A small trip to the grocery...a large aggravation.

Mr. Language says that's not a complete sentence.

del has problems with the American language. His diction is off. I've told him to GTFO of USMB if he can't learn to type American, but apparently he's still here breaking the rules of grammar with impunity.
He speaks Delbonics. Where's your cultural tolerance? Stop being the Man, man.

;)

I blame the American Edumacational System, and Ringel.
 
del has problems with the American language. His diction is off. I've told him to GTFO of USMB if he can't learn to type American, but apparently he's still here breaking the rules of grammar with impunity.
He speaks Delbonics. Where's your cultural tolerance? Stop being the Man, man.

;)

I blame the American Edumacational System, and Ringel.
Ringel...figures. Trouble-maker of the first order.

(Yes, I also speak Delbonics, Mr. Language.)
 
Last edited:
the whole god-dawg thing is skewed, be it AFDC,food stamps etc...

I remember when IF you took ANY gov. assistance you could not have a .....wait for it....................



a Telephone. Thats right. If you took any form of welfare, no telephone, it was considered a luxury.
 
the whole god-dawg thing is skewed, be it AFDC,food stamps etc...

I remember when IF you took ANY gov. assistance you could not have a .....wait for it....................



a Telephone. Thats right. If you took any form of welfare, no telephone, it was considered a luxury.

Indeed, I've even heard some say that welfare recipients should have public assistance to fuel, maintain, and insure their cars!!

What an abomination!

Back in the day, the poor were expected to walk, unshod, through the snow, uphill BOTH WAYS to get groceries.

:cool:
 
So because someone is less fortunate financially and needs the assistance to be able to obtain food, they should have limited freedom in what they eat?

The regulation should go no further than merely making sure it is only FOOD being bought, and nothing more. Why in the fucking world you would care what someone decides to obtain and eat with their food money is beyond me.

You want to instill your own will on them; Decide for them how they should live their life because they happen to not make enough money to afford adequate groceries.

That's some fucking authoritarian bullshit right there.

And why can't you state your case without using the word 'fucking' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?:cool:

I'm sorry about your virgin eyes.

I don't have virgin ears. I use the F word occasionally, usually while I'm alone driving. :lol:

But seriously, using the F word frequently is A)not classy B)not intelligent sounding C)a total waste of a word that is so good if used rarely, but so degrading to the user if used all the time.
 
fucking a right

Mr. Language says that's not a complete sentence.

del has problems with the American language. His diction is off. I've told him to GTFO of USMB if he can't learn to type American, but apparently he's still here breaking the rules of grammar with impunity.
Del has never met a diction that he hasn't destroyed and made whimper. Imagine how far he'd go if he quit drinking soda?
 
As all of us are or do things that bother someone else, none of us should be subsidized by the government.

This is where we differ.

For a person that works three jobs that don't pay much (because they are of limited intelligence for no reason other than that's the way they are born)...but they need assistance with obtaining healthy food or healthcare...I think those people should be helped.

I don't want to help the person that doesn't want to work simply because they don't like the job or they want to sleep in or they want to party...those people can suffer for all I care.

:clap2:
 
I'd certainly prefer for my tax dollars to provide nutritious food to poor folks,

and am horrified that soda pop is an allowed purchase with FOOD stamps.

Healthy food usually equates to more expensive food!!!

For instance take whole wheat pasta vs the regular pasta. Or organic fruit or milk vs non-organic stuff.

The cigarette stuff pisses me off also, however, what are you going to do. Have a piss test for all food stamp receiptants? That would cost a ton more and allow for the Democrats to set up yet another agency. In the end the goal of having less tax dollars go to food stamp programs wouldn't be accomplished it would only increase.

In reality food stamps don't pay as much as they get credit for. My brother-in-law is on it. His lazy ass has not worked in 4 years. His wife finally kicked him out, he shows no income, but is able to list 3 dependant (since somehow the judge gave him joint custody). He was awarded $225 a month. Say what you want, but theortically $225 a month would not come close to providing a luxury eating life style for 1 adult and 3 kids.

What food stamps programs goal should be is to STOP providing benefits to illegal immigrants. See the stat below, its should make even hopeless libs like Madeline mad!

Illegal Immigration Statistics
More than 43% of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens.
 
And why can't you state your case without using the word 'fucking' (twice)? Do you think that helps convince people?:cool:

I'm sorry about your virgin eyes.

I don't have virgin ears. I use the F word occasionally, usually while I'm alone driving. :lol:

But seriously, using the F word frequently is A)not classy B)not intelligent sounding C)a total waste of a word that is so good if used rarely, but so degrading to the user if used all the time.
Fuck. You may have a fucking point.

Shit, yeah.

Or is it 'Hell, no'?

Ah, fuck it.
 
Ok, let's look at it through my logic ;)

Let's take my current financial situation and compare it to that woman's financial situation. Only, I don't take welfare money, my boyfriend takes care of the bulk of the financial burden, while I supplement only the food. I work part-time at a restaurant (because I can't currently find a better job since my Swedish sucks) and I save the rest of my money for 'the rainy day' - for both of us.

So, let's say he makes about 3.5 times more than I do, therefore he pays the rent, utilities and for food when we go out (which is about once a month at this point. Upon agreement, I pay for groceries and cover my own individual expenses (bus card, clothes, etc.)

If I went out and bought myself a pair of Dolce Gabbana shoes that I don't need, do you think he'd have a say about it since it really is 'his' money that I'm spending (even though it's techincally mine, but we pool it and he pays all the bills, etc.)? Do you think he'd be happy about it since we are glad we have enough for food, bills and maybe a little on the side for entertainment/clothes? Shouldn't I just stick to buying stuff we need - or I need.

That's the rationale. The state is the boyfriend and the woman is me. If I started smoking right now, my boyfriend would get royally upset with me because it would be DISRESPECTFUL and INCONSIDERATE of me and he'd request that I stop immediately. Also, if I decided to go out and party like it's 1999, I'm pretty sure he'd have a say about that too. And I get on his ass about spending too much as well as we're expecting a family now, but that's beside the point.

Just a little bit of perspective ...
Yeah, but he gets you to shtup you for it.

In this case we get shtupped.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del

Forum List

Back
Top