The obligatory homeless-guy-with-cellphone post
posted at 11:29 am on March 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Call it the picture that set a million teeth on edge. Andrew Malcom showed a shot of Michelle Obama serving food in a homeless shelter while one of the recipients of her charitable work took a picture with his cellphone. This created a firestorm of debate over how a homeless person could wind up with a cellphone:
Both of these news photos were widely distributed across the country and even around the world.
It doesn’t detract from the first lady’s generous gesture or the real needs she seeks to highlight to ask two bothersome journalistic questions about these news photos:
If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cellphone?
And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?
Kathy Shaidle and Stacy McCain both reported on government programs for those on food stamps, welfare, or Medicaid (via Michelle):
We can certainly debate whether we should be funding free cellphones as a form of welfare, but it’s not clear that the person in the picture used that program to get his phone in the first place. He may have bought it on a pay-as-you-go basis, which some systems use. I suppose it’s possible that a family member or friend bought it for him, too, or that he may have been another volunteer in the food kitchen that day who just wanted to get a shot of Michelle Obama doing volunteer work.
It’s important to remember that there are different kinds of homelessness, too. Some people are deeply homeless, with no prospects and no hope for getting off the street. Some are transitional, though, perhaps living out of cars or bunking in shelters while attempting to gain employment. Without an address, they’d need to have ways to contact potential employers, and more importantly, for potential employers to contact them. A cell phone gives them that opportunity, and helps reduce the need for the shelters.
And let’s face it — it’s better to have them spend the money on a cell phone than on drugs or alcohol. It’s not just cheaper, it’s a lot more productive.
In the end, perhaps it’s best to pray that the phone gets used as a lifeline out of that shelter than to worry about the cell phone itself.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Why did she cover her sleeves?
ericdijon on March 7, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Someone else complained about the “obligatory” in posts. I agree that it is condescending. AP tried to spin it as meaning he received a number of requests or email tips on the subject. But, you can’t give words your own meanings. Why can’t you call it By Popular Demand/Request? Or You Asked for It?
Blake on March 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Who was it that said “the poor in America are fat?” Well, many of them are quite well off by world standards, anyways.
kc8ukw on March 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Yes, our ‘poor’ do pretty well in this country. Most have cable, flat-screen tv’s and custom wheels on their vehicles that cost more than my truck.
carbon_footprint on March 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM
OK. So let’s assume the guy is homeless and needs a phone to find a job. Does he really need a camera phone? I got my first camera phone just a couple months ago. And I have been working and in a home for a long time. It looks fancy.
Joe Caps on March 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM
And for the record, Ed, it does not come across as offensive in how you used it with this article.
Blake on March 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM
OSCA
Joe Caps on March 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM
This country has the wealthiest poor people in the world!
katy on March 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM
the relevant question is why would someone want to take a picture of her? she’s simply there to perform a kind and loving act of service, not as a photo opp… come on people, stop obsessing over everything our first couple does. they obviously have other concerns more pressing than being concerned about us, so why not return the favor?
gatorboy on March 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Ed Morrissey – in addition to wisdom and knowledge – a deep and caring heart.
Good points, Ed. Thanks.
pbundy on March 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM
The guy in the picture also has sunglasses on the top of his hat. After all the outrage yesterday on Michelle’s site and others, wouldn’t it make sense for someone to call the shelter and ask if the person in the picture is an employee/volunteer or a homeless person?
SnarkVader on March 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM
There are limousine liberals, & then there are cellphone liberals.
jgapinoy on March 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM
There is no Free Lunch except in DC.
JohnBissell on March 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM
All cell phones nowdays are required to have access to 911 even if they are deactivated. At Nokia we donated a lot of older phones to homeless shelters and shelters for battered women, these would be unlocked phones so they could buy a prepaid SIM card and use it, or keep it as is unactivated and just use ti for emergency 911 calls.
Not saying that’s the case here, but it’s a plausible scenario.
BadMojo on March 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Homeless with cellphones should evoke an image of drug-dealing outposts. I’m not stating that is the purpose of the device with this individual in this pic but it would give reasonable pause for consideration.
ericdijon on March 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Thanks. I use it in the sense that I feel obligated to give Hot Air readers a thread on a topic on which I might not have normally posted, something hot and heavy in the blogosphere. We do try to cover as many bases as possible. It’s not intended as derogatory, but more an indication of a personal level of enthusiasm for the topic.
