Looking for Work Man Posts Video

by Jack

Would you hire this guy, with a massive face tattoo that says, DEVAST8?  He ran out of face to write the whole word.

Several weeks ago Mark Cropp, 19, went on social media to beg someone to give him a break and let him prove he can be responsible and hold down a full-time job after leaving prison, where he obtained his tattoo.

Within hours of posting his video he revealed he had been deluged with job opportunities and admitted he “stopped counting” when the number of offers reached 45.   However, he still hasn’t worked a day. Mark says he is holding out for just the right job! He sounds like a great candidate for being homeless in Chico. No chance of anyone offering you a job here Mark, we just give you money and whatever else you want. Come to Chico, we want you!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Looking for Work Man Posts Video

  1. Libby says:

    Let’s talk about Christianity some more. You make all the proper noises, but there are tenets of the faith with which you seem to have a great deal of trouble: e.g., “The poor will always be with us.” This is possibly the single wisest sentence attributed to the man, and it is extremely difficult to deal with on a day-to-day basis; the poor being damnably irritating.

    But this clown is unlikely ever to be a particularly productive member of society.

    So, now we get to charity. Tina will go on about the horrors of that most dastardly component of the liberal agenda: the redistribution of wealth. What on earth do you people think charity is?

    • Tina says:

      Charity is the redistribution of wealth (and often much more) by PERSONAL CHOICE. That is the difference you refuse to get. That is the American ideal you fail to live by and support…individual freedom…the right to decide how ones personal wealth will be spent!

      Instead you embrace coercion, force, control by a distant elite and supported by an expensive, unaccountable, self serving bureaucracy!

      I think people like you have trust issues and you’d rather relinquish your freedom and rights for the power to force others to pay as YOU see fit. Sad. This is your opinion despite the evidence of American generosity and compassion and despite evidence that dependency on government is ruinous to individual dignity and respect and civic and cultural responsibility and decency.

  2. Libby says:

    Yes, well, human beings … being what they are … would not CHOOSE to pave the roads, or fund the schools, or develop and enforce a building code … hence GOVERNMENT … which has, over many centuries (and not everybody is keeping up the same pace) evolved to the point where the majority of citizens (not you, obviously) CHOOSE not to leave the poor among us to “die in the gutter”, generally speaking … that is, to institutionalize, to democratize, charity.

    What mystifies me is how you can profess Christianity, and not go for this?

    • Post Scripts says:

      Christians are to have nothing to do with idleness (meaning refusing to work). Not only is it sinful, it is disgraceful as well. How does being slothful ever glorify God? We are never to live off of others. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop. When you’re not doing something productive with your time that leads to more sins.

      The person who doesn’t work will not eat and will come to poverty. If someone doesn’t have a job, then they should get up and be searching for one like it’s their full-time job. Here are many reasons to work and have a job.

      Here’s what the Bible says about people who are lazy and won’t work:

      What does the Bible say?

      1. 2 Thessalonians 3:9-10 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give ourselves as an example for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this command: “If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat.”

      2. Proverbs 21:25 The craving of a sluggard will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work.

      3. Proverbs 18:9-10 Whoever is lazy regarding his work is also a brother to the master of destruction. The name of the Lord is a strong tower; a righteous person rushes to it and is lifted up above the danger.

      4. Proverbs 10:3-5 The Lord won’t cause the righteous to hunger, but he will reject what the wicked crave. Idle hands bring poverty, but hard-working hands lead to wealth. Whoever harvests during summer acts wisely, but the son who sleeps during harvest is disgraceful.

      5. Proverbs 14:23 Prosperity comes from hard work, but talking too much leads to great scarcity.

      6. Proverbs 12:11-12 The one who works his field will have plenty of food, but whoever chases daydreams lacks wisdom. The wicked person desires a stronghold, but the righteous root endures.

      Do honest hard work

      7. Ephesians 4:27-28 Do not give the devil an opportunity. The one who steals must steal no longer; rather he must labor, doing good with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with the one who has need.

