priceless ...

[Fatman608]

Ok - Break time.

Little Johnny is at it again... President Obama was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes.
They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings.
The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'tragedy'?
So our illustrious president asked the class for an example of a 'tragedy'.
One little boy stood up and offered: 'If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy?'
'No,' said Obama, 'that would be an accident.'
A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.'
'I'm afraid not,' explained Obama. 'That's what we would call great loss.' The room went silent. No other children volunteered.
Obama searched the room. 'Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?'
Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand.
In a quiet voice he said: If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy.'
'Fantastic!' exclaimed Obama. 'That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?'
'Well,' says Little johnny, 'It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss... and it probably wouldn't be an accident either.

No Thanks Needed for the Joke.

Love the Fatman

 

[tyflier]

Tyflyer I would be laughing my ass off if it weren't for the fact that you are serious. Is this simple joke really that important? Does it really deserve such scrutiny? Will the country collapse if you can not correct the wrong caused by this joke? Do you know how foolish you look?

This is laughable. I look foolish because I can't be duped by simple propoganda tactics?

Somehow, I'm not surprised that makes sense to you...

 

[tsst]

Here's the problem...There is NOTHING in the PHOTO that even remotely depicts the location as a homeless soup kitchen or the individual with the camera as a homeless man or welfare system abuser.

The individual with the camera is an unknown person of unknown social standing. There is nothing in the picture that even remotely places him as a homeless individual OR an abuser of the welfare system.

The location of the photograph is unknown. There is nothing in the picture that depicts it as a homeless shelter, soup kitchen or other needs-facility. It is a kitchen with MO working. This is ALL that is known about the location.

The ONLY depiction of social welfare abuse is in the caption, and the caption is made up. Without the caption, there is NO depiction of any social welfare abuse, anywhere within the photo. Period.


Again...the situation portrayed is NOT what you say it is, without the caption. Put a sign on the wall that says Homeless Shelter or Soup Kitchen, and it becomes hyperbole. Put a few different individuals in obviously tattered clothing, such as the individual in your last photo, and it becomes hyperbole. Show me a man wrapped in cardboard, sleeping on the floor in front of the counter, and I accept hyperbole.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the photo that depicts the location as a needs-facility, and there is nothing of the people to indicate homelessness or welfare abuse.


Look at the photo without the caption and tell me what makes that place a homeless shelter and that man a welfare abuser. As I said before, "soup kitchens" don't provide menus. The people are not dressed in such a way as to be obviously destitute. The place could be a street corner cafe in middle-America, and the situation could be a media-setup just as easily as a soup kitchen with a homeless man. There is nothing identifiable in the photo accept MO.

That's not an interpretation, that's a fact...


Hyperbole is based on known information. A person known to be a certain way, have a certain position, or say and do certain things. A place known to have certain rules, activities, or facilities. These factual bits of information are then exaggerated to bring focus to a specific point of view.

Propoganda uses fear of stereotypes to create a percieved threat. Unknown people, doing unknown things portrayed as evil due to a manipulation of the scenario. That's what this photograph and caption is.

Note where the article says the men and women "lining" for her to ladle soup. Also note the credit for the photo stating the second photographer was from the AP.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/michelle_obamas_soupkitchen_du.html

"Beneficial" and "sponsored" are too different things. The government does not provide this facility with money in any way shape or form. This facility is not government funded OR sponsored.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that every non-profit organization in the United States of America is government funded and/or sponsored. If that's the case, close down all churches. It's unConstitutional to have those institutions be government sanctioned, funded, or sponsored...

I have said twice now that stating funded was my error. Beneficiary.

Yes, I agree 100%. Social abuse runs rampant in this country. However, this is not a photograph of an individual committing welfare abuse. This is a man standing in line at a cafeteria, taking a picture of MO. There's nothing abusive about that situation...not even remotely.


That's because the picture itself is an innocuous photo portraying nothing at all. How many different ways can we each come up with to say the same things?