Sadly obligatory … that’s another story. ;-)
Ed Morrissey on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
If this is what Michelle is going to do as First Lady, then I’m cool with that. But the second she starts the whitey hating militant horse shit, I will verbally crucify her!
csdeven on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Boy, Ed, leave it to you to be intelligent, logical, and empathetic on this story. Sort of takes the wind out of the ‘but-wait-there’s-more-and-you-won’t-believe-this’ about the weeklong laughfest we’ve had with the Obamas.
And you are absolutely right, which is one of the reasons I like and respect your writing and commentary.
JamesLee on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
caption the secret service guy in the background…
“No soup for you camera-boy”
gatorboy on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Michelle is so classy & sassy that her antics can’t possibly be an orchestrated distraction.
BHO Jonestown on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
LOL. That homeless guy has a fancier cell than I have. I don’t know if I should be depressed or if I should find out what kind it is and buy accordingly.I don’t care about this story. At all. Mostly because Michelle’s magnificent arms are all covered up. Or something to that effect.
mjk on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
If you’ve seen Slumdog Millionaire (& here are my comments about it), you’ve seen a glimpse of real poverty. There are about a billion people who live like that.
jgapinoy on March 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Let ‘em eat curry!
/s
BadMojo on March 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Dumb. The whole “controversy” is just dumb.
Mike Honcho on March 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM
You don’t need a house or residence to have a cell phone: http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/go-phones/
You can also go to any store now and pick up a cash card to purchase them over the internet and buy minutes for them.
JeffinSac on March 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM
The find a job point is a good one, since by definition he doesn’t have a “home phone”. The camera is less necessary, but I think you can get a pay-as-you-go Nokia phone for $29–which is a couple of days worth of cigarettes.
dedalus on March 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Why is Patrick Ewing posing for a fake homeless person with a camera?
Norwegian on March 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM
A lot of kids getting free lunches in the public schools have pretty sophisticated phones, too.
Disturb the Universe on March 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Shorter Ed Morrissey: “Nothing to see here. Move along.”
And I agree. The first lady helped out serving meals at a shelter. Some kid took a picture of the first lady with a camera phone. Next up… dog eats biscuit!
Jazz Shaw on March 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM
How about that menu? Mushroom risotto? With a side of arugula I’m sure. Would you like fries with that?
mike_NC9 on March 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I traveled the world for almost 13 years and saw homeless in Asia, south America, the middles east, europe and points in between, and I don’t remember ever seeing homeless with new and clean clothes, cellphones, or, overweight as the guy or girl in line behind Mr. cellphone.
I live in a nice middleclass neighborhood and we have a section 8 family next door. They don’t work. The entire family is morbidly obese. They all have cell phones. They have a 2005 Chevy Suburban, a flat screen HD tv that takes up an entire wall of their living room and everyday I realise that I’m paying for it.
katy on March 7, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Please take this post down. This runs contrary to the redneck notion of superiority. It’s like reminding them that being born white in America and living in a shed on wheels is pretty pathetic. They tend to get upset when they figure that one out!
capitulus on March 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Shouldn’t she be wearing a hair net?
BTW, I don’t think we are handing out tax-payer funded camera phones to welfare recipients.
Or he could be using the cell phones as his lifeline to his drug dealer. To me it’s more like this… because some of our fellow Americans have been taught that they can depend on the generosity of others to provide for their basic needs they then are free to spend their income, however it is derived, on the things they want rather than the things they need. Sooner or later, those of us who willingly offer up our money through charity or have it forcibly taken from us by the government are going to revolt. And this class-warfare theme that Obama has set in motion is only going to hasten that day.
Texas Gal on March 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM
caption the secret service guy in the background…
“No soup for you camera-boy”
gatorboy on March 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
LOL!!! God bless our Secret Service agents. The crap they have to go through, whether they like the first family or not.
catlady on March 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Corrected.
MrScribbler on March 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM
What is not dumb is questioning how the MSM reporter/photographer puts out this story/photo and doesn’t ask whether there is a disconnect with a homeless shelter patron owning a camera cellphone. A professional journalist would at least acknowledge the issue and if, as some have suggested, there is a logical explanation, used it as a springboard for an interesting follow-up on how operations like SafeLink provide a valuable service to the homeless who are on the cusp and working to become self-sufficient.
But no, “job one” is to serve as the propaganda crew for Team Obama — to present Michelle as both a great humanitarian and rock star to the oppressed poor. You know, just like they did with the Bush administration.
capitano on March 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Frustratring isn’t it? And top of it off, these people are constitutes parts of Obama’s “base”….It’s pathetic
Norwegian on March 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The more burning question is why is the first lady preparing food without a proper head covering? Would you like food with your hair?
smfoushee on March 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Speaking of AP, where is the beta male?
