Rant.

[dutch508]

Take this shit into the fight club, you bunch of whiny assed pussies.

[Rebel]

Take this shit into the fight club, you bunch of whiny assed pussies.

Go stick a road cone up your ass.

[Lanie]

So get a life insurance policy and snipe his ass. Hell, snatch his ass up in a bear trap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCu85V7VhqA

That just seems really funny.

Right now, I have a song going through my head.

Bartender, I really did it this time.
I broke my parole to have a goodtime.

(snip)

So I took the keys to this freakin thread
Crashed that piece of shit, and then stepped away.

Maybe I'll finish the song.

I don't normally act like this. It's sort of rare for me now a days. I guess I just got shocked.

Okay, I need to step away from this thread for a while because I need to do some stuff. I might be back tonight.

Thanks to particular people for at least letting me earn my beating. I don't want a beating in every thread, but it's a comfort to know that I at least did something to deserve getting popped in the mouth. Okay, later.

I can do better later. I'm hungry. Need to go to church and ask for an exorcist. Need to practice certain studies. Later.

[Rebel]

That's OK, I don't care to f'n hear it.

[Doc]

I don't really care to grant the request of somebody who is so judgmental toward those they know nothing about. The argument that those who favor helping single mothers are just wanting to be sluts with no consequences is a dumb argument.

I didn't see anyone making a "request"..........

I doubt that there is any conservative on this board that is not in favor of helping "single mothers"........however, we are not in favor of having our wealth conficated to do it without our express consent to do so.

We also reserve the right to point out to the "single mother" that her actions have consequences, and it is not our job to bail her out of her poor decisions......if we do so, we do so out of the goodness of our heart, not by government mandate.

One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives (so aptly displayed in this thread) is that conservatives believe that people are responsible for their own actions.........in many cases we are happy to help a person in need, but we strongly object to government-mandated "contributions" to irresponsible people, and particularly to those who continue, time and time again, to act irresponsibly.

Liberals however, long for a world where no one is responsible for their lives, it is always "someone else's fault". This, at its base, is the reason that the divide between liberalism and conservativism will never be bridged..........until modern liberalism is completely defeated, and rendered harmless as a political ideology, and I, for one, am dedicated to that cause.

doc

[Eupher]

Well, the soup kitchen I donate to often says they don't need any extra help. The one time I did stay, I felt like I was in the way. I tend to donate to charity nearly everytime I go through the K-Mart and Wal-Mart lines. I donated a while back for an AIDS fundraiser. I want to donate more, but often am penny pinching.

on edit: I really do want to donate more and do more volunteer work than I've been doing. I'm hoping I can get to that point within a year or less.

Jeezus H. Sufferin' Keeristmas. What kind of bullshit is "I felt like I was in the way"? Nobody said you had to make a ******* souffle!

How about schlepping in a few cases of canned tomatoes and put 'em in the storeroom? How about washing some pots and pans? How about sweeping up the dining room and even commiserating with the "unfortunates"? How about doing something other than cry and whine about how heartless and cruel somebody is on the web because he insists on personal responsibility and keeping the government out of our lives?

[Eupher]

Lanie, I'm am now utterly convinced you are a moonbat's moonbat.   

Congratulations. You've hit rock bottom.

[Eupher]

Take this shit into the fight club, you bunch of whiny assed pussies.

 

I'd bitch-slap you just on principle, but that little feature went away some time ago.

[Chris_]

Lanie, I'm am now utterly convinced you are a moonbat's moonbat.   

Congratulations. You've hit rock bottom.

Actually she has been there going way back to TOS.........she was just trying to head fake us for the past few months, in a manner of speaking.........

Ten pages before midnight...........

doc

[Eupher]

Rebel, I probably wouldn't ask for your help or for Eupher's help for anything. I'd think you two were too judgmental to give it. Honestly. ...snip...

Thank God. You're learning. But I'm afraid it's a lost cause, because you are a moonbat's moonbat. It's hopeless. Are you a life member of DU?

If not, are your dues paid up? Or is that something else that you expect the government to provide you?

 

[thundley4]

It's pretty much tricking somebody into marrying you by pretending to be somebody else.

Women do that to men all the time. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

She didn't shack up; she married him. Again with the assuming and the judgmentalness.
As for why she did it, he had a completely different personality before the marriage. He didn't drink that much. He took my sister out. He showed a lot of personal responsibility at first. Heck, he even traveled to do some work on his grandfather's house. But after they got married, everything changed. He suddenly drank like a fish, got verbally abusive, and couldn't hold down a job. He still can't hold down a job. Most of us could not see that coming. My sister isn't the only woman who has gone through that in marriage. It's pretty much tricking somebody into marrying you by pretending to be somebody else.