      8. Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever you find to do with your hands, do it with all your might, because there is neither work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, the place where you will eventually go.

      9. 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 to aspire to lead a quiet life, to attend to your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you. In this way you will live a decent life before outsiders and not be in need.

      Dangers of not working

      10. 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.

    • Tina says:

      “Yes, well, human beings … being what they are … would not CHOOSE to pave the roads, or fund the schools, or develop and enforce a building code…”

      Utter bologna! Our system is set up so that agreement can be reached democratically. The Constitution calls for power vested in the people at the state and local levels. How the heck do you think this country developed?

      From the beginning there was a need and the people found a way to fill it. Then eventually progressives decided government was a good way to legislate power and money to the few who govern and we’ve created a monster that constantly creates ever more costly, wasteful, and unworkable systems.

      It wasn’t until the late 18th and early 19th centuries that government above the county got involved in road building and even then only on major highways. We still use local level government for most roads and bridges.

      And the American people have always been interested in educating our children…that too was always done at the local levels. The local system worked very well too until liberals got a hold of it. We spend more tax money now with less satisfactory results. And being a liberal you refuse to take responsibility for the policies that have led to education failure, including the failure resulting from low expectations, emphasis on social engineering and special rights, and the rewriting of history and definitions.

      You’ve obviously been reading too much Dickens, too! Not Jack, nor any conservative who contributes here has advocated “letting the poor die in the streets” as a general model. Personal charity does not operate in that fashion. Charity only works when there is expectation of improvement…and ultimately of someone ends up dying in the street it is by his own choice. You cannot save people who choose to die in this fashion! Neither do we support government policies that encourage dependency, sloth, incivility, or crude and rude behaviors! We endorse adopting policies and methods that a) encourage independence and responsibility, and b) hold individuals accountable. We support civic standards that create safe clean spaces. We support education that produces strong healthy students prepared to participate and contribute as adults. (And you demonize that when you demonize us)

      For some reason you find all behaviors and manners acceptable and demand that citizens just tolerate bad behaviors and throw money at it. In fact you go a step further and make us the bad guy so you don’t have to admit what you have done is not working! As always there’s no sense of responsibility, not for the indigent, the slacker, the derelict, the chronically addicted and certainly not for you.

      “Mystify”…an interesting choice of words. Perhaps if you didn’t rely on the occult and those old white bearded men that favored socialist models you could get it.

      If you understand “human nature being what it is” then you should be able to understand that the worst thing you can do to a person is make it easy for him to become slothful, indigent, a slacker, a derelict or chronically addicted. You would know that the most difficult facet of love is standing for and demanding participation, accountability, and responsibility. Even children with diminished capacity can be taught to be responsible, contributing citizens. Why would you expect less of the able bodied?

      As we have often said the poor will always be with us in this imperfect world. Doesn’t it make more sense to structure a society that is self reliant so the numbers of poor are as few as possible? Doesn’t it make sense to train our children for adulthood so they won’t end up dependent and needy? Doesn’t it make sense to create economic policy that creates abundance in the private sector so there is plenty of opportunity to work? Shouldn’t our schools prepare students for THEIR futures? Hasn’t it been a mistake…a measurable mistake…to create policies that encourage dependency and discourage independence? Isn’t it time to work toward reversing that mistake and restoring America to a strong healthy nation of people with clean safe streets?

      We spoke early this blog about the systems we both endorse and my ultimate response to you was that under the system I favor you liberals are free to create little enclaves of progressiveness…cooperatives and communes and such but under your system all of the people are forced to live under an oppressive, intrusive central authority. My system is based in freedom and personal choice. Your system doesn’t even reflect the ideal of America.

      You don’t trust that other people have a capacity for charity or civic duty. Do you get how arrogant and judgemental that is?

  3. Libby says:

    Yes, Jack, we know that you (aka, God) want him to work.

    But he can’t. He is (for the sake of argument) intellectually and emotionally incapable of holding a job. He is poor.

