  |
|
Re: Obama says 'Starve Bitches'!
Posted by **Old Flat Top** on Apr 24, 2013 at 11:36:26 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama says 'Starve Bitches'! posted by **Johnny D** on Apr 24, 2013 at 10:13:24 PM:
******Meals On Wheels Facing Cuts
******
******MARTINEZ (CBS SF) � Meals on Wheels of Contra Costa launched an urgent appeal for more donations Monday, saying that a funding shortage could force it to drop 200 people from its roster of 1,200 seniors receiving home-delivered meals.
******
******The Martinez-based nonprofit group currently uses 800 volunteers per year to deliver one nutritious meal each day to 1,200 homebound, low-income elderly people throughout Contra Costa County, according to program director Paul Kraintz
******
******Kraintz said the organization has been struggling with budget problems for several reasons, including reduced donations and increased need stemming from the recent recession.
******
******But he said a crucial blow has been the loss of $100,000 in funding as a result of the federal budget sequestration.
******
******�The sequestration was a bridge way too far,� he said.
******
******�We�re always struggling with increased need for services and not enough revenue, but when the federal government hit us for $100,000, it made it so we had to act differently,� he said.
******
*********
******
******
******BARRY WANTS YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN so you do what he says
******
******hj
*****
*****But all the dems claimed he is FOR all the needy people! ??? A caring president! ??? :) Guess they still won't acknowledge he is just yet another "politician". "Our savior", they said! LOL
*****
*****
*****Maybe some businesses will step up and help fund that program. Hope so. Another reason why people shouldn't depend on Daddy Government. Like many disgusting dads, they walk or run the other way when the going gets tough.
****
****Who said that? I don't know any Democrats who said that. I do know Republicans who claim they said that, though.
****
****Now, how do you expect government to continue funding everything when you have a party that has a raison d'etre of making sure that government is funded as little as possible? It's not Obama's party, by the way. It's not a matter of "when the going gets tough," it's a matter of government can't fund things when there's no revenue.
****
****
***If you can find the Bagism archives, to start with, some dems or Obama lovers here said as much. That's how I remembered it. So, that's who! LOL
***
***as little as possible? Does that include all the wastefull speanding wherever troops are? The troops themselves who came home here said that. So, they saw a lot of waste, (spending down the drain). How about the spending to bail out bank a holes? Ad similar company heads? As little as possible???? THAT does not exist in government! They waste more than anybody,,,billions!
***
***I never said they should pay for everything anyhow....I just make points. Doesn't mean I am on this or that party,,,,I am with NO party, thank you. I think for myself and judge all equally. NO team player here, other than being on my family's team. So, when I say Dems do this or that,,,,I am NOT coming from a REPUB mindset and vice versa. I know the kneekjerk reaction here is to assume one has to be one of those sides, or a Libertarian one,,,fully. Not the case with me. I can support or bash any side as I see fit,,,at that time.
***
**
**Wait a minute. You "judge all equally"? Do you mean you stick only to the facts and don't weigh in such things as motives etc?
**That means you are not a "relativist". You must see all things as black and white. It's either good or it is bad because if it is any shade of neutral than it is NOT an issue to begin with.
**
**Is this correct? Is this what you're saying?
**Don't mean to sound like the grand inquisitor I'm just curious what you mean when you say you judge all equally and then we can move on to what constitutes your basis of judgement(if you want to - no obligation, no salesman will call);)
**
**
*
*LOL..meaning I am not on a side to judge another side in looking for fault. So, dems, pubs, libs, all can say, do anything, and I will just look at it from how I feel about it,,not how a party person should feel about it. I of course look at motives. I see many shades. There are of course many factors for any issue.
*
*It seems a party person does not view the other party's words or people with a clean slate for any issue. Therefore, in that way, I say I look them equally. I hate them ALL! LOL
*
That's a good thing to know about you it also makes you a sought after target for some and a disregardable wild card to many others. Good-Neutral-Bad - . Consider not having an opinion ever.
It is possible even if few ever do it. Of course this is different than what you're saying about your feelings but consider it anyways. A horrible thing happens and you either care or don't care but still have no opinion of it. A wonderful good thing happens and you either care or don't care but still have no opinion of it. You wind up not considering good and bad to be the same thing but remain entirely objective and therefore probably the most reliable source of information but still subject to being right or wrong. What makes you attractive though is that nobody can fault you so long as you don't offer an opinion. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
flAt /_\
Followup Messages:
- no followups have been posted yet...
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Apr 24, 2013