Marriage is a legally binding contract that can bring the full power of the government to bear on those that renege on its terms. Marriage is established for the express purpose of ensuring spouses cannot be discarded without consequence (unlike the liberal myth that its so fags can express hormonal preference). Unless some social trend has diluted the enforcement of marriage your sister has all the recourse she needs avoid reliance on governmentally extorted funds.

You complained that no one took on your question about organ donations going to those who pay to be on a recipient list. I retorted round-about, with my remark about your sister owing us hand-jobs because you ignored one of my questions.

I'll be nice and answer yours first...

...you pay to go on to a waiting list because organ transplants are a scarce commodity. They have to go to someone so it has to be decided by some means and that means happens to be based on the ability to pay. The payment to get on the list ensures that ability. If not organs will go to those who cannot pay and when they do not pay resources must be taken from elsewhere to cover the difference. In your zeal to guarantee organ transplants are you have to be willing to make sacrifices elsewhere. Surety of payment--while cold on the surface--guarantees the most good can be done for the most people.

Now to return to my unawswered question...

...if one class can take from another class without permission or the need to give back what is to stop them from becoming outright thieves?

[dutch508]

I'd bitch-slap you just on principle, but that little feature went away some time ago.

We could bring back a vitural bitchslap I suppose.

 

[Eupher]

We could bring back a vitural bitchslap I suppose.

 

I like the chairshot.

[Chris_]

Take this shit into the fight club, you bunch of whiny assed pussies.

Actually there is a "Lanie" thread going in Fight Club..........

doc

[Lanie]

Marriage is a legally binding contract that can bring the full power of the government to bear on those that renege on its terms. Marriage is established for the express purpose of ensuring spouses cannot be discarded without consequence (unlike the liberal myth that its so fags can express hormonal preference). Unless some social trend has diluted the enforcement of marriage your sister has all the recourse she needs avoid reliance on governmentally extorted funds.

You complained that no one took on your question about organ donations going to those who pay to be on a recipient list. I retorted round-about, with my remark about your sister owing us hand-jobs because you ignored one of my questions.

I'll be nice and answer yours first...

...you pay to go on to a waiting list because organ transplants are a scarce commodity. They have to go to someone so it has to be decided by some means and that means happens to be based on the ability to pay. The payment to get on the list ensures that ability. If not organs will go to those who cannot pay and when they do not pay resources must be taken from elsewhere to cover the difference. In your zeal to guarantee organ transplants are you have to be willing to make sacrifices elsewhere. Surety of payment--while cold on the surface--guarantees the most good can be done for the most people.

Now to return to my unawswered question...

...if one class can take from another class without permission or the need to give back what is to stop them from becoming outright thieves?

First, I want to apologize for cussing people out earlier. I still think there's a lot of judgmentalness and hatefulness toward the poor in this thread.

In regards to your question, I view the issue of welfare as it being our tax money. We the people are deciding what our money is going to pay for. We're all paying money for something we don't agree with. I don't agree with the death penalty, but you don't see me calling the Department of Corrections a bunch of thieves for using government money for their stuff. Some people want to use the money to help the poor. What's wrong with people other than conservatives having a say about where our money goes? It's not stealing. If that's stealing, then the Department of Corrections is stealing from those who don't agree with the death penalty.

Welfare is a program that one can only use for five years. Most people who want to condemn the people who are on it ignore that fact. You cannot live on welfare, not for long anyway. Most of the other forms of assistance require people to show their receipts to show that they're spending their money on legitimate items (food, rent, etc) and still don't have enough money for particular things. They have to keep showing this evidence as long as they're on assistance. In order to keep getting unemployment insurance, one has to show where they've been looking for work. Unemployment insurance also runs out, so one can't live off of that for long. So this idea that you can go through life not working and "stealing" from others is wrong.

[Lanie]

Jeezus H. Sufferin' Keeristmas. What kind of bullshit is "I felt like I was in the way"? Nobody said you had to make a ******* souffle!

How about schlepping in a few cases of canned tomatoes and put 'em in the storeroom? How about washing some pots and pans? How about sweeping up the dining room and even commiserating with the "unfortunates"? How about doing something other than cry and whine about how heartless and cruel somebody is on the web because he insists on personal responsibility and keeping the government out of our lives?

I do give food. As for the rest, they really don't want me there. They have a lot of people already doing it. I've volunteered to stay and do something. They send me away. You're just being jugmental. Oh, and I've never made a souffle.  You really are just wanting be judgmental. You're looking for any reason to judge me even though I had already cleared up that I regularly gave food to the shelter.

Trying to hold back from doing what I did earlier.

[Lanie]

Actually there is a "Lanie" thread going in Fight Club..........

doc

And here I had blocked myself out of that. Coming.

[TheSarge]

And nobody even dared answered my concern that you actually have to pay money to get put on a donor's list. This means anybody who doesn't have the money can just die.

Not if you're on Medicaid or Medicare.

