DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:...
It could even be "a" real reason, I don't know. I can't ask those who came up with the Amendment. They're a little dead.

Too bad they didn't create records of their conversations on the subject and those records were preserved in the national archives so we could have some reliable records instead of leaving events to be completely fabricated to serve some asshats political agenda hundreds of years later! That would really be usefull wouldn't it?

tunnelcat wrote:... If the slave patrol militias reason sounds like an inconvenient truth, so be it.

Shooting a rabbit to put in the pot is equally relevant, as are dozens of other uses for guns in that time but you didn't adopt the 2nd amendment is all about rabbit murder theory....

Some one should call PETA there is another stupid slogan waiting for them right there and Danny Glover has time to do the ad Im sure. Just tell him the rabbits we white devils all ate back then were the black ones.

tunnelcat wrote:... History always changes as time passes, so I have no proof and time has erased the evidence.

Really?

Are you really that obtuse to still be missing the evidence?
Or is it that you must make such an obviously ridiculous assertion to try and create a foundation for your next attempt to support the false premise you raised?

tunnelcat wrote:... I'll walk back my original statement if you like, because I really don't know the answer. Whatever the reasoning the Founding Fathers used to come up with the Second Amendment, be it based in a fear of tyranny, racist slave control, or other forgotten reasons in history,....

You just continued claiming that the racist theory, which you provide the great historian and objectively apolitical Danny Glover as the source, has just as much legitimacy as the actual reason documented by the authors themselves. Documentation that has been preserved and studied and is without any legitimate doubt according to probably as true a consensus of all historians and scholars as there exists regarding any document in history!

If you try and spin this any harder you will turn the oceans into butter.

CUDA wrote:statistics estimate that about 3% are provable fraud and equal about $13 billion a year. and they estimate that it may be as much as 15% fraud.. but those stats do not include the new cards that are food stamp cards and that people are not using for actual food. they have effectively given them a renewable debit card every month. and that also doesn't take into account those that ride their unemployment (government funded vacations) out to the end before really looking for a Job. estimate put the waste in the hundreds of billions

I don't doubt those numbers at all, and they seem around the levels I'd expect, but do you happen to remember where you came across them? I'd like to poke around them myself.

Spidey wrote:I could go on and on with the stories…but TG doesn’t put any credibility in actual accounts, because he’s obsessed with his little numbers.

So it's an "obsession" to want the most accurate account of a situation? The reason that anecdotal evidence is generally given little weight in the scientific sense is because it's ripe for cognitive biases...our brains are literally hardwired to pay attention to information that confirms our previously-held beliefs, and to dismiss that which is contrary to them. It's something that affects each and every one of us subconsciously, even if we know that it exists. You believe that welfare fraud is a massive problem, so your brain takes particular notice of people treating their benefits in unscrupulous or fraudulent ways. The other major issue with anecdotal evidence is that it's based solely on your own personal experiences...you have no idea if what you've seen in your neighborhoods is a representative sample of what goes on across all of Philly, let alone most major cities in the US. The reason we use valid statistical methods in the first place is to avoid problems like these.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

but it may be ONE of the reasons they came up with the 2nd Amendment, so live with it.

and it may not be.
you're making crap up based on speculation and not fact. I'll stick with the facts as told by the man that wrote the amendment, not by a perspective by a member of this board that continually screams racism with unfounded accusations

Don't look at me. Danny Glover came up with the theory and the lefties picked up on it.

why shouldn't I look at you, you picked-up on it and and your Parroted it, and if i read that correct. you're telling me you're a lefty.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:statistics estimate that about 3% are provable fraud and equal about $13 billion a year. and they estimate that it may be as much as 15% fraud.. but those stats do not include the new cards that are food stamp cards and that people are not using for actual food. they have effectively given them a renewable debit card every month. and that also doesn't take into account those that ride their unemployment (government funded vacations) out to the end before really looking for a Job. estimate put the waste in the hundreds of billions

I don't doubt those numbers at all, and they seem around the levels I'd expect, but do you happen to remember where you came across them? I'd like to poke around them myself.

