least of having interesting discussions...
If I was having conversation only with you, I would consider, but so far I have seen too many "graceful exist" followed by "release the hounds!" ...
Quote:
As far as putting people in your neat little groups, I find it utterly amazing that you think that I am close in many regards to some people that have posted on this forum. Sure, there is some agreement... but as you yourself pointed out in a separate thread ( that I reallly wanted to jump into, but didnt) , different sets can have overlap but still be very dissimilar overall.
If you have disagreements, or even ever condemn any shenanigans, you are awfully quiet about it and don't act on it at all.
I mention that before, I will mention it again - if you want to differentiate yourself from conduct of others you cannot be "thick as thieves" throughout the argument, then quietly slip away once things turn ugly and pants-on-your-head behavior start coming into play. Like voting my profile to 1 star then going passive-aggressive when I retaliated. Your choices are : a) not participate at all b) participate and take responsibility c) participate and condemn actions.
Sorry for the derail, but I think Food Stamps argument was coming to a close, so I took this opportunity to have a frank conversation.
P.S. Your PM box is full and was that way for a long while.
As for my PM box.... that is interesting, sounds like Jet broke it again. It has happened before.
The bottom line though, is I am not moderator of this forum. If you want to continue engaging in discussions that have gotten out of whack, I can only assume it is because you enjoy doing so. If you had been following the discussions here for any length of time, you would also know that I have had many disagreements with people on this forum.
I think the heart of the matter is really individualist vs collectivist thinking though. You put people into collectives based on arbitrary judgement, I look at individual responsibility. If a thread goes to shit, sure, I will stop posting in it. But your insinuation that I am somehow "releasing the hounds" or have any communication with most of the posters here outside of these threads is silly.
Other people post what they think, I post what I think. Vuldan, who is the person I think you are referring too , had a short spat - the stopped posting of his own accord. That weeks later, you are still trying to paint others in a certain color based on the actions of someone who had a flame-out strikes me as immensely silly.
Some of the other flame-throwing that has gone on - you have clearly instigated. In cases where you have clearly ignored what was written by someone, twisted it, and put words in their mouth - I am not about to coming running to your defense when they flame you back. Besides, you have been pretty insistent on grouping together people from the get-go ; this trend of yours did not start after you ran into resistance to your dogmas, you came here with a clear chip on your shoulder. Many of your initial posts were even to the purpose and stated intent of lumping "conservatives" together into one homogenous group. Using left wing media articles as kindling, you tried to start flame wars as you attempted to fit anyone who disagrees with you into a box of "them".
I dont know why you would even admit to your one-starring campaign, I found it silly but so be it.
Where you really jumped the shark though, is when I got back from traveling and you started in on me with ad hominim attacks out of the blue. Which you then explained as retaliation for things other people had apparently posted. This type of behavior is a real pet peeve of mine. Ironically enough its also a page right out of W Bushes playbook " your either with us, or your with the terrorists". I reserve my right to be with neither.
No, I hit the issue smack on the face. You just choose not to process anything that you do not wish to hear.
Also, your analogy makes zero sense in this context. A more apt analogy would be - I am sitting in a bar, other people are also sitting in the bar. Some liberal comes in and pours his beer on some other guys, gets punched in the mouth... then complains that I did not stick up for him.
The one-starring campaign... against you? I was aware of no such thing, certainly noone spoke to me about one. Rather, after pointing out your moral failures and hypocrisies - I was the target of the one-starring campaign. So I find your statements in this regard somewhat odd.
I never requested you treat me separately btw, I am not looking for your approval here - I am calling you out on your hypocrisy and lack of reasoning ability. The fact that you would assert that I am responsible for the content of other peoples posts is prima facie evidence of such.
If I post something, feel free to respond to me. Should you respond to me, I will make reasonable efforts to engage in meaningful conversation. If you respond to someone else but make it look like you are responding to me - I will call you out for acting like an idiot. Its really as simple as that.
In case you wanted an example to work toward - Tasorin is an independent conservative-leaning poster. You? A loud voice in a choir. When was the last time you voiced disagreement with anything, no matter how irrelevant, illogical or outright false that was posted by a conservative? I can't honestly find a single example, and I have looked. Forget intellectual integrity, forget good faith arguments - you tow the party line 24/7, every post, no matter how ridiculous it is, and then have an audacity complain that I unfairly group you with the rest of the choir.
It is so obvious to anyone reading these debates that I have no idea why are you bothering to deny it.
As to 'rating' debate - way to play victim when YOU personally left the rating, YOU personally complained about it in the sig and you personally not saying anything when Wolfgang initiating whole thing around time constitution/nanny state debate time frame. Now, I don't actually know any of this for the fact, but if Jet posts logs and I am wrong I will write personal and public apology to every person I wronged.
Flawed analysis as always. I dont think you have looked for much. Also, I will admit that since you have been acting like such a child lately, I have been a lot more focused on poking holes in your posts.
The last time off the top of my head that I bothered to write in serious disagreements with others was the tazer thread. Lately you seem to have been trying to get my attention specifically with your outrageous twisting and ad hominim attacks - you have succeeded, why complain?
Also, do not mistake complaining for making fun of you. I was making fun of you, not complaining. You are the one playing "victim" here, as always.
Now, as to the rating thing.. again.. making fun of your hypocrisy and childishness is not playing "victim". So, which rating did I personally leave? For as long as I could remember, you did not even have a rating. Someone managed to knock me from 5 down to three... big deal. Yeah, congratulations... I did in fact make fun of whoever did it in my sig for a bit, however I did not name any names... but you seem to have now taken responsibility.
Why did you concoct such a convoluted way to play victim? Then try to accuse others of acting like you do? What would drive you do to so?
--
The moral of the story here, is you are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever known. Almost every negative behavior you try to call other people out on, you in fact initiated. Its almost Orwellian in nature, reading your posts is like reading 1984. War is peace, slavery is freedom, anyone who points out the massive flaws is sinij-world thinking is living in an ideological echo-chamber. You call out others for getting personal, and in your next breath act exactly like they do.
You are the Newt Gingrich of Oracle posters.
I consider it one of the ironies of life, that in terms of personality and temperament - you most resemble many of the "conservative" pols you claim to hate.
What honestly gets me though, is why you seem to be intent on being the center of discussion - then complain about it when you are.
P.S.
Interesting that you throw such idiocies into a post, then edit the post and then say how * I * wont let it rest. I suppose I should have quoted you instead of just hitting reply. Though I usually try not to start down the path of fire, if someone gets one going I am more than happy to bring the gasoline and a six-pack.
The last time off the top of my head that I bothered to write in serious disagreements with others was the tazer thread.
That was before I got involved with political debates. So you finally admit that since I started my political participation you did not "write in serious disagreement with others".
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: sinij
Forget intellectual integrity, forget good faith arguments - you tow the party line 24/7, every post, no matter how ridiculous it is, and then have an audacity complain that I unfairly group you with the rest of the choir.
I will admit that since you have been acting like such a child lately, I have been a lot more focused on poking holes in your posts.
In that case, are you done complaining about being "unfairly grouped with others" ?
At least you are honest when forced to address the issue. I will give you that. Whatever your flaws are, thankfully intentional denial isn't one of them.
Quote:
Lately you seem to have been trying to get my attention specifically with your outrageous twisting and ad hominim attacks - you have succeeded, why complain?
I can link and quote bible, flag and constitution, and you would still call it "outrageous twisting and ad homin[e]m attacks". Just like US Congres you don't seem to have any other modes of operation other than - loudly and obnoxiously disagree with anything you are presented.
Quote:
Now, as to the rating thing.. again.. making fun of your hypocrisy and childishness is not playing "victim". So, which rating did I personally leave?
Indeed, which rating did you personally leave? I offered public apology, stop weaseling and answer the question.