    So, because he is not able to abide by the tenets for living dictated by a Christian God (aka, you), it is ok to declare him “human trash” and let him die in the gutter … when humanity has evolved to the point that we are perfectly able to organize for him a universal minimum wage? … and maybe some tattoo removal … poor bastard.

    • Tina says:

      Long before he was poor he was poor in spirit. The things you fight to destroy would have gone a long way toward preventing that miserable state, Most of the things you think are wonderful helped to make him poor. Long before he became human trash human trash made sure that would be his fate! Yes I am calling progressives human trash. You offer him phony alternatives. You offer terrible K-12 schools that do not prepare him for adulthood and dangerous neighborhoods. You diminish trade schools and push higher education as the only way forward. You offer expensive hollow higher educations built on social engineering. You embrace loose morality and celebrate drug use and broken families. You lure people into the trap of dependency for the sake of your god: communism/fascism/secularism.

      There is no such thing as a “universal minimum wage.” How much would be enough? Who will produce the revenue flow to support it even if you could decide on a plausible figure? San Franciscans would need a lot more than those in Hodunk South Carolina so how do you determine a “universal” figure and what does it cover? Cab fare…doubt if they need that in Hodunk.

      The universal minimum wage is another politically constructed phrase designed to send more money to the pockets of union bosses and the federal and state governments and kill off individual small private businesses, the very people that might have a job to offer this person. Why should the man ever work when you are willing to work and give uo more of what you earn so he can live free of any responsibility?

      • Chris says:

        From the beginning there was a need and the people found a way to fill it.

        But…we didn’t, at least not to extent that we do now; it is a fact that poverty rates in the US were higher prior to the Great Society.

        Long before he was poor he was poor in spirit.

        How could you know this? Isn’t it possible he was born into poverty?

        Yes I am calling progressives human trash.

        Well, at least you, unlike Eric Trump, still think we’re human.

        • Tina says:

          Chris the poverty rate had been declining prior to 1965. We know for a fact today that Johnson’s so-called Great Society program has created greater dependency and expectation of being owed (rights). We are now discussing universal healthcare and universal (living) wage and you lefties want to add yet another layer of dependency.

          Who will be left to pay the bill when someone who doesn’t work can get the same or more as someone who works?

          The Great Society has created an artificial (phony) illusion. We’re playing a massive game of let’s pretend. Let’s pretend our wonderful nation has created prosperity for all! Let’s pretend our educational system is able to prepare our children for self reliance and “making a difference….contribution! Let’s pretend that breaking up families won’t matter: “the kids will be all right, kids are resilient.” Let’s pretend an artificial husband/bread winner (government) can replace fathers. Let’s pretend that people who get a check in the mail from the government will have the same sense of dignity and gratification that those who work to earn that check have. Let’s pretend that government subsidy doesn’t invite greater or institutional dependency. Let’s pretend that it isn’t the main reason our national debt grows to extreme levels. Let’s pretend that it has no effect on the private sectors ability to create opportunity and jobs.

          May 16, 2014, George Will, Washington Post, “The slow decline of America since LBJ launched the Great Society”:

          Fifty years ago this Thursday, at the University of Michigan, Johnson had proposed legislating into existence a Great Society. It would end poverty and racial injustice, “but that is just the beginning.” It would “rebuild the entire urban United States” while fending off “boredom and restlessness,” slaking “the hunger for community” and enhancing “the meaning of our lives” — all by assembling “the best thought and the broadest knowledge.”

          In 1964, 76 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing “just about always or most of the time”; today, 19 percent do. The former number is one reason Johnson did so much; the latter is one consequence of his doing so. …

          …When Johnson became president in 1963, Social Security was America’s only nationwide social program. His programs and those they subsequently legitimated put the nation on the path to the present, in which changed social norms — dependency on government has been destigmatized — have changed America’s national character.