Sorry TG. I looked at so many sites that I don't remember which one it was. The general consensus is, that NOBODY really does any hard statistical studies on the actual fraud that there is in the Welfare system. it seems that our Government likes to bury their heads in the sand on the issue. most everything that I read were indeed estimates. what I did see were blatant examples of reported fraud, like the woman that bilked the Government out of $300 K by claiming her 64 children. there were MANY examples of that kind of fraud

The biggest fraud regarding welfare isn't the people milking the system for more than they qualify for, it is the practice of creating a subculture of family traditions out of it. You've heard the stereotype of the drug pusher who tells the newbie user the first ones free...but then the new user pays and pays because he's hooked?
Well the leader who tells the new welfare user 'The first check is free, and so are all the other checks, as long as you vote for me' is the real fraudster.

How easy it must be to convince someone who is generations deep in dependency on government that only the D's will let you keep getting that check and anything an R says is just a trick to cut off your check.

Forget trying to measure the reported instances of fraud and then figuring out what the total fraud must be. Take a look at the percentage of people who raise babies in poverty, on welfare and those babies die on welfare after growing up in welfare and raising babies of their own who live in welfare!
We have poor people moving in and out of poverty just like any country does. those numbers move relative to our population and economic conditions just like any country's does.
But we also have the population of the 'welfare state'. If you are willing to claim permanent victim status and live in that culture there is an advocate for you to help make sure you are paid for your suffering. Your well being isn't a concern of theirs, your vote for the welfare party is.

So, TG, since you have no scientific evidence to produce in the form of data, wouldn’t that make the examples you gave “Anecdotal” as well, and wouldn’t your view that the system has fraud within the normal range be subject to all the same things you use to dismiss my examples?

The problem I have with simply assuming welfare will behave just like any other system, is that a system like welfare is by default, a system that lends itself to abuse, especially here in Philly, where they basically look the other way. (and no, I never claimed that it was widespread, as you seem to infer from what I wrote…remember I said in two areas)

And I’m going to say this again, I’m not really hung up on the abuse aspects of welfare, because that’s just money, what concerns me are the other less tangible results of the system. (which I’m sure you will be in total denial of, so there is really no need to pursue that line of discussion) but I would like you to answer my question, at the top of this post.

CUDA wrote:Sorry TG. I looked at so many sites that I don't remember which one it was. The general consensus is, that NOBODY really does any hard statistical studies on the actual fraud that there is in the Welfare system. it seems that our Government likes to bury their heads in the sand on the issue. most everything that I read were indeed estimates. what I did see were blatant examples of reported fraud, like the woman that bilked the Government out of $300 K by claiming her 64 children. there were MANY examples of that kind of fraud

Hmm, that does kind of surprise me, though a bit of Google searching showed pretty quickly how sparse hard info seems to be. The thing is, you probably wouldn't even need the government themselves to conduct such a study, unless the generalized statistics about welfare usage aren't subject to FOIA requests or something like that. With welfare being as much of a hot-button issue as it is, you'd think some organization would fund a study to get a clear answer one way or the other. Hell, maybe it is the case that those numbers just aren't made available to anyone.

Spidey wrote:So, TG, since you have no scientific evidence to produce in the form of data, wouldn’t that make the examples you gave “Anecdotal” as well, and wouldn’t your view that the system has fraud within the normal range be subject to all the same things you use to dismiss my examples?

Yes, the friends I cited also count as anecdotal evidence, and I knew that even as I was citing them. It goes to show how even knowing about cognitive biases doesn't help you avoid them (I have a friend who makes his living studying cognitive science who says as much himself), because my brain was telling me at the time, "There, this will disprove what he's saying!" I asked about getting hard numbers as much for myself as to prove a point, since I know I'd have no way of engaging in a meaningful argument without the external information to support it. Unfortunately, as Cuda mentioned, there isn't a whole lot available out there, so we're collectively out of luck. One of the few things I did see actually pertained to Philly; an Inquirer column from a few years back pinned welfare fraud in the city at around 2%, but it doesn't link back to the sources on that info, so I wouldn't exactly bet the farm on it.

