"Poverty".

[c.j.jaxxon]

Hey Trumpton! Who said that they were poor or in poverty? Stick to the true sense of the word and apply it where it belongs man!! Usually people who live like that have some type of job not paying enough and their spending priorities bad, they're drug dealers, whatever! What we say here in the states is that some of us are one paycheck away from poverty and we're "working" people. The people you need to look at are people who can't afford to buy their children new clothes from time to time, you know the ones, they dress a little ragged. Senior citizens who have to chose between eating, paying bills, or getting their medication. There's a earning level here in the U.S. that says if you make only so much money per year you're headed in to poverty or already there. As this relates to where you are over there, Do some more research! I'll bet it ain't much better!

[Pervert]

Thanks, CJ. Between you and Sam, my faith in man's reasoning process is restored.

I'm afraid some arguments are a little too emotive for me.

[c.j.jaxxon]

That's why I try to stay away from the controversial stuff but I can't help it some times. I just say my peace (or piece) and get to steppin'!

[Deuce Bigolo]

I'd be sticking with the safari suit(my english science teacher swore by them)

ready to put out that debate thats flaring like a phosphorous experiment gone wrong

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Sam's post seems to be more about relative poverty,[/quote]

Yes, I started off my reply with relative poverty in mind, but got sidetracked a little. I tried to explain -to Trumpton mainly- how consequences may plunge a child into poverty where they really shouldn't be.

[quote]and no neo-Fascist is ever going to accept you can be poor if you have home, food and clothes.[/quote]

What are you getting at? !grin!

I don't think you have to be a neo-fascist to be ignorant, and ignorance -luckily- is easily cured.

[c.j.jaxxon]

Sorry you missed it! They had something interesting going until Trumpton hit a nerve and that's when I posted. I wasn't trying to get him to agree but more to understand really.

[Trumpton]

warren zevon rip wrote:

> Well done all in my absence for refuting Trumpty's nonsense.

What do you mean 'nonsense'? I make valid points and then I'm accused of being a neo-fascist!

> Particular respect to Carac for the apostrophe fury.

No's, not's a's fury's just's a's slip's up's on's my's behalf's.
>
> As someone pointed out (CJ?) the confusion in Trumpty's "mind"
> (remember he only posts like this when he is really pissed,
> which explains a lot)

Outrageous!! I am a stern tea-totaller! Anyway I can't get down to the 'offie' as the alleged "poor" have emptied all the shelves of booze and consumed the contents!

> is caused by his belief that the people
> he sees as chav scum are also the people described as poor (or
> in poverty - whatever!). This is not the case - and no study
> has ever said it is.

No, not all chavs are "poor". Take professional footballers for example, a bunch of pikey chavs but they are certainly not "poor".
>
> Finally, it does really offend me, that there are people here
> who want to pretend that no poor kids exist in the UK.

It offends me that people read and inwardly digest all the claptrap that eminates from the Guardian and it's ilk without question or debate.

Fair enough, if you want to be deluded and tricked - but I'm not going to be conned into believing their Marxist propaganda!

[jj]

...and then leap into action, kill a lion with your bare hands, and jet off to
St Moritz to defeat another villain bent on world-domination.

[Trumpton]

I agree with what you've written here Sam.

I'm happy that you agree with some of my valid points. But in doing that and according to Wazzakins, who accuses me for daring to point out the alternative argument that I'm a 'Nazi', then you must be only half a Nazi!