          Between 1959 and 1966 — before the War on Poverty was implemented — the percentage of Americans living in poverty plunged by about one-third, from 22.4 to 14.7, slightly lower than in 2012. But, Eberstadt cautions, the poverty rate is “incorrigibly misleading” because government transfer payments have made income levels and consumption levels significantly different. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, heating assistance and other entitlements have, Eberstadt says, made income “a poor predictor of spending power for lower-income groups.” Stark material deprivation is now rare:

          “By 2011 . . . average per capita housing space for people in poverty was higher than the U.S. average for 1980. . . . [Many] appliances were more common in officially impoverished homes in 2011 than in the typical American home of 1980. . . . DVD players, personal computers, and home Internet access are now typical in them — amenities not even the richest U.S. households could avail themselves of at the start of the War on Poverty.”

          But the institutionalization of anti-poverty policy has been, Eberstadt says carefully, “attended” by the dramatic spread of a “tangle of pathologies.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined that phrase in his 1965 report calling attention to family disintegration among African Americans. The tangle, which now ensnares all races and ethnicities, includes welfare dependency and “flight from work.”

          Twenty-nine percent of Americans — about 47 percent of blacks and 48 percent of Hispanics — live in households receiving means-tested benefits. And “the proportion of men 20 and older who are employed has dramatically and almost steadily dropped since the start of the War on Poverty, falling from 80.6 percent in January 1964 to 67.6 percent 50 years later.” Because work — independence, self-reliance — is essential to the culture of freedom, ominous developments have coincided with Great Society policies:

          For every adult man ages 20 to 64 who is between jobs and looking for work, more than three are neither working nor seeking work, a trend that began with the Great Society. And what Eberstadt calls “the earthquake that shook family structure in the era of expansive anti-poverty policies” has seen out-of-wedlock births increase from 7.7 percent in 1965 to more than 40 percent in 2012, including 72 percent of black babies.

          Of course it’s possible he was born into poverty. But if he was he was born into poverty it was subsidized poverty that comes with a sense of entitlement at a lower middle class level. The poor today are able to buy what once would have been considered extras…they are subsidized for more than necessities. His fate, being born to poverty, was made more deplorable because he was born into entitlement thinking…poor in spirit…he has little urge for self reliance. (there are exceptions but they are few)

          Oh I think calling you trash without the human designation is saying the same thing. I have never been so frustrated in my life. Evidence, not attitude or emotion, demonstrates the failures, including in terms of human dignity, of these programs and STILL you will not admit to those failures. Instead you support more of the same and demonize those who point out the obvious! You use a magical date to prove that poverty rates were higher…six years earlier and the reality is that poverty was reduced by 1/3 prior to Johnson.

          The excuse is that it would be heartless to do otherwise and that’s sad. It’s sad because it’s easy to see how cruel it is to encourage and subsidize dependency and all of it’s attending problems. People suffer and live lives of lesser dignity so you can (artificially) feel good.


    • Post Scripts says:

      Ah dear Libby, you never fail to give me a morning giggle. So now I am elevated to God status, eh? How nice, sure beats the former titles you’ve assigned me! However, I must tell you that I don’t deserve this omnipotent title. But, on the other hand, as a good conservative I will never tell you who you can and can’t worship. I’m sending you a divine message now, to have a nice day…are you feeling a little tingle? Yup, that’s me. ; )

  4. Joe says:

    Don’t worry, Jack. Libby will hire him and if he doesn’t work she will house, feed and clothe him. Bet on it…

    And Bammy sure is living easy these days….


  5. Tina says:

    This seems an appropriate time to share Jonah Goldberg’s article, “Was Fascism right-Wing (Again)?” wherein he explains that both communism and Fascism are left wing (Nazi to the left of the commies but still leftist). Goldberg wrote the popular best selling book Liberal Fascism.