It's entirely the caption that makes you angry because the photograph does not portray anything illegal or abusive of the system. The caption pretends it does, and does a good job of convincing YOU that it does, but the photograph does not depict what you are saying it depicts.

see above

See, now THAT would be a strawman...an argument whose sole intent is to take away from the original argument and detract from the real issues. Nice one, too.

No that would be an example of an original priceless line to show how it's use is intended. As a hyperbole.

Absolutely not. YOU don't have to be racist for race to be the motivation behind creating this caption. Unless, of course, you created the caption. We disagree on many issues, but I have a great deal of respect for you, and would never imply that you, personally, were a racist individual. I think I have come to "know you" better than that over these few years...

Thank you. And no I did not create it. But the caption does not make a racist statement. The caption points to the use of an expensive device by someone whom apparently is unable to afford food which is a necessity. By doing so it implies in a hyperbolic way the abuse in that situation. ie If one can afford a fancy phone and data plan one should afford food first. But if one can get free food from a social welfare program then one can buy a Blackberry with the money saved. That would to most appear to be an example of abuse. :shrugs:

 

[vetusvates]

@Fatman608

:roflmao:

 

[tyflier]

...Thank you. And no I did not create it. But the caption does not make a racist statement. The caption points to the use of an expensive device by someone whom apparently is unable to afford food which is a necessity. By doing so it implies in a hyperbolic way the abuse in that situation. ie If one can afford a fancy phone and data plan one should afford food first. But if one can get free food from a social welfare program then one can buy a Blackberry with the money saved. That would to most appear to be an example of abuse. :shrugs:

This is the point on which we differ. The picture in and of itself does not depict a person who is unable to afford to purchase food, and therefor should not have a cellphone. To me, it is simply a person standing in line in some form of cafeteria, taking a picture of MO while she works. I cannot, for the life of me, find ANYTHING within the photograph itself that shows the individual to be homeless, needy, of low income, or otherwise unable to afford both a cellphone and a meal.

On every point, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[Leew]

This is the point on which we differ. The picture in and of itself does not depict a person who is unable to afford to purchase food, and therefor should not have a cellphone. To me, it is simply a person standing in line in some form of cafeteria, taking a picture of MO while she works. I cannot, for the life of me, find ANYTHING within the photograph itself that shows the individual to be homeless, needy, of low income, or otherwise unable to afford both a cellphone and a meal.

On every point, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Well see if you had explained it right from the beginning we could have saved all of the bother. I didn't know MO worked in a cafeteria. Imagine how silly I feel. No one would have guessed. See the first thing I thought was that she was volunteering in a soup kitchen. Being a great lady, she probably wanted to bring attention to the plight of the needy, or the value of charity.

Wouldn't you think it would have made the news for MO to get a job a Denny's?

 

[Fatman608]

This pic is priceless

and yes this is a joke.

Love the Fatman

 

[tsst]

This pic is priceless

and yes this is a joke.

Love the Fatman

Michelle believes it! about 44 secs in. :shrugs: :grin01:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDHDfPNBME&feature=related

 

[Lolo]

I did not change it to make it PC. The person who put up the thread did.

You missed their point completely... nobody said YOU made it PC, just that you were quick to spread possibly false propaganda. I suppose it was kinda funny, but also very cringe-worthy in my opinion.

 

[Lolo]

I rather think that tax exempt DOES equal government funded. Either way, my tax dollars are benefiting the organization in question. Either directly, my tax dollars being paid out to the organization, or indirectly, me paying more taxes because that organization DOESN'T pay taxes so the rest of us pay more. Cities like Boston that have a lot of "not-for-profit" hospitals and universities really struggle with the impact that has on city property taxes. That means that people who live in Boston, renters & owners alike, pay more, either as property taxes or as the portion of rent the property owner pays as property taxes, so that Massachusetts General Hospital and Boston University (for example) don't pay any property taxes. That seems really unfair to people who live in Boston itself.

