RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies

RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 8:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well I can still get a gun, so...what's the beef ? In Kansas apparently, a gun...is a necessity I guess. I believe in restrictions and the merchants understand that and I am pretty sure, it's in the barcode. I think in the big picture, this is much ado about nothing really. Just go braless and pantyless. Probably do the Kansans some good. How about a link to back this up? A link for the guns? Here you go. From the article: "A few states — not Kansas — prohibit buying guns, according to the NCSL, and a few ban tattoos or body piercings. Massachusetts prohibits spending on jewelry, bail bonds or "vacation services." A 2014 Louisiana law bars card use on cruise ships, which is also on the Kansas list." Nothing personal but you got something better than AlJazzera? BTW from the figures given above there is $200 a month for non-food items, not buying many guns with that.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 8:54:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well I can still get a gun, so...what's the beef ? In Kansas apparently, a gun...is a necessity I guess. I believe in restrictions and the merchants understand that and I am pretty sure, it's in the barcode. I think in the big picture, this is much ado about nothing really. Just go braless and pantyless. Probably do the Kansans some good. Hmmm...do you suppose that might have to do with a right granted under the Bill of Rights? Now, if you can find a right to buy lingerie from a lingerie store somewhere in the Bill of Rights, have at it. If not, I guess those on assistance will have to make do with lingerie from Wal-Mart...Or Penny's...Or Macy's. Can't stop folks from getting their guns....lol That's right...and it might actually protect them. Seriously doubt a thong from Victoria's Secret has that same function.

BamaD -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 8:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR Bopping around the internet a little bit, I see that Maine's Supplemental Nutrition Program doesn't allow the purchase of vitamins. Which is more fucked up than not being allowed to buy something in a lingerie shop, in my opinion. Now that is a restriction I have a problem with.

Aylee -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:26:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR Bopping around the internet a little bit, I see that Maine's Supplemental Nutrition Program doesn't allow the purchase of vitamins. Which is more fucked up than not being allowed to buy something in a lingerie shop, in my opinion. Now that is a restriction I have a problem with. I don't know. Have you seen the reports they put out every year about the vitamins and supplements NOT having in them what they say they do? I think that it is usually the supplements that is the issue.

Kaliko -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:38:59 PM)
quote: Nothing personal but you got something better than AlJazzera? BTW from the figures given above there is $200 a month for non-food items, not buying many guns with that. smile I do. I just happened to pick that from a Google result. I had to Google it to find out why you were asking. Here is another. I assume the Wichita Eagle is more to your liking? :) Link Here From the article: "We are saying taxpayer-funded benefits should be used for necessities. Under the amendment, there is no restriction on a gun purchase,” Freed said."

BamaD -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:53:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: Nothing personal but you got something better than AlJazzera? BTW from the figures given above there is $200 a month for non-food items, not buying many guns with that. smile I do. I just happened to pick that from a Google result. I had to Google it to find out why you were asking. Here is another. I assume the Wichita Eagle is more to your liking? :) Link Here From the article: "We are saying taxpayer-funded benefits should be used for necessities. Under the amendment, there is no restriction on a gun purchase,” Freed said." Freed, in the next sentence made a point I can verify. When I was very young the only meat we had one year was what my father shot. In those days churches gave families canned goods diapers and such but out meat came the old fashion way shooting it ourselves. With the amount of money they get they are most likely just going to get ammo to hunt with.

Moderator3 -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/18/2015 9:57:49 PM)
FR Would it be possible that we not turn this thread into a gun thread? I believe in rainbows too.

slvemike4u -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 11:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moderator3 FR Would it be possible that we not turn this thread into a gun thread? I believe in rainbows too. Yes but do you believe in a pot of gold at the end of said rainbows ?

Moderator3 -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 11:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Moderator3 FR Would it be possible that we not turn this thread into a gun thread? I believe in rainbows too. Yes but do you believe in a pot of gold at the end of said rainbows ? I don't know about anyone else, but I've got this problem. By the time I could find the bottom of the rainbow, the sucker has gone away. I am hoping that someone I know finds that pot of gold and likes me enough to share it with me. The best I can do is hope! I might do better at finding the unicorn.