    One excerpt is well worth re-posting:

    Yes, Nazis squelched independent labor unions. Yes, yes, Nazis repressed socialists and Communists. Fine, fine. You know who else treated independent labor unions roughly? You know who else repressed socialists and Communists? The Soviet Union. The Soviets surely killed and arrested more domestic socialists, starting with the Mensheviks, than the Nazis did. And how did labor unions fare in the Soviet Union? How were strikes treated? Let’s ask the survivors of the Novocherkassk massacre or the Kengir uprising. Were they not for all practical purposes folded up into paper-tiger fronts as extensions of the State? Maybe workers were treated better in “left-wing” Russia than in “right-wing” Germany, though I doubt it. But even if that were the case, it’s ridiculous to hold up the Soviets as examples of how the “Left” treated workers well, unlike the “Right.” From 1940 to 1955, 15 million workers were sent to the Gulag simply for committing the crime of not working hard enough. Workers paradise!

    Woo hoo!

  6. More Common Sense says:

    I wouldn’t hire him. He obviously makes poor decisions. It’s as plain as the nose on his face!

    Okay, seriously, why would any one do that to themselves? How could anyone do that to themselves?

    Libby: “But he can’t. He is (for the sake of argument) intellectually and emotionally incapable of holding a job.”

    Libby, did you read the story. He has been offered 45 jobs and he is still not working! Could it be he doesn’t want to work and was just hoping people would take pity on him and send him money or set up a crowd-funding page? Something doesn’t add up here. Why didn’t he just grow a beard?

    • Libby says:

      MCS, you answer your own questions. I would say that most of the things he has done in his life confirm that he will never be a productive member of our society … that he will always be “poor”. Now, “poor”, here is a big word. It encompasses all manner of insufficiencies: some bred, some inculcated, all resulting in very poor decision-making, and the chances that he will rise up, grow the beard, and go to work are slim.

      But what if he had some universal minimum income? Likely, he would use it to buy beer and die young. But maybe not. There are busses out to Butte College all day.

      And we will have got him “out of the gutter” anyway, as a compassionate, civilized society does.

      • Tina says:

        Oh come on Libby. This idea will destroy business, kill jobs, increase the numbers of restless citizens, create more depression disorders, and throw more people into the streets.

        It’s no accident that the idea is supported (suggested?) by very wealthy high tech lefties who’s lives aren’t impacted one way or another by the homeless, who ship jobs overseas or dump American employees for cheaper labor while they pile up profits in nations with lower corporate rates.

        There’s nothing compassionate about making people dependent. That is the mindset of kings, potentates and dictators and their so-called compassion results in massive poverty.

        • Libby says:

          Really? The only erstwhile “king, potentate and dictator” I’m looking at around here The Donald … and he is entirely YOUR doing.

          This country does not run on “executive orders”; it runs on legislation, enacted through political consensus, but The Donald barely comprehends this, and has no patience with it anyway, as the last few weeks have amply demonstrated.

          “This idea will destroy business, kill jobs, increase the numbers of restless citizens, create more depression disorders, and throw more people into the streets. ”

          Nonsense. It would likely spur the economy as employers and employees would no longer be constrained by this business of paying or earning a living. People mostly WANT to do things. Under this scheme, more people can do what the want, which ought to make a happier, not sadder society. And how can people wind up in the street, if they have rent?

          Anyway, some municipalities in Europe are testing it out … and we’ll see. I think it’s a shame that America, once the very last word in social innovation, is frightened peeless by the idea.

          • Tina says:

            “This country does not run on “executive orders”

            She wrote that with a straight face.

            Maybe she suffers the liberal disease, selective memory?

          • Tina says:

            Nobody is frightened, Libby. The scheme is totally unworkable and stupid.

            Who will provide the revenue when small business disappears, the wealthy hide their money, and nobody wants to work?

            Answer those questions and don’t give me some trite, bumper sticker clap trap, either. Explain how revenue will be forthcoming when we’re all on the dole.

      • Tina says:

        “But what if he had some universal minimum income? Likely, he would use it to buy beer and die young. But maybe not. There are busses out to Butte College all day.”

        Notice how Libby is willing to risk letting them die in the street in a drunken stupor as long as she has won the chance to provided with other peoples money.

        Inconsistent or just phony?

  7. J. Soden says:

    This guy will probably run for Clowngress. He’ll fit right in with all the other do-nothings . . . . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.