[TheSarge]

I don't really care to grant the request of somebody who is so judgmental toward those they know nothing about.

This is the exact same sentiment the vast majority of us have about Bridget.

[Lanie]

This is the exact same sentiment the vast majority of us have about Bridget.

If I start to show less judgmentalness toward people, would you consider calling me Lanie or Melanie? Just wondering.

[Lanie]

Not if you're on Medicaid or Medicare.

Good point, and that's government insurance.

If one has a job, but has to quit because their health situation is just that bad, how long does it take to get on Medicaid?

[BEG]

First, I want to apologize for cussing people out earlier. I still think there's a lot of judgmentalness and hatefulness toward the poor in this thread.

In regards to your question, I view the issue of welfare as it being our tax money. We the people are deciding what our money is going to pay for. We're all paying money for something we don't agree with. I don't agree with the death penalty, but you don't see me calling the Department of Corrections a bunch of thieves for using government money for their stuff. Some people want to use the money to help the poor. What's wrong with people other than conservatives having a say about where our money goes? It's not stealing. If that's stealing, then the Department of Corrections is stealing from those who don't agree with the death penalty.

Welfare is a program that one can only use for five years. Most people who want to condemn the people who are on it ignore that fact. You cannot live on welfare, not for long anyway. Most of the other forms of assistance require people to show their receipts to show that they're spending their money on legitimate items (food, rent, etc) and still don't have enough money for particular things. They have to keep showing this evidence as long as they're on assistance. In order to keep getting unemployment insurance, one has to show where they've been looking for work. Unemployment insurance also runs out, so one can't live off of that for long. So this idea that you can go through life not working and "stealing" from others is wrong.

I haven't read this thread but if you can't live on welfare for "long" then why do we have generational welfare? 

[Lanie]

I haven't read this thread but if you can't live on welfare for "long" then why do we have generational welfare? 

Do you mean when it gets passed down from generation to generation? I personally think it comes from the idea that you can never get out of your poor situation. Poor parents often think that of their kids, and it's backed up by a society who expects it. This is where I think some poor people are wrong. I think it's important to help some poor people get passed the idea that they have to be victims their entire lives by encouraging them to do better. Some would argue that it means taking welfare and other assistance programs away. FWIW, I don't favor assistance programs to live off of (unless one has a disability preventing them from work). I only favor it long enough for one to get on their feet. I do sometimes favor assistance with daycare to ensure the parents can stay on their feet.

But one individual really can't live off of welfare for long. That was ended during the Clinton Administration.

[jtyangel]

First, I want to apologize for cussing people out earlier. I still think there's a lot of judgmentalness and hatefulness toward the poor in this thread.

In regards to your question, I view the issue of welfare as it being our tax money. We the people are deciding what our money is going to pay for. We're all paying money for something we don't agree with. I don't agree with the death penalty, but you don't see me calling the Department of Corrections a bunch of thieves for using government money for their stuff. Some people want to use the money to help the poor. What's wrong with people other than conservatives having a say about where our money goes? It's not stealing. If that's stealing, then the Department of Corrections is stealing from those who don't agree with the death penalty.

Welfare is a program that one can only use for five years. Most people who want to condemn the people who are on it ignore that fact. You cannot live on welfare, not for long anyway. Most of the other forms of assistance require people to show their receipts to show that they're spending their money on legitimate items (food, rent, etc) and still don't have enough money for particular things. They have to keep showing this evidence as long as they're on assistance. In order to keep getting unemployment insurance, one has to show where they've been looking for work. Unemployment insurance also runs out, so one can't live off of that for long. So this idea that you can go through life not working and "stealing" from others is wrong.

You truly are very naive, Lanie. Most of those who would have collected welfare long term now make sure to feign some ailment to collect permanent disability. I've seen it firsthand--perm disability is like the welfare jackpot with some people here in Ohio and there are no limits on it or programs like section 8, food stamps, and other assistance programs. What about the EITC, Lanie? the 5000 or 6000 a year 'bonus' we pay to unwed 'low income' working mothers? No cap on that either. Just don't report you have a boyfriend or the dad living with you and don't marry him and all is good. You glorify the 'poor' yet most of those poor receive so many services and free up their discretionary income for all kinds of material goods. Like I said a good majority of them do it via fraud--you don't think a 5 year limit can hold back a good scam artist do you? Do you really think some of the 'poor' out there really play by the rules? Like I said, you are naive. You truly are. I know people who have lists of even what charities to hit up for things like food and formule evne though they get WIC and food stamps--they do it to make extra income selling the excess or to pay for drugs. Really, I wonder how many 'poor' people you know very well to not have a clue as to how some of this works.

So excuse me if I am 'judgemental' with regards to 'poor' people, but I don't really care for scam artists and fraud peddlers bilking hardworking people of their money by playing on their compassion.