Disturb the Universe on March 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Meh. I can see the argument about ACORN and their antics but making a fuss about this picture only highlighted the very thing the Obama people wanted. And that was to showcase how they “care” about the downtrodden.
Conservatives really need to stop trying to score cheap points on a cheap artist. They always backfire.
William Amos on March 7, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Yes forgot to mention they do have an Obama sticker on the bumper of that nice shiny Suburban.
katy on March 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Staycation
carbon_footprint on March 7, 2009 at 12:01 PM
How did the homeless get along before cellphones?
Kini on March 7, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Rush invited him and KP down his command post for the weekend.
;)
katy on March 7, 2009 at 12:01 PM
In fairness to Ed I emailed him a Salon article that is slamming Michelle Malkin for her post yesterday. It painted Michelle as being “jealous” of Michelle Obama and that the posters on her site were really racists who hate Michelle Obama for her color.
The left is still on full court press against all conservatives. There is the Limbaugh kerfuffle of the last few days, Comparing Bobby Jindal to a 30′s Rock Nerd and now attacking Michelle Malking.
The left is starting to worry about Obama failing due to the bad economy so they are on a fullcourt press to change the subject. Hope and change has given in to dispair and fear on the left.
William Amos on March 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM
If the homeless did not have a vote, these people would have been left to rot by the Dems long ago.
The sign on this place should read: “Voter Plantation Cafeteria — Keep up your strength — 2010 will be here before you know it!”
ex-Democrat on March 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Ed Morrissey is a fine Christian gentleman.
From Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism:
OmahaConservative on March 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM
btw, Michelle looks like a vampire in that pic. Can someone Photoshop blood dripping? TIA.
ex-Democrat on March 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I guess I lost about 3 cellphones so far. Now I know where they go.
lowandslow on March 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The hair-in-our-food we have been waiting for. /
OmahaConservative on March 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM
True. Although I admit that it is kind of weird that the Left managed to criticize the Right for all the pointless and speculative blogs criticizing poor people or, worse, a volunteer at a soup kitchen before they even wrote them. Because it wasn’t the Right who started this nonsense. Somehow, it was the Left trying to change the subject.
But that’s just how the Left works. They are diabolical geniuses, but also they are stupid Marxists. Duh!
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM
The one’s next to me have all that, and a 29 yr old daughter who has 6 different kids, by 6 different men,of 6 different colors.They only have 3 vehicles with Obama stickers on them. Their mortgage is in forclosure according to public records,and I get to listen to them yell at each other all the damn time.All are recipiants of social security.–and if that little bastard ruins my blue hosta’s again this year, im going to let my dog dig a really deep hole………
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on March 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I think he has some kind of hat on his head. Does he need the hat too?
Even cheap phones nowadays come with a camera. Virgin Mobile will sell you a 40$ phone with a camera, and that includes 20$ of airtime. And it “looks” fancy. (Cyclops by Kyocera). The phone that guy has might be worth 600$ for all I know, but simply having a camera doesn’t mean much in today’s world.
mycowardice on March 7, 2009 at 12:12 PM
You know, this reminds me in a disturbing kind of way of the uproar over Wall Street/Banker types actually having the audacity to do meetings in Las Vegas (or wherever). I don’t care how or why a homeless person has a cellphone – I’m just glad they do (for emergencies or contact with family or what-freaking-ever). I’m also glad bankers, wall st. types get to go to “conferences”, and even get bonuses for performance.
People, you’re heading down the wrong road here. Really.
zeebeach on March 7, 2009 at 12:15 PM
The RICHEST POOR PEOPLE IN THE WORLD are constantly exploiting the wealthy in order to get their hands on more hats, those scumbags.
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 12:15 PM
LMAO!! Gawd, I love this site.
Key West Reader on March 7, 2009 at 12:19 PM
What’s up with the fat chick in the orange suit? ACORN member?
Key West Reader on March 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM
We have park benches for addresses right?
tomas on March 7, 2009 at 12:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wU_KGQy6M8&feature=related
RealDemocrat on March 7, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Official dhimmi Food Taster.
OmahaConservative on March 7, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Because the thermostat was set below 80.
unclesmrgol on March 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Here is the message the GOP should have hammered Michelle Obama with
From the official White House site
William Amos on March 7, 2009 at 12:29 PM
This guy’s no Roger Patterson. bfro.net will be able to fully debunk that photo within weeks.