Wow... with this kind of circular reasoning, I guess we're all paying for everything in some way or another. Even the homeless are contributing a bit - when they spend $1 on a city bus ride, or buy a burger with their panhandling cash. So it's really an even plane, huh? Sorry, but as a former civil servant, I really hate the "tax-payers are paying for this" argument. Every time somebody told us (public librarians) they were paying our salary, I wanted to smack them upside the head. Last time I checked, my paychecks had taxes taken out too... so by that logic I've paid my OWN salary. Woohoo, I'm finally self-employed!

 

[Lolo]

But if one can get free food from a social welfare program then one can buy a Blackberry with the money saved. That would to most appear to be an example of abuse. :shrugs:

As the Snopes article (and a few people here) stated, having a cell phone is no longer a luxury... especially when you're HOMELESS, and thus cannot have a land-line available. I'm sure you'd all like them to find jobs, but how is that possible without a phone number? And what about medical emergencies? I've donated some old cell phones to homeless shelters, battered woman's shelters, and also a few to the soldiers overseas. Some of the phones were pretty nice too, and it's entirely possible a homeless person is walking around with one. Who are we to judge, especially when we don't know the origin of the phone?

Boy, we're really over-analyzing this photo to death... LOL. Does bring up some interesting debate, though!

 

[Fatman608]

I really hate the "tax-payers are paying for this" argument. Every time somebody told us (public librarians) they were paying our salary, I wanted to smack them upside the head. Last time I checked, my paychecks had taxes taken out too... so by that logic I've paid my OWN salary. Woohoo, I'm finally self-employed!

So you are saying that all the taxes taken out of your paychecks paid your salary. I think not.

Love the Fatman

 

[Lolo]

So you are saying that all the taxes taken out of your paychecks paid your salary. I think not.

Love the Fatman

Once again, you missed the point... in fact, you MADE my point. LOL! I was saying it's ridiculous to call yourself "benefactor" of my salary, just because you pay taxes - as everyone pays them, including myself when I was a civil servant. I was being facetious, which apparently went over your head.

 

[Fatman608]

Once again, you missed the point... in fact, you MADE my point. LOL! I was saying it's ridiculous to call yourself "benefactor" of my salary, just because you pay taxes - as everyone pays them, including myself when I was a civil servant. I was being facetious, which apparently went over your head.

So I do pay part of your salary if you are a civil servant.

Thank You and you are welcome to my tax money to pay part of your salary.

Love the Fatman

 

[Lolo]

So I do pay part of your salary if you are a civil servant.

Thank You and you are welcome to my tax money to pay part of your salary.

I don't mean to be rude, but it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I'll try to explain one more time... I pay taxes, you pay taxes, just about everyone pays taxes. Therefore we BOTH contributed to the salary, and you/they have no right to arrogantly say "I pay your salary" - and expect me to bow down & obey because of it. We're all equals, and I hate arrogant jerks like the people I'm referring to. Following their sense of logic, I can tell people to get off MY road since MY taxes contributed to them.

If you don't get my point now, I'm really not sure how else to explain it. :shrugs:

 

[Lolo]

P.S. I am no longer a civil slave... errrr, servant. And thank goodness for that!

 

[wstphal]

Wow... with this kind of circular reasoning, I guess we're all paying for everything in some way or another. Even the homeless are contributing a bit - when they spend $1 on a city bus ride, or buy a burger with their panhandling cash. So it's really an even plane, huh? Sorry, but as a former civil servant, I really hate the "tax-payers are paying for this" argument. Every time somebody told us (public librarians) they were paying our salary, I wanted to smack them upside the head. Last time I checked, my paychecks had taxes taken out too... so by that logic I've paid my OWN salary. Woohoo, I'm finally self-employed!

I wasn't trying to engage in circular reasoning, I was trying to point out how tax-exempt status for "non-profits" creates hardship for others. It creaste a NON level playing field and puts more burden on less well-off taxpayers.

