The state said this week it will not participate in a federal program that would provide $120 in benefits to each eligible child, citing administrative hurdles.
Our governor is sitting on a tax surplus that was $5,000,000,000 a few months ago. (That’s billion, with a ‘b’) Just over the state line the state of Kansas literally just handed its surplus back to taxpayers in the form of a special tax cut. (They have a Democratic governor.) That five billion of OUR MONEY could do a lot to mitigate the problems in our state, but the folks in Jeff City haven’t figured out a way to feasibly give it away to their golf buddies yet.
Maybe the ‘terrorist’ tag is a little dramatic, but the Republican Party here in Missouri is literally making bad things happen in order to blame the consequences on the Federal Government. They’ve controlled this state for 20 years and in that time their sole mission has been figuring out ways to enrich themselves off the tax money produced by Kansas City and St. Louis.
I don’t know that it is dramatic - these people are willingly (and often happily) starving kids. What else would you call someone who looks at a child whose only meal that day may come from school and says, “Nah, it wins me points with my base, go ahead and starve”? Monster, maybe, but they labeled themselves terrorists, and I always like to use people’s preferred names.
I think you can find better terminology to make your point. People have overused ‘terrorist’ since the 9/11 attacks, and yeah, it comes off as a little dramatic and likely makes it harder for you to get the buy-in you want on the point you’re trying to make.
If I have to soften my language to get buy in on the issue of “children shouldn’t have to starve in one of the richest countries in the world,” I think that says everything it needs to about anyone opposing it, namely that they’re both incredibly hateful, and also huge crybaby bitches.
Unless someone self-identifies as a terrorist or fascist, I try to avoid that using that terminology when I’m working to change someone’s point of view. My rule of thumb is to try to approach things the way The Satanic Temple would, seeing as how they tend to be more effective at politicking than most.
The thing is that they did self identify as terrorists. It was a giant banner at cpac some years ago. “We are all domestic terrorists” I believe were the words.
Not only that, but the actions here can actually fall in the definition of terrorism. For the last 4+ years, I’ve also heard similar arguments to yours about calling the right, Nazis, but here we are with literal Nazis eaving the flag, disturbing the peace, and spreading hate.
If it looks like a shit and smells like a shit, it’s not a stick, it’s a Republican.
Remember when St Louis raised their minimum wage then the state made it illegal for the city that makes most the states money to given themselves there.
Our governor is sitting on a tax surplus that was $5,000,000,000 a few months ago. (That’s billion, with a ‘b’) Just over the state line the state of Kansas literally just handed its surplus back to taxpayers in the form of a special tax cut. (They have a Democratic governor.) That five billion of OUR MONEY could do a lot to mitigate the problems in our state, but the folks in Jeff City haven’t figured out a way to feasibly give it away to their golf buddies yet.
Maybe the ‘terrorist’ tag is a little dramatic, but the Republican Party here in Missouri is literally making bad things happen in order to blame the consequences on the Federal Government. They’ve controlled this state for 20 years and in that time their sole mission has been figuring out ways to enrich themselves off the tax money produced by Kansas City and St. Louis.
I don’t know that it is dramatic - these people are willingly (and often happily) starving kids. What else would you call someone who looks at a child whose only meal that day may come from school and says, “Nah, it wins me points with my base, go ahead and starve”? Monster, maybe, but they labeled themselves terrorists, and I always like to use people’s preferred names.
I think you can find better terminology to make your point. People have overused ‘terrorist’ since the 9/11 attacks, and yeah, it comes off as a little dramatic and likely makes it harder for you to get the buy-in you want on the point you’re trying to make.
If I have to soften my language to get buy in on the issue of “children shouldn’t have to starve in one of the richest countries in the world,” I think that says everything it needs to about anyone opposing it, namely that they’re both incredibly hateful, and also huge crybaby bitches.
True, but you kind of do have to.
Unless someone self-identifies as a terrorist or fascist, I try to avoid that using that terminology when I’m working to change someone’s point of view. My rule of thumb is to try to approach things the way The Satanic Temple would, seeing as how they tend to be more effective at politicking than most.
… you’re going to wait for someone to self identify?
“Hey we’re the enslavers, we’re here to enslave people.” That’s what you’re expecting?
The thing is that they did self identify as terrorists. It was a giant banner at cpac some years ago. “We are all domestic terrorists” I believe were the words.
Not only that, but the actions here can actually fall in the definition of terrorism. For the last 4+ years, I’ve also heard similar arguments to yours about calling the right, Nazis, but here we are with literal Nazis eaving the flag, disturbing the peace, and spreading hate.
If it looks like a shit and smells like a shit, it’s not a stick, it’s a Republican.
Remember when St Louis raised their minimum wage then the state made it illegal for the city that makes most the states money to given themselves there.
So do I, and sadly, now that they’ve gotten voters to approve a gerrymandering system, it’s likely only going to get worse.
I’m glad I only work in Missouri. I live in Illinois where we are trying to be California.