DarkCurrent on March 7, 2009 at 12:30 PM
This was being covered rather superficially on CNN or HLN I can’t remember which but according to the news channels it is a sign of times to come Tent City in Sacramento California. They interviewed a man who had worked in Construction and lost his job. They mention he has 5 adult children but he doesn’t want them to know his circumstances he says there are those who wish to be homeless but he isn’t one of them. The Cable News reports that Sacramento’s 2000 bed shelters are full. He stated he was making 45,000 a year and is now forced to live in a tent. If this happened to anyone in our family we would take them in we would not let them live in a tent city of any kind. So why were these people not asked any deeper questions about problem solving their living arrangements? Because CNN/HLN are promoting doom and gloom about the economy. One homeless woman stated, she was waiting for 100s to join them in the tent city. She went unchallenged about why she should anticipate the numbers to grow.
http://www.daylife.com/search?q=sacramento+homeless
Dr Evil on March 7, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Hah! That guy looks just like the identical twin brother I never had.
DarkCurrent on March 7, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I think the picture is funny, but I don’t find it at all upsetting.
If a man is homeless and looking for work, a phone is a good investment.
If he’s using it for drug deals, well, less so.
Spirit of 1776 on March 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Nostalgic. Not necessarily classy, but nostalgic indeed.
Man, I miss George and Weezy.
Key West Reader on March 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Bad link above. Nostalgia. I actually miss the 70′s.
Key West Reader on March 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Cell phones are a privilege, not a necessity!!! I’m sure all you remember the days without cells phones, let’s say about 10-15 years ago! We all still had jobs and got along just fine. GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT SUBSIDIZE CELL PHONES. No wonder our country is going bankrupt.
nazo311 on March 7, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Last year I looked at upgrading my cell phone with one that could take pictures.
But I had just been laid off. I was living on my savings (you know, money I put away for years instead of impulse shopping for plasma TVs and flip houses?).
I didn’t need a camera/cell phone. My old model worked just fine. I kept the old model and used the savings to help pay RENT.
Yes, RENT. Now I get to pay taxes to pay stupid people’s MORTGAGES. And here I am, paying RENT and saving money as I can.
Hopeychangey–hurray!
Hey Michelle, when you finished your caring photo-op, did you get all gussied up for the 40th White House Party? Did you cackle and say, “Let them eat cake.”?
Montana on March 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM
If the point of your idiotic comments is to convince us that you’re nasty, petty, stupid, and ill-informed, you can stop now. We’re convinced.
AZCoyote on March 7, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I was reading yesterday about an African who visits America occasionally. She said she loves to visit because there are no poor here. Someone tried to admonish her and told her that why yes, America has tons of poor people. The African lady just laughed. She said the poor have no food, no shelter and no hope. Here our poor have homes, food, medical care, entertainment, TV’s, and….cell phones. In any other country our poor are considered very very wealthy by comparison.
Guardian on March 7, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Y’all are really stretching it by giving so much benefit of the doubt. This man is either: A) a professional moocher or B) a paid person to make La Obama look magnanimous.
SouthernGent on March 7, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Amen. There are no people in the United States that have a hard time eating every month, and of course they have TVs and medical care. Take a trip to, say, eastern Kentucky sometime and try that one on for size.
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Hairugula.
James on March 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM
The cell phone service I use is “pay-as-you-go”, and only costs $20.00 every 60 days to keep active. Being permanently disabled with limited disability income, I couldn’t afford a cell phone otherwise, and the phone itself was an old phone someone gave to me when they upgraded to one of the more modern slimline versions with good features. In addition, that person was kind enough to leave their old unused minutes on the phone for me to use, which saved me a lot of money. Given my medical expenses, it was a blessing.
So while initially it might cause outrage that a supposedly homeless person could ‘afford’ a cell phone, I’d take exception to the perception that it might be an unnecessary expense. I’ve also, in the past, volunteered to serve up food at food pantries and soup kitchens and such like Michelle, and frankly, the worst thing that homeless people deal with, other than getting adequate nutrition, is the sense of isolation and loneliness, on top of not having access to telephone communication in the event they’re attempting to find employment or cheap habitat when available.
Cell phones provide a civilized ‘link’ that I can readily see as being essential for the homeless. It keeps them in touch with others on so many levels, and as Ed rightly points out, gives them the opportunity to follow up on potential employment situations and/or offers. It doesn’t even bother me that it’s a camera phone, as again, if the person is truly ‘homeless’, late at night under some overpass while trying to grab some sleep that person only needs to replay the images to remind themselves that they’re not alone in the world.