And honestly, I have no idea what a "normal range" would constitute, and I wasn't trying to imply that my feelings on the numbers that Cuda cited were anything other than my own. But at the same time, you can get at least some sense of plausibility on what a likely range should be, simply based on external evidence. We know that it exists, since even anecdotes count as a raw number themselves. But at the same time, we can assume it isn't as astronomical as something like half of all welfare recipients, since even the most inept public welfare department would be able to spot a massive discrepancy like that; if Cuda had posted a value like that, I would have raised an eyebrow or two. So whatever the number is, an educated guess suggests it's somewhere in the middle: enough to be statistically significant, but not enough that its effects would stick out like a sore thumb.

All I can say is I have witnessed the same thing as Spidey all my life. People exchanging $300.00 dollars worth of stamps for $250.00, buying stuff in stores that stamps do not cover....etc, but I think the use of a debit card now has put that to a stop.

Isn't the fact that you have to put restrictions on what the welfare benefits can be spent on prove the recipients are as much a cause of their condition as anything else?

Will Robinson wrote:Isn't the fact that you have to put restrictions on what the welfare benefits can be spent on prove the recipients are as much a cause of their condition as anything else?

Um...no?

flip wrote:All I can say is I have witnessed the same thing as Spidey all my life. People exchanging $300.00 dollars worth of stamps for $250.00, buying stuff in stores that stamps do not cover....etc, but I think the use of a debit card now has put that to a stop.

Can of soda at Walmart and cash back is the way it happens now.

Gotta have money to get your nails done.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

but it may be ONE of the reasons they came up with the 2nd Amendment, so live with it.

and it may not be.
you're making crap up based on speculation and not fact. I'll stick with the facts as told by the man that wrote the amendment, not by a perspective by a member of this board that continually screams racism with unfounded accusations

Don't look at me. Danny Glover came up with the theory and the lefties picked up on it.

why shouldn't I look at you, you picked-up on it and and your Parroted it, and if i read that correct. you're telling me you're a lefty.

Well, I am somewhat lefty CUDA. It's not like I'm a full-blooded hippie, or the converse, a Reagan worshiper.

But in this case, I fold. Glover got sucked into the same story by Hartmann as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ond-amend/

And Will, quit rehashing the racist angle. You keep throwing it at me so much, I'm beginning to wonder if you're projecting your own biases or compensating for your own hatred. Me, I'm very comfortable with my views on race, and they aren't the hateful kind you seem too keep espousing about me. Even if the slave militia story or theory turns out to be fabricated, that fact you, and most other righties in the western hemisphere knee-jerked in righteous indignation, tells me volumes about you and your conservative compatriots insecurities about the past. I posted it only to stir all the righties gun totin' pot. Keep kissing your gun Will, I'm not even close to considering taking it away from your cold dead hands.

tunnelcat wrote:..
And Will, quit rehashing the racist angle. You keep throwing it at me so much, I'm beginning to wonder if you're projecting your own biases or compensating for your own hatred. ..

I think you are missing the reason you are finding racism content in my comments to you. It is because you are playing the race card!

I don't, and haven't, accused you of being a racist. Other than I refer to your party's creation of the welfare sub class as keeping the minorities down on the Dem plantation because it is a legitimate analogy and its fun to be able to turn it back on you guys once in a while. Although in the grand tally it is but a rain drop against the ocean.

I am completely sick and tired of being the target of the race card by you and your party. If we condemned Obama in the first term you said we were only complaining because we are racists....now, if we support the 2nd amendment, according to this latest shameless ploy, we are keeping alive a law designed for slave owners. And there have been hundreds of other times in between those two examples.

There is no end to the ways your political party plays the race card and I'm sick of it. So if you want me to stop calling you out on it stop doing it!

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Isn't the fact that you have to put restrictions on what the welfare benefits can be spent on prove the recipients are as much a cause of their condition as anything else?