I had in mind, when I posted, that there are some "non-profits" in Boston that have huge endowment accounts and don't pay any property taxes, and there are home owners in lower income parts of Boston who pay relatively high property taxes because the city has to collect enough taxes to fund city services with huge chunks of prime real estate off the rolls owned by "non-profits" with very very large endowment accounts.

I certainly didn't have bashing government employees in mind. Most work hard. Most are honest. I don't think anyone takes a government job because they want to work for a department that is wasting tax payer money. They take the job because they need a job. The department may be a waste of money, and so on, but that doesn't mean the employees aren't working hard at the tasks they are given, or that they are dishonest. In fact, civil "servants" aren't the problem except at the very highest, highest levels, where the money-wasting programs get created. Almost everyone who works for government is just a regular person trying to earn a living the best they know how. And almost all of the out-and-out dishonesty, like taking bribes, is perpetrated by elected officials, not government employees.

 

[tyflier]

This whole topic is SO ridiculous...

I'm still waiting for even one single, solitary piece of evidence found within the photo that tells anyone definitively that the individual taking the photo is abusing social welfare programs.

Anyone? Bueller?

All of the debate, definitions, and name-calling are a moot point. Just show me one piece of evidence, within the original photograph, that definitively points to the individual taking the photo as being a welfare abuser. One piece of evidence within the photo, and I will bow down, say I am wrong, and apologize.

But until then, this photo is a political piece of propoganda that has shown how effective negative propoganda is at leading people to believe in falsehoods.

It's no wonder some of you are so angry. I would be angry too, if I let news media and politicians do all my thinking for me...:sidestep:

 

[tyflier]

I don't mean to be rude, but it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall here. I'll try to explain one more time... I pay taxes, you pay taxes, just about everyone pays taxes. Therefore we BOTH contributed to the salary, and you/they have no right to arrogantly say "I pay your salary" - and expect me to bow down & obey because of it. We're all equals, and I hate arrogant jerks like the people I'm referring to. Following their sense of logic, I can tell people to get off MY road since MY taxes contributed to them.

If you don't get my point now, I'm really not sure how else to explain it. :shrugs:

You ARE talking to a brick wall. A couple of them, near as I can tell. The problem with being logical and sensible is that the people you are "debating" with have no logic or sense.

Besides...don't you realize that it doesn't matter how much YOU contribute, only how much THEY contribute?:shrugs:

 

[SnakeAround]

This whole topic is SO ridiculous...

I'm still waiting for even one single, solitary piece of evidence found within the photo that tells anyone definitively that the individual taking the photo is abusing social welfare programs.

Anyone? Bueller?

All of the debate, definitions, and name-calling are a moot point. Just show me one piece of evidence, within the original photograph, that definitively points to the individual taking the photo as being a welfare abuser. One piece of evidence within the photo, and I will bow down, say I am wrong, and apologize.

But until then, this photo is a political piece of propoganda that has shown how effective negative propoganda is at leading people to believe in falsehoods.

It's no wonder some of you are so angry. I would be angry too, if I let news media and politicians do all my thinking for me...:sidestep:

To me the person adding the captions, just saw a situation on a photo that could show someone abusing the system, even if that was not the situation. Maybe the person adding the caption does not even himself believe that the guy is abusing the system. He might just have thought: so funny how this particular photo coincidentally looks like someone is abusing the system.

The photo might be priceless because someone 'has been captured abusing the system', or because 'someone who might not even be a homeless person lining up for a free meal looks like someone abusing the system', depending on your interpretation (logic/frame of reference) and sense of humor.

Since we don't know why the person who added the captions thought it was funny to begin with, we can't say it is propaganda.

What I've learned in the past years about logic is, that every person has its own. There is no single true logic. Because your personal logic is so logical to you, you might think that others just have no logic, but for them their logic is as logical for them as your logic is for you. Then you have to agree to disagree indeed, but saying someone has no logic because you don't agree with/understand it, is not appropriate IMO. Every person has its own logic. What makes the difference 'in level' when it comes to debating, is if one can actually analyze the logic of another person and understand it, even if not agreed with it.