I think it would be outstanding if someone would start a recycling program for older cell phones to be donated to homeless shelters so they could pass them along to the truly homeless, just like we donate old eyeglasses for those who can’t afford them. Perhaps that makes me more of a ‘Center Right’ person than a ‘Far Right’ person, but the greater human benefits seem so clear to me that I’d take the criticism if any were tossed my way.
It’s just basic humanity, which we must keep alive in today’s world of greed and power lust. (Inserting that President Obama was wrong, just plain wrong to cut back on charitable tax deductions!)
KendraWilder on March 7, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Anyone notice the “mushroom risotto” on the menu sign? The “homeless” are eating better than I am!
SouthernGent on March 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I like the “Glory Muffins”
William Amos on March 7, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Opps that is “Morning Glory Muffins”
William Amos on March 7, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Yeah, rice is pretty fancy.
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:14 PM
When it’s cooked as risotto it really is.
SouthernGent on March 7, 2009 at 1:17 PM
So he can afford to buy minutes but not food?
Again, paying a contract but needs to stand in line at a food kitchen for the homeless?
Most-likely option.
amerpundit on March 7, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Yes, adding water and boiling it is pretty costly. Got any other brilliant insights?
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Does Lady Ma’Belle Macbeth actually cook, or not? Just curious.
OmahaConservative on March 7, 2009 at 1:22 PM
A better question: What is he going to do with the photo? Send it to his friends? (This assumes he has friends who have access to a device to recieve the photo).
Which leads us to another question: If he has friends who can also afford cell phones, why aren’t these friends helping out our homey?
This doesn’t pass the smell test.
BobMbx on March 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Risotto is not “adding water and boiling it”. It’s a bit more involved than that.
SouthernGent on March 7, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I have a different take on it. Giving the homeless a cellphone is a good idea — if they are looking for work! How else could a potential employer get hold of them? There is a stigma attached to giving out the phone number of a job center or homeless shelter.
SuzySanDiego on March 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM
He looks too clean and well dressed to be homeless. Look how white and fresh his t-shirt looks, and the hat and coat looks like decent quality too. Probably like Ed said, one of the volunteers wanting a pic.
OmahaConservative on March 7, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I’m guessing you’ve never worked in a soup kitchen. They don’t make the food from scratch, you buy it in bulk as cheap as possible; 9 times out of 10 that means just adding water.
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Wait a sec! Is that an enclosed glass window Ma’Belle is behind dishing up the risotto? Bullet-proof?
OmahaConservative on March 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Maybe we should add to the list of requirements before getting any kind of assistance that the person getting the assistance needs to be a saint. (We could also that that requirement to people asking the president questions).
mycowardice on March 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM
LOL! If the Proud Rino has any pride it wont be back again
DarkCurrent on March 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Yes. They’re called books.
Key West Reader on March 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Sigh.
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I volunteer at a homeless shelter. Yes, the residents can give out a phone # which is a separate line that is specifically designated for job seekers. The phone line is manned and answered professionally, and messages are taken and delivered to the job seekers. In turn, the job seeker can then return the call.
Now, what exactly is your point? Obviously your bleeding heart seeks to pick my pocket. Move on, San Diego.
Key West Reader on March 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I have zero sympathy for the folks who choose to be poor. I’ve traveled enough of the world to see the difference between those with no opportunity to succeed and those who are lazy or worse, mooches.
Since I’m from Bardstown (Cox’s Creek) Ky I can tell you that the “poor” of my family choose to stay that way rather than leave to seek their fortunes. They would rather be poor and stay than leave and find work. It’s a choice.
I have no sympathy for the willing poor. I would even say that the vast majority of poor folks simply choose to be poor. This is America. Your opportunities for success are only limited by your choices. Choose to educate yourself. Choose to live in an healthy economic location. Choose to get up when you fall down and try again. or choose to do nothing but eat potato chips, watch TV and complain how somebody keeps you down. It’s all about choices. You have to choose to be poor in America.
Guardian on March 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Is that not in fact more than rice boiled water?
DarkCurrent on March 7, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Well, fine. I don’t agree that they “choose” to be poor, and I think that’s a vast oversimplification, but that wasn’t what we were talking about.
Let me refresh your memory. You said you had an African friend who says there are no poor people in the United States, and then you said that poor people have TVs, health care, and plentiful food. And then I said that’s not true, just take a look at rural Appalachia, and then you said, “Well they choose to be poor and I don’t have any sympathy for them.”
Fine. Whatever. Different topic. But you’re still admitting they’re poor, and I think we can make the inference from that that you are retracting your earlier statement.
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM
You buy the package. You add water and boil. Is English not your first language?
Proud Rino on March 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »