Kill The Poor

[Fandango 1,439]

But where's the 'kill the poor' come into it?

Dunno. Perhaps Steven was being sarky with the thread title. Does it really matter?

Well, it's the perfect example of emotional based responses to differing opinions. Which really does nothing to open a dialogue so people can actually share differing opins.

To be fair, he only posted the article. The discussion about which has so far been defined by others.

My comment is really directed at whomever wrote it...it's not Steven-specific. Comments like that cheapen the intent of the author...and it does set a tone to the whole discussion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But where's the 'kill the poor' come into it?

Dunno. Perhaps Steven was being sarky with the thread title. Does it really matter?

Well, it's the perfect example of emotional based responses to differing opinions. Which really does nothing to open a dialogue so people can actually share differing opins.

To be fair, he only posted the article. The discussion about which has so far been defined by others.

My comment is really directed at whomever wrote it...it's not Steven-specific. Comments like that cheapen the intent of the author...and it does set a tone to the whole discussion.

Well this is really on the back of this thread from September 4th. Their conclusions seem pretty flawed IMO, even if this follow-up article has a sensationalist tone.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Number 6

[mawilson 2,133]

Well this is really on the back of this thread from September 4th. Their conclusions seem pretty flawed IMO, even if this follow-up article has a sensationalist tone.

Why do you think their conclusions are flawed?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well this is really on the back of this thread from September 4th. Their conclusions seem pretty flawed IMO, even if this follow-up article has a sensationalist tone.

Why do you think their conclusions are flawed?

Its in the other thread.

[GaryC 7]

It's all about how the left in Washington operates. The make their living saying they are going to "help the poor" among other things. If there are no more poor they have one thing left to cry about come election time. It's the same with the war. The can't afford to let the general public think we are winning. It takes one more bullet out of their gun. They are already calling General Petreis (sp) report "Bush's report" and Chucky Shummer is saying that the advances in Anbar has nothing to do with the surge but the locals did it all on their own.

So the left has to demagog any good news. It's in their best interests.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's all about how the left in Washington operates. The make their living saying they are going to "help the poor" among other things. If there are no more poor they have one thing left to cry about come election time. It's the same with the war. The can't afford to let the general public think we are winning. It takes one more bullet out of their gun. They are already calling General Petreis (sp) report "Bush's report" and Chucky Shummer is saying that the advances in Anbar has nothing to do with the surge but the locals did it all on their own.

So the left has to demagog any good news. It's in their best interests.

Now 'that' is emotional rhetoric.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But where's the 'kill the poor' come into it?

A figure of speech, sometimes termed a rhetoric, or elocution, is a word or phrase that departs from straightforward, literal language. Figures of speech are often used and crafted for emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use. Note that all theories of meaning necessarily have a concept of "literal language" (see literal and figurative language). Under theories that do not, figure of speech is not an entirely coherent concept.

As an example of the figurative use of a word, consider the sentence, I am going to crown you. It may mean:

* I am going to place a literal crown on your head.

* I am going to symbolically exalt you to the place of kingship.

* I am going to put a second checker piece on top of your checker piece to signify that it has become a king (as in the game of checkers).

* I am going to punch you in the head with my clenched fist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Regardless of how it is written I think the article does raise some valid questions about the methodology and rationale used for these determinations.

For a start they never really define what poverty is and only make a general 'suggestion' as to how the 'press, liberal activists, and politicians' have defined it without ever citing any specific examples.

Generally speaking, studies like this usually make a explicit statement of intent as to what 'specific' claims they're looking to prove/disprove. This doesn't do that at all but rather seems to rely on a lot of undefined relative terminology, and given the obvious political slant, it seems to me like one of those instances where the 'researchers' knew what they were looking for at the outset and looked for evidence to support that determination.

It is a discussion worth having: "What is poverty?" The use of the term "poverty" by governments tends not to match that as interpreted by their respective public, the former typically being some fraction of the average / mean income, the latter being an evaluation of state.

The last paragraph puts their gameplan clearly into perspective: "By increasing work and marriage, reducing illegal immigration... virtually eliminate remaining child poverty". i.e. There isn't much poverty really, and those that have it, deserve it.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Number 6

[almaty 19]

The poor serve a purpose. They allow the middle class to indulge in the delusion that they are not poor.

..that is true...Damn, brother Arijit, i am enlighted

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

so what's the daily bag limit and possession limit? what's the restrictions on hunting them - i.e. rifle, shotgun, and bow allowed?

[JASONandDAA 0]

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

ROTFLMAO! :lol:

But where's the 'kill the poor' come into it?

A figure of speech, sometimes termed a rhetoric, or elocution, is a word or phrase that departs from straightforward, literal language. Figures of speech are often used and crafted for emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use. Note that all theories of meaning necessarily have a concept of "literal language" (see literal and figurative language). Under theories that do not, figure of speech is not an entirely coherent concept.

As an example of the figurative use of a word, consider the sentence, I am going to crown you. It may mean:

* I am going to place a literal crown on your head.

* I am going to symbolically exalt you to the place of kingship.

* I am going to put a second checker piece on top of your checker piece to signify that it has become a king (as in the game of checkers).

* I am going to punch you in the head with my clenched fist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Who's advocating killing the poor?

I say eat the poor.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Who's advocating killing the poor?

I say eat the poor.

Only if they're washed first.