Um...no?

Then why put restrictions on it?

People who work for their income can buy anything they want with their cash, why do welfare recipients need to be regulated as to how they spend the money we give them?

flip wrote:I don't disagree with you TC, in fact that is why Mason's are required to be of faith, but not a particular faith. It goes towards a higher calling and the nature of people. Put it this way, let's say your not a particularly foul-mouthed person, but you befriend one at work. I would bet my bottom dollar eventually you would begin to take on some of their nature. Every founding father knew and wrote about the importance of a higher calling in a free republic. They were the engineers after all and men of great insight. I'm a christian so I cannot be a mason, but, I do recognize the logic behind it.

masonic knowlege in this post is extremely low. I have to leave it at that.

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Isn't the fact that you have to put restrictions on what the welfare benefits can be spent on prove the recipients are as much a cause of their condition as anything else?

Um...no?

Then why put restrictions on it?

People who work for their income can buy anything they want with their cash, why do welfare recipients need to be regulated as to how they spend the money we give them?

Because, shock of shocks, some percentage of people is always going to screw around with someone else's money? If you make stupid decisions with your own money, that's on you, but if you're being given someone else's money for a certain purpose, there has to be oversight over whether that money is being used for that purpose, or else unscrupulous individuals will take advantage of it. In the business world, it's embezzlement; in the welfare world, it's fraud, and we have laws against both.

add to that, TG, that many recipients of welfare are ready made marks for the unscrupulous. In fact, it's far more likely they will be talked out of legitimate benefits by street hustlers than it is that they are gaming the system for their own undeserved ends.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Isn't the fact that you have to put restrictions on what the welfare benefits can be spent on prove the recipients are as much a cause of their condition as anything else?

Um...no?

Then why put restrictions on it?

People who work for their income can buy anything they want with their cash, why do welfare recipients need to be regulated as to how they spend the money we give them?

Because, shock of shocks, some percentage of people is always going to screw around with someone else's money? If you make stupid decisions with your own money, that's on you, but if you're being given someone else's money for a certain purpose, there has to be oversight over whether that money is being used for that purpose, or else unscrupulous individuals will take advantage of it. In the business world, it's embezzlement; in the welfare world, it's fraud, and we have laws against both.

Being restricted to buying vegetables and not beer doesn't protect your welfare coupon/check/card/etc from a hustler...it has value regardless of the restrictions and they are stolen all the time or traded for drugs etc. so that excuse is weak.

You implied they will do stupid things with the money. Therefore they are not capable of taking care of themselves. Is that what welfare is for? Why not give them the right amount and let nature take it's course?
Because the alternative to that approach is to be there to bail them out of every "stupid" thing they do. Which is why a lot of them stay right there where they are!!

Next time you get on a bus next to some poor soul who smells like ass, don't move away to different seat. Instead, pull out a box of wipes and diapers and clean him up.

callmeslick wrote:add to that, TG, that many recipients of welfare are ready made marks for the unscrupulous. In fact, it's far more likely they will be talked out of legitimate benefits by street hustlers than it is that they are gaming the system for their own undeserved ends.

And you have stats to back that up?

You can thank Mr. Numbers for that request.

Good points, Will. That's kind of humorous. The same folks that want to stop deaths by firearm (apparently a particularly tragic sort of death) can't get their head around the inability of welfare reform to curb abuses. You can make sure THAT money isn't buying non-essentials, but you can't stop the trading of essentials for non-essentials without a full-blown police-state and cameras in your home. Really the only way to stop abuse would be to screen the folks receiving help with 100% accuracy. In other words only give help to those people who won't abuse. There go thousands of votes out the window...

along the same lines I say if we are going to ban Guns from the class rooms we should ban teachers from the classrooms also.


Los Angeles-area school teacher accused of sexually abusing up to 20 kids

this seems to be a much more common problem then guns in schools

It seems to me if banning firearms will stop firearm deaths then would it not hold true to end welfare abuse all one needs do is stop issuing welfare checks?