Weaseling? How laughable, you also said you would offer some sort of apology if Jet posted logs of something. I did not initiate any one starring of you, nor did I talk with anyone else about the matter, or encourage anyone else to do so. I cant even get PMs anymore apparently, if anyone should be crying about supposed conspiracy theories here it would be me. ( not that I am, I am guessing that my fucked inbox was accidental )
You could not in fact, simply quote the Constitution, Bible, etc - and have that result in me acting like you say I would. Willful denial is as you say, not one of my flaws - it does however appear to be one of yours, as you continually demonstrate with almost every post you make.
Were you not involved in the Tazering thread? I thought you were. Still, you make a VERY good point regarding your extremely new arrival to the Oracle political discussions.
Unlike you, I have been debating politics on the Oracle for about a decade now. For a very very long time, it was basically me vs the Neocons and authority worshipers that did/do hang out here. It was often very contentious and I had lots of fun with it, but nevertheless for the greater bulk of the history of political discussion around here it was mostly me vs many others. (except unlike you, I was capable of articulating cogent arguments. )
So I find it rather amusing when you come in with your poor arguments, find multiple people who disagree with you, then squeek-off at me in a hissy over it and claim I follow a "crowd". Especially when you basically instantly took to insulting everyone, then turned around to cry about the turn-about.
And yes, I am rather done complaining about how you say you view me - not that I was ever really complaining. I will admit I was dissapointed at first, because for a brief second I thought you might end up proving to be an interesting discussion/debate partner and did make a couple of attempts to engage in serious discussion and treat you as a rational person. Unfortunately you have since proven to not be able to follow or articulate logic, and shown a propensity towards personal attacks when faced with unwinnable arguments.
At the end of the day, I am here to have fun. Whether that fun in an in depth discussion, or verbal sparring or outright flamewars depends mostly on the nature of the discussion directed at me. But it really makes no difference. If you dont consider it fun, I suggest finding a different hobby.
Oh, I one starred you after you did it to me if that is what you are asking. I figured that if you were concerned about it enough to go after my rating - that you might twist yourself in knots over it if it happened to to you. Happily, your obsession with the topic has proven that to be the case.
Finally, after I forced the question you admitted doing _exactly_ the same action you dedicated last two or three posts berating me over. Plus you knowingly joined in a pile-up. I choose to trust your word that you did not initiate it. Oh, the irony.
To recap this thread:
1. We firmly established that as a rule you do not question your fellow conservatives, instead directing all critique at the opposition. In turn, you promised to discontinue your incessant complaining about not being differentiated from others.
2. We established that indeed you a) noticed my drown-rating and did nothing about it b) rated me one star yourself solely on presumption that I down-rated your profile c) spent considerable effort berating me over down-rating your profile when I brought it up as an example of " pants-on-your-head behavior coming into play".
Which pile-up did I take part in? I just responded in kind, as is my way. I knowingly took part in no pile-up, or pile-on. More lies and delusions from sinij-land it would appear.
To be honest about a recap:
1) We firmly established that you make things up, and your attempts at discussion or assertions do not resemble anything like actual reality.
2) We established that a) as far as I was aware you never even had a rating, the down-rating I noticed was my own. So I said "lulz" and reciprocated. Turn about.
b) my presumption proved correct, as they usually are. Since you since admitted as much.
c) Incorrect - I have made fun of you for turning into a big topic. You are the one who brought it up, and bellyached about it. What is at issue here is certainly not me complaining about it - its that you keep insisting on the morality of your actions and/or position.
d) Have established that you initiated the downgrading against me. If I recall correctly, I was out of town when it happened and had made two short posts that week mostly bitching about the TSA. So I am not sure what I could have done to warrant it, hence my poking fun at you for trying to act high and mighty.
Also, I enjoy helping dig your hole. If you started acting like a rational person, I would lose interest.
On morality of my actions - you are right. Rating you in retaliation was a mistake, and even highly amusing fact that you reacted in exactly the same way does not justify my actions. I am sorry I down-rated your profile.
You shouldn't be sorry. After all, what I take issue with is not the rating of a profile. Or even your positions on things. Its the reasoning or lack thereof that you use to arrive at your conclusions and/or courses of action combined with the faux moralism.