It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
\
Originally posted by Valhall
Just so everybody can get straight how wrong this statement is - the resulting pay is OVER TWO TIMES TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR FOODSTAMPS in the Fort Hood area.
Originally posted by Gools
From another thread...
Originally posted by Seekerof
as posted by soficrow
Our soldiers are left without armor or air cover, and their families live on food stamps.
Links (as in multiple verified sources, not just one) to verified sources substantiating this assertion, soficrow. I may have missed it/them.
Personally I'm tired of having my "sources" questioned every time I try to make a point and I'm tired of seeing other people do it to others for reasons of metal laziness or partisan/biased intention.
I try to do a little something called learning and therefore things stay in my little brain without having to keep a filing cabinet full of bits of branded information.
When you have read enough about a subject, you can discuss it and analyse it without having to look up every "source". You become the source of thinking on that topic.
Who else is tired of this kind of thing? ... or am I being unreasonable?
For the record my reply on that thread was basically do your own research!
.
Originally posted by curme
Kind of off topic but I was stationed at Ft. Hood, and yes, there were soldiers on WIC. Why? Car payments, bills, too many kids, I don't know, I just know it happens sometimes unfortunately. Sorry I don't have a source!
Originally posted by curme
Kind of off topic but I was stationed at Ft. Hood, and yes, there were soldiers on WIC. Why? Car payments, bills, too many kids, I don't know, I just know it happens sometimes unfortunately. Sorry I don't have a source!
Originally posted by Valhall
WIC is not foodstamps. But it is a good program! One this Republican supports!
Originally posted by Jamuhn
So does this new found revelation that there was a wrong-choice of words detract anything from the argument as a whole? Or is this simply a word of revision in case of publication? Maybe we need some editors for this kind of thing on ATS.
I am under the belief that the maker of any given thread is bound by courtesy, to provide the 'backing up' information. many others also will contribute to adding links and so forth out of kindness and the spirit of comunity. I have been the recipient of such generosity in some of my own threads and I am gratefull.
Originally posted by Valhall
This wasn't a "wrong word". It was a false statement.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
How is this a wrong word when soldiers are actually on these programs? By the way, look at what check boxes you selected. Not all the soldiers are currently fighting in Iraq.
Originally posted by p a v e l
I don't see a purpose in posting a topic here where the subject cannot be proved or disproved.