georgerussia

Your "fair" just means "matched my opinion", right? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what? They wouldn't accuse The Onion of not being a "legitimate news organization" either, even though everyone knows that. And this is because The Onion does not represent themselves as "real news network". By the way, I do not consider MSNBC news as well. I read CNN, ABC and BBC. It would be bad if they really said it exactly like that. But of course they did not. If you want to know what was really said, read some REAL news. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is so funny to watch you guys shifting from "Fox News is real news, and doesn't do it" to "but everyone else does it too" paradigm. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

They are not accused of entertainment. The message is different - the main priority of Fox News is to serve the Republican party, and their news coverage is biased significantly enough to the point when they're spreading propaganda, not really reporting the news. My opinion is pretty much the same as Gibbs - a news network, which manipulates the news coverage to deliver some crafted messages, is not really something I would call news network. It is more like The Onion newspaper - which I also read two times a week (I'm a subscriber), and it's always fun, but I doubt anyone would consider them 'real news' - and likely not just because they have a different point of view. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/fox_news_party_lines/2009/10/19/273848.html I wonder why didn't you provide a link. Is it because newsmax is same kind of outlet as fox "news" is? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I doubt there is a single person around here who didn't watch Fox News before this White House advisor comment, and started watching it after. To me it looks like pretty binary - everyone knows what Fox News is about, and they either accept the agenda and watch it, or they do not. And while there is Yiddish proverb saying "don't spit into a well - you might need to drink from it later", I'd say for current White House this is kind of well is already poisoned, so spitting there wouldn't hurt anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're arguing with yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

SFGate article and the thing I personally found funny, though, is the Fox's response: In response to the criticism, Fox News executive Michael Clemente on Sunday accused the White House of continuing to "declare war on a news organization" rather than focusing on issues such as jobs and health care. Fox News asking White House to focus on health care? wow. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's not perfect, but it is the most reliable system, which is used by everyone in our everyday lives. You obviously cannot help everyone. But when you decide whether to help a panhandler, a friend, a charity - and I'm not talking about just saving someone from starvation death, it might as well include something like new clothes for their kids for Christmas - what system do YOU use to decide who'd get your help, and how much? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Thank you Andy, it's much clearer now. The only part which isn't clear yet is that basically this law makes almost all whistle-blowing illegal, as in most cases whistle blowing consist of improperly accessing/disclosing non-public information with intent to harm someone - even though it might not be the goal of the whistleblower to harm that person, a reasonable person using common sense would expect the harm, which may be enough to prove intent. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Went through like three times, didn't understand anything. Could someone translate this to English please? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"The only people getting upset are the hyper-sensitive, over-politically correct, pro-amnesty, illegal alien-supporting nuts," said Gheen. "You can't attack people's freedom in this country." Nuff said. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem with any system is that as soon as there is a rules-based system which uses specific criteria to determine who to enroll, you'll have freeloaders fooling the system by faking or artificially putting themselves under those criteria. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'd speculate this is the only reliable system to decide who to help. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Personal feelings. There are people who would use some help. And there are people who think they are entitled to help, and would abuse anything they got. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I have complained twice (in California you can do it via email to Wicfraud@dhs.ca.gov), and so far nothing changed. Very likely because this kind of fraud is pretty difficult to catch (especially when it is based on store-customer relationship and probably even personally knowing each other), and fraud departments are busy with lower-hanging fruits. However I'd mostly complain about participants in the program, who likely should never been enrolled in the program at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, I thought it should - but I personally seen it several times in couple of places here. Likely it's pretty much the same way people are buying booze using foodstamps. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, it all depends on how you define "need". What is needed amount of food? Is it 2500 calories in ambiguous form (piece of bread, piece of meat, two carrots, glass of milk), or should we include the food poor would actually enjoy, and include there chips, ice cream and beer? The problem I personally have with programs like WIC is that those money are not spent on basics. They are often spent on ice cream, sodas, pizza and chips - the food, which is not only unnecessary, but also unhealthy, and contributes to health problems the poor often have. It's pretty much the same with clothes. It's very cheap to provide anyone with a one set of usable clothes enough for survival. It's when you got "should they have more than one set?" question when it starts raising concerns. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The "who most need" part is very questionable here. Basically you either speak about relative need (then it's questionable whether a poor's need for a bottle of booze is greater than a rich person's need for a yacht), or you speak about absolute need (and then all the money to help poor should leave U.S., because by world measurements, there are much more people who have much more need than a typical poor in USA). Even on the relative needs level it's still questionable whether it's better to pay for one person's medical school or for one hundred person unnecessary clothing and unnecessary food. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Tax brackets had nothing to do with current mess. It was created by people - likely including some people you know personally - who somehow believed that they all could get rich in five years by selling same homes to each other for twice more they paid for it. If they pocket it, they'd lose it - so they won't. So they'll spend it. And "FAIR" is heavily defined whether you'd be giving money, or to be given money. If I took a look on your budget, trust me, I'd instantly find that you can give at least 20% of your income to the poor by keeping only basics and getting rid of things which are not necessities - like booze, cell phone and so on. Of course, if you can afford to skydive, you're not poor either. *** Unless the poor person doesn't have it, then they live in a box. Or maybe they spend it on silly things like HC. Living in a box in U.S. is still not that bad - and I'd speculate it is better than living in a house in Somali, or even some parts of Zimbabwe. At least you're likely not hungry, have some access to healthcare and not risking getting shot or being sold to slavery. Everything is relative, and if your target is "helping the poor", I'd say you should definitely start outside U.S. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then the way to boost the economy would be to give $100K to a rich person instead of giving it to 100 poor persons - with a condition that everything which is not spent, should be paid back. It would be better for the economy, since the food and housing are necessities, and people spend money on them anyway. A rich person, however, might spend those 100K on a yacht, or two new cars, generating a) more jobs b) sales tax and c) property tax * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you read all the spam you receive, it's not a good sign, and if I were you, I'd considered seeing a licensed professional :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Wow! That's so good that I live in California, where everyone could get married no matter what race, skin color or sexual orientation they are! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My accountant says with current tax rate it doesn't make sense to use (legal) tax avoidance schemes if your combined income is less than 400K. Once you're over it, it starts making sense to use them. However when the taxes are up, it makes sense on much lower amounts. In Europe, for example, if your income is over 75K EUR a year, it definitely makes sense because of much higher taxes. This is one of the reasons they have ~20% VAT. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So how a zygote (also a human according to abortion nazis) would use an iPhone? :) It cannot, so the right is not fulfilled. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *