Just saw a TV commercial for some company that was bragging about their outreach and help for "under resourced kids".

Un f'n believable. Total BS!!! I didn't grow up "poor", but we weren't quite "middle class" either. My parents grew up poor. My wife grew up like me - not quite "middle class". Her parents grew up poor, too. Wife and I had a lot of "poor" relations as well.

LITTLE DID WE KNOW that our we were REALLY just "under resourced". Who knew?

POOR people obviously are less than spit and are to be despised, mocked, and looked down upon. Funny thing - I can't even begin to count the number of people I knew who grew up "POOR" and worked hard to make a better life for themselves. And their "POOR" parents often sacrificed their lifestyle and encouraged their kids to get an education to rise above the "POOR" status.

And those parents AND their kids, are today DAMNED PROUD of that!

The term "POOR" should be RESPECTED, not dissed.

"Under resourced" my ass. It's an insult to all the poor, and previously poor people in this country.

/old fart rant over

Speak for yourself.
I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to participate in any of this new speak.

I'm still going to call them poors.

Yelnick McWawa said:

---

Speak for yourself.
I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to participate in any of this new speak.

---

Correct. That's Leftspeak of the Leftian language or religion.

Has nothing to do with American Standard English.

Lolunderresourceds doesn't really flow.

"Poor" democrats and "Under resourced" don't mean the same thing.

Under resourced Texas! (TU that is)

This hurts the poor.

There is no point in softening language. The poor now live in "underdeveloped areas" we used to call them slums. Slums are ****ty things people may want to help fix.

When I didn't have money I was broke. In college I was broke ass. Most people experience financial hardships and empathize.

Our politicians used to be corrupt. Now they are "beholden to special interests"

Strong language is useful.

I was under the impression that "LOL poors" was the proper nomenclature.

Prominent millionaire democrats are some of the poorest examples of people I know. How does calling them "under-resourced" make that reality any better?

I am so under resources that I'm getting more and more poor with every liberal leader elected!

Aggrad08 said:

---

This hurts the poor.

There is no point in softening language. The poor now live in "underdeveloped areas" we used to call them slums. Slums are ****ty things people may want to help fix.

When I didn't have money I was broke. In college I was broke ass. Most people experience financial hardships and empathize.

Our politicians used to be corrupt. Now they are "beholden to special interests"

Strong language is useful.

---

Exceedingly wise and true observation.

I realize that I didn't define what I mean by "not quite middle class". This applies to both my wife and I:

Our dad's always had a job. Our moms worked off and on to supplement the family income.

We always had food on the table - but rarely anything fancy or expensive.

We always had a roof over our head.

We both moved a lot growing up - me AF brat, my wife Boeing Field Service brat. Lots of very long road trips when moving from place to place - we couldn't afford motels, even cheap ones.

Christmas presents usually bought on layaway.

Used cars - couldn't afford new.

Once in awhile short term (and expensive) loans to pay for unforeseen expenses.

And for those who say they "won't participate in left-speak" - I hear you. But you and I are far from the "trend setters" in our society. We can refuse to "participate" all we want - but it's not going to stop the insane BS that is happening in our society right now.

Obligatory...


Like he says, it gets worse with every generation...

Did you know under resourced kids are just as smart, and bright, as white kids?

NormanAg said:

---

I realize that I didn't define what I mean by "not quite middle class". This applies to both my wife and I:

Our dad's always had a job. Our moms worked off and on to supplement the family income.

We always had food on the table - but rarely anything fancy or expensive.

We always had a roof over our head.

We both moved a lot growing up - me AF brat, my wife Boeing Field Service brat. Lots of very long road trips when moving from place to place - we couldn't afford motels, even cheap ones.

Christmas presents usually bought on layaway.

Used cars - couldn't afford new.

Once in awhile short term (and expensive) loans to pay for unforeseen expenses.

And for those who say they "won't participate in left-speak" - I hear you. But you and I are far from the "trend setters" in our society. We can refuse to "participate" all we want - but it's not going to stop the insane BS that is happening in our society right now.

---

True enough. Consider it more a case of preserving the correct form and not letting the older speak and culture get lost till the full blown national faction push back gets underway.

There's a difference between poor and broke.

Broke is a momentary state of being.

Poor is a permanent mindset.

titan said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

This hurts the poor.

There is no point in softening language. The poor now live in "underdeveloped areas" we used to call them slums. Slums are ****ty things people may want to help fix.

When I didn't have money I was broke. In college I was broke ass. Most people experience financial hardships and empathize.

Our politicians used to be corrupt. Now they are "beholden to special interests"

Strong language is useful.

---

Exceedingly wise and true observation.

---

I'll second that notion!

Quote:

---

True enough. Consider it more a case of preserving the correct form and not letting the older speak and culture get lost till the full blown national faction push back gets underway.

---

Totally agree!

That verbiage is Over-ruhtarded.

"Under resourced people have under resourced ways..." just doesn't have the same ring to it...

TheCougarHunter said:

---

I'm still going to call them poors.

---

lolpoors is the correct term

Tom Doniphon said:

---

"Under resourced people have under resourced ways..." just doesn't have the same ring to it...

---

I posted above that my wife's parents grew up poor. One of my FIL's (now deceased) favorite sayings was "poor people have poor ways". And he lived that until the day he died. He was a skinflint through and through - but a lovable one. Really miss him. My MIL (still living)? Better left unsaid.

NormanAg said:

---

And for those who say they "won't participate in left-speak" - I hear you. But you and I are far from the "trend setters" in our society. We can refuse to "participate" all we want - but it's not going to stop the insane BS that is happening in our society right now.

---

But it's your choice to use their narrative in the title of your thread:
We Can't Use The Word "Poor" Now-"Under Resourced" Is Correct Term

Why not something like 'Doublespeak continues as left tries to replace "Poor" with "Under Resourced"'?

Maybe because it wouldn't fit in the thread title box? How in the hell did you get the idea from my posts that I will use the term "under resourced" instead of poor in the future? EVERY post I have made on this thread mocks the very idea of that term.

I suspect everyone but YOU got the idea. Judging an OP based on the thread title is iffy for a great many threads on this board.

Idiotic semantics and everyone will know it means the EXACT same thing but with wasting many more letters and syllables.

Post modernist Intersectionalists are so foolish in this way.

To be fair, if they're kids, they are under-resourced. Their lazy, neglectful parents are the ones who are poor, assuming they have two parents, which in itself is highly unlikely.

The "poor" in our country won't be "under resourced" as long as our politicians can print money.

NormanAg said:

---

Maybe because it wouldn't fit in the thread title box? How in the hell did you get the idea from my posts that I will use the term "under resourced" instead of poor in the future? EVERY post I have made on this thread mocks the very idea of that term.

I suspect everyone but YOU got the idea. Judging an OP based on the thread title is iffy for a great many threads on this board.

---

Norman,
I may be wrong, but I think he was making an observation and suggestion going forward. Your stances are so obvious its difficult to conceive he didn't know your alignment.

Its actually a very good point --- belittle even the concept when discussing it. Anyway, that's how took it.

My wife would say she grew up poor and despite being by far the youngest child of her siblings (her parents had her late in life) and having a fairly significant learning disability she was the first in her family to graduate from college (A&M). Point being, she didn't see herself as a victim, she just knew she had to outwork others, and she continues to outwork others to this day.

Believe it or not, despite what the far left will tell you, there is value in overcoming adversity and allowing that work to shape you into a person who will outperform others any day of the week.

Was poor, now I'm not due to hard work. God bless America!

OMG... How terrible. Evolving and understanding social science with a CHANGE IN WORDS is a CATASTROPHE. Definitely something to fight against and defend to a big degree. Really??

liberalag12 said:

---

OMG... How terrible. Evolving and understanding social science with a CHANGE IN WORDS is a CATASTROPHE. Definitely something to fight against and defend to a big degree. Really??

---

Yes, it "really" is something to fight against and defend to a big degree. Inventing new words/terms and new meanings to established words/terms is a common socialist/communist tactic. The fact that you don't appear to know or understand that is quite telling.

Replacing the historical, simple, and universally accepted and recognized word "poor" with a convoluted term like "under resourced" is both laughable and absurd and has nothing to do with "understanding social science".