Aylee -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 12:35:43 PM)
Here is your unicorn! [image]local://upfiles/503404/17168FDF0C744CC59606A7EC315178EC.jpg[/image]

slvemike4u -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 3:52:34 PM)
Obviously a fake. Shitty photoshop fake [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 3:58:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR Bopping around the internet a little bit, I see that Maine's Supplemental Nutrition Program doesn't allow the purchase of vitamins. Which is more fucked up than not being allowed to buy something in a lingerie shop, in my opinion. Is it stated as "vitamins," or "nutritional supplements?" The FDA doesn't require supplement manufacturers (including vitamin manufacturers) to gain FDA approval. If "supplements" is the term, that could also include all sorts of over-the-counter remedies for this than and the other thing that aren't really "nutritional." I'm not defending the Maine restrictions, but offering a plausible explanation.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 4:09:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well I can still get a gun, so...what's the beef ? In Kansas apparently, a gun...is a necessity I guess. I believe in restrictions and the merchants understand that and I am pretty sure, it's in the barcode. I think in the big picture, this is much ado about nothing really. Just go braless and pantyless. Probably do the Kansans some good. How about a link to back this up? A link for the guns? Here you go. From the article: "A few states — not Kansas — prohibit buying guns, according to the NCSL, and a few ban tattoos or body piercings. Massachusetts prohibits spending on jewelry, bail bonds or "vacation services." A 2014 Louisiana law bars card use on cruise ships, which is also on the Kansas list." Nothing personal but you got something better than AlJazzera? BTW from the figures given above there is $200 a month for non-food items, not buying many guns with that. From the other thread, I posted (Post#55) a response to a post Lucy wrote with several links. One link, in particular I quoted. At that link, you'll find a listing of the restrictions the states place on the use of EBT cards. The table also lists the states that specifically restrict purchasing guns. The link.

Kaliko -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 4:18:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR Bopping around the internet a little bit, I see that Maine's Supplemental Nutrition Program doesn't allow the purchase of vitamins. Which is more fucked up than not being allowed to buy something in a lingerie shop, in my opinion. Is it stated as "vitamins," or "nutritional supplements?" The FDA doesn't require supplement manufacturers (including vitamin manufacturers) to gain FDA approval. If "supplements" is the term, that could also include all sorts of over-the-counter remedies for this than and the other thing that aren't really "nutritional." I'm not defending the Maine restrictions, but offering a plausible explanation. I just took a look. "Vitamins and medicines." Link here.

bounty44 -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 5:08:55 PM)
as a small aside to the main thrust of the conversation...while im not against government helping people in principle, the libertarian/conservative part of me thinks this---apart from all the middle men created, the opportunity for fraud/abuse/waste and difficulties with accountability, etc---I cannot help but think the effect is that people no longer turn to family members, churches, neighbors, and local charities for the help they need, to the extent they would, if the government didn't step in to the extent it does.

JVoV -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 5:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as a small aside to the main thrust of the conversation...while im not against government helping people in principle, the libertarian/conservative part of me thinks this---apart from all the middle men created, the opportunity for fraud/abuse/waste and difficulties with accountability, etc---I cannot help but think the effect is that people no longer turn to family members, churches, neighbors, and local charities for the help they need, to the extent they would, if the government didn't step in to the extent it does. I see it as the government allowing some of our poorest the ability to retain at least some semblance of dignity.

slvemike4u -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 5:19:02 PM)
The problem of poverty and want is way to big for the charity of neighbors,family and NGO's to deal with effectively. And you should know that,this conservative/libertarian view that if government stepped aside our fellow citizens innate sense of charity would burst forth is nothing more than a pipe dream. By the way the private charitable sector has many a middle man,fraud and deception too.....that is also part of the human condition.

bounty44 -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 5:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as a small aside to the main thrust of the conversation...while im not against government helping people in principle, the libertarian/conservative part of me thinks this---apart from all the middle men created, the opportunity for fraud/abuse/waste and difficulties with accountability, etc---I cannot help but think the effect is that people no longer turn to family members, churches, neighbors, and local charities for the help they need, to the extent they would, if the government didn't step in to the extent it does. I see it as the government allowing some of our poorest the ability to retain at least some semblance of dignity. I see just the opposite. the government is impersonal (that is, it does not love the people) and that distance (both geographically and relationally) creates a system where people can get comfortable in their poverty, which is ultimately very degrading.

bounty44 -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 5:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The problem of poverty and want is way to big for the charity of neighbors,family and NGO's to deal with effectively. And you should know that,this conservative/libertarian view that if government stepped aside our fellow citizens inate sense of charity would burst forth is nothing more than a pipe dream.... you really cannot, and so don't, know either of those things.

slvemike4u -> RE: Kansans can't spend cash assistance on bras or undies (4/19/2015 5:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The problem of poverty and want is way to big for the charity of neighbors,family and NGO's to deal with effectively. And you should know that,this conservative/libertarian view that if government stepped aside our fellow citizens innate sense of charity would burst forth is nothing more than a pipe dream.... you really cannot, and so don't, know either of those things. well......yes,I can....and do . But I'll play your silly game....you can't know what I know about either of those things....in addition to the fact that you can't know either of the things you suggest...unless of course you read it in the bible [:)]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0546875