Philadelphia woman faces $600-a-day fine for feeding needy neighborhood kids

Hmmm.

When I do a search for 'you guys', the only place it comes up is your post Elwood.

^You diminished the story by framing it as a partisan issue.

I'm sorry that the search function, it's 500+ results, and the little green arrow next to posts, elude your mental faculties.

That usually implies you won't repeat the exact same message afterwards, Clyde.

Regardless, yes, you have made your point clear - your narrative is that there are no partisan issues involved in this, despite the fact the the victim has explicitly said it was done for partisan reasons. If you want to talk about the meta aspect of this, knock yourself out. But you can't just wave your hand and say there was nothing partisan about this particular act. You are ignoring the reality to serve your narrative, and then trying to say that's what I'm doing.

Not very kosher. It certainly smacks of blaming the victim, because she's the one pointing out the political aspect of this. And no, she wasn't engaging in politics when she decided to devote hours of her life to help needy kids, so she's not 'fair game.'

No, and I was playing nice before you got nasty.

To explain, Elwood, putting a search result for 'you' or 'guys' run against the entire membership list does not prove that I used the term 'you guys' in a partisan manner here. Indeed, the way you put the search it doesn't even get the phraseology - its any instance of anyone using the word 'you' or 'guys.' Why exactly would I be talking about something totally irrelevant as that?

If you want to narrow your search focus to include the word Demiurge, and put 'you guys' in the proper formatting, you might indeed prove that I've said those words at some time in some form in the 10 years or so I've been on the board.

However, what I did was I hit ctrl-f to do a browser search for the term 'you guys' and it didn't show that I had said that anywhere here.

So putting it in quotes as if I did is bad form, and worth a gentle reminder that no, that's not technically accurate.

I've advocated for Republicans, I've advocated for Democrats, and I've advocated for Libertarians and independents on this board over the last decade - when I thought they were right. Anybody that was paying attention know that's true.

My ideas on what constitutes 'right' has changed over time, as most do, so I can't claim I'm internally consistent always with my political views. But I don't - indeed, I've indicated that requiring that when faced with new information is generally a bad thing.

So you can say many nasty things about me and there'd be some truth to many of them, including the fact I tend to use a sledgehammer on people who piss me off on the debate forum, which is a fault of mine to be sure.

But I haven't been partisan, because it isn't about the political ideology with me. Its about morality (at least as I see it). There's dozens of partisans on this board you could easily identify as such. I've told them on all sides to jump in a lake at various times - when they were full of shit.

No it doesn't. Using this story as some sort of democratic victory is far from appropriate. Repeating the sentiment doesn't make it any less true.

Guess all that's left is face saving and getting the last word.


:dancingbacon:

ROTFLMAO - no, U!

A great man wouldn't rise to the bait, Clyde.

Even a merely OK one would recognize that saying 'all you are doing is trying to get the last word' is an attempt to frame the debate so that you, yourself, get the last word.

So don't rise to the bait. Show you are the better man.

Finally!

Gotta loosen up bub, most of our problems are caused by us apes, not donkeys and elephants.

When did the display of fact become "nasty" in your world? In the English Language, words have specific meanings. I fear your mind has become so distorted, that perhaps you've forgotten that.

I, fully, quoted what you said, again, in this post.

Is that not what you said? I've proven it, factually (with a link), to be incorrect. I'm sorry if you're having a stupiphany and realizing that you, Demiurge, are what's wrong with this nation.

Ho hum. Another case of "everything I want to do is illegal".

"We're from the government. We're here to help."
That's the kind of government you get when you want more of it.
And lefties think we need more government.

No, I want what we've got to work.

...meaning, it should be run by robots.

I believe false attribution has always been considered nasty.

Let me understand your view on this.

There is a woman here who is feeding hungry children.

Other people are trying to stop her.

She says their motive is partisan bickering.

You are saying she is wrong.

That leaves me with two questions.

Why, in your opinion, is she wrong or telling lies about this?

And what, in your opinion, is their true motive? Do they just very much prefer for kids to be hungry?

Meh, not really interested in rehashing the issue, pretty much made my point clear. Though I might have more to add later.

You're quoting a completely different thread, in which "you guys" referred to two posters Demiurge was addressing directly, not even related to anything partisan.

If that was supposed to be funny, you really need to get some better jokes. If it wasn't, you're dumb.

donkey goggles.

Okay I'm back, here's my view: This story shouldn't be used as fodder in the ongoing and increasingly inane elephant/donkey wars.

Angela Prattis considers the incident politically motivated, she may well be right, but Pennsylvania is one of the bluer blue states, has been for a while. For the last four presidential elections Pennsylvania has voted Democratic. The governor is a Republican, the Mayor of Philadelphia is a Democrat, one Senator is a Republican but the other is a Democrat, and of course the president is a Democrat.

See what I'm getting at?

Reducing the story to mere political fodder is missing the point. Angela Prattis is feeding kids who otherwise wouldn't be fed. Her biggest obstacle? Zoning laws enacted and enforced by the government. And that government is comprised of both donkeys and elephants.

Honestly? No. Not at all. Why do you think this is a problem with zoning laws, when the person with whose actions you agree says it isn't? Why do you think she would give false information on this?

Fair enough, I'll give it another go.

From the article:

I never accused her of lying. Here's what I said:

"Angela Prattis considers the incident politically motivated, she may well be right, but Pennsylvania is one of the bluer blue states, has been for a while. For the last four presidential elections Pennsylvania has voted Democratic. The governor is a Republican, the Mayor of Philadelphia is a Democrat, one Senator is a Republican but the other is a Democrat, and of course the president is a Democrat."

Point being that both donkeys and elephants are running the show in Pennsylvania. And if anything the donkeys more so than the elephants.

What the article doesn't mention is that this lady is breast feeding all those kids.

I roll my eyes at those who imagine the needy kids as Olivers and Tiny Tims in rags with dirty faces. The neighbours are undoubtedly tired of these hoodlums running around in their brand name running shoes and causing crime after their bellies are full.

Besides, are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Just to be devil's advocate/cranky old man here, while I applaud her samaritanism, I personally wouldn't want one of my neighbors hosting a yardfull of children every day. The neighborhood's already noisier than I want it to be. And get off my lawn!

Option B is they graze in your yard!

But if she smoked a joint and got sentenced to community service, then it's all good, right?