Give a man a fish

[zeke]

You fuking rethugs on this board are pitiful.

You think (if I use that term lightly) that welfare recipients are the reason we are in the mess we are in.

Not the bankers, the ultra rich or the politicians.

Just the welfare recipients.

I would guess that most of the rethugs on this board are basically white trash. And you have to look down on someone. Makes you feel better about your own miserable existance eh?

Pick on those welfare recipients. The most important voting block in America. According to the rethugs.

 

[bripat9643]

Then go to work for yourself, mortgage your house, take out a second mortgage, borrow another $300,000 and put up all of your life savings of another half million and work for yourself.
Or continue to be have no confidence in your ability to succeed working for your self while acting like a 5 year old jealous and envious of those that are willing to risk their entire life savings to give ungrateful selfish fucks like you a job.

I do them a favor by working for them, not the other way around.

We could eliminate capitalists and investors and be just fine. Just run everything by democratic vote.

ROFL! You must be joking. That means putting morons like you in charge of decisions like whether to build a super tanker and how to power it.

So what you guys fear isn't "socialism", it's "democracy"...

What makes you believe we shouldn't be afraid of democracy? The thought of numskulls like you making decisions that affect all of society terrifies me.

Sorry, man, I'm done with the plutocrats and their lies. I'm happy to vote to fuck them over.

So you want to "fuck them," but you're doing them a favor by working for them and making them rich? You'll have to excuse us if we take everything you say with a grain of salt.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You heard me, simple concept. I mean you wrapped up your entire argument with a cute little reference to people popping out babies that they can't afford. Nice and simple. Right simpleton?

Can people on public assistance afford the babies they have?

Hint: No.

So the solution to that problem is to deprive those children of any public assistance, make them suffer, for what purpose?

Ooooohhh, we have to do it for the chilllllll-dren...

You know what? I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit argument I could puke! There are MILLIONS of welfare recipients that pop out babies once a year, simply to get more money from the government. Unless we find a way to stop this kind of abuse of the system, those 30 million recipients will soon be 60 million. What the fuck are we going to do then?

 

[RDD_1210]

Can people on public assistance afford the babies they have?

Hint: No.

So the solution to that problem is to deprive those children of any public assistance, make them suffer, for what purpose?

Ooooohhh, we have to do it for the chilllllll-dren...

You know what? I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit argument I could puke! There are MILLIONS of welfare recipients that pop out babies once a year, simply to get more money from the government. Unless we find a way to stop this kind of abuse of the system, those 30 million recipients will soon be 60 million. What the fuck are we going to do then?

Another simple idea from a simpleton.

 

[daveman]

Do all people on public assistance have babies?

Hint: No.

Does that refute my statement?

Hint: No.

Did you miss the entire point?

Yes

Yeah, not really. Meanwhile, you never answered the question: Can people on public assistance afford to have more babies?

 

[daveman]

You heard me, simple concept. I mean you wrapped up your entire argument with a cute little reference to people popping out babies that they can't afford. Nice and simple. Right simpleton?

Can people on public assistance afford the babies they have?

Hint: No.

So the solution to that problem is to deprive those children of any public assistance, make them suffer, for what purpose?

I worded that badly. By "the babies they have", I meant the children conceived and born while the parent(s) are on public assistance.

I'm sure you desperately want to believe that conservatives want to take children from their families for the crime of being poor, but that's just a leftist fantasy.

 

[daveman]

So the solution to that problem is to deprive those children of any public assistance, make them suffer, for what purpose?

Ooooohhh, we have to do it for the chilllllll-dren...

You know what? I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit argument I could puke! There are MILLIONS of welfare recipients that pop out babies once a year, simply to get more money from the government. Unless we find a way to stop this kind of abuse of the system, those 30 million recipients will soon be 60 million. What the fuck are we going to do then?

Another simple idea from a simpleton.

Do you deny we're working on our fourth generation of professional welfare recipients?

 

[RDD_1210]

Does that refute my statement?

Hint: No.

Did you miss the entire point?

Yes

Yeah, not really. Meanwhile, you never answered the question: Can people on public assistance afford to have more babies?

The point which you are obviously missing is that not all people on public assistance have babies which is the broad generalization I was pointing out. What you're asking proves nothing to the point and is irrelevant.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ooooohhh, we have to do it for the chilllllll-dren...

You know what? I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit argument I could puke! There are MILLIONS of welfare recipients that pop out babies once a year, simply to get more money from the government. Unless we find a way to stop this kind of abuse of the system, those 30 million recipients will soon be 60 million. What the fuck are we going to do then?

Another simple idea from a simpleton.

Do you deny we're working on our fourth generation of professional welfare recipients?

Do you deny that you were home schooled and still failed out?

 

[daveman]

Did you miss the entire point?

Yes

Yeah, not really. Meanwhile, you never answered the question: Can people on public assistance afford to have more babies?

The point which you are obviously missing is that not all people on public assistance have babies which is the broad generalization I was pointing out. What you're asking proves nothing to the point and is irrelevant.

Man, you guys hate it when people don't jump to your orders, don't you?

You can pretend my question is irrelevant, but you seem to be afraid to answer it. Why is that?

 

[daveman]

Another simple idea from a simpleton.

Do you deny we're working on our fourth generation of professional welfare recipients?

Do you deny that you were home schooled and still failed out?

Oooh, such hatred for those who don't allow their children to be exposed to liberal indoctrination.

I went to public school -- but I got over it.

Meanwhile, you simply cannot admit that the war on poverty has failed -- except its goal was not to eliminate poverty. It was to continue it and make even more people dependent on government and voting for those who give them free stuff.

 

[Truthmatters]

people who hate public schools do it for only one reason.


they dont want everyone educated

 

[daveman]

people who hate public schools do it for only one reason.


they dont want everyone educated

You make yourself look silly with such pronouncements, you know.

 

[regent]

So anyway this guy taught me to fish so I went to the lake to get something to eat. A game warden asked for my license and I had none, but he said it was OK because some rich guy had been out in his fifty foot boat with nets and had hauled out,not just every fish, but every living thing in the lake. When I asked it that was legal he said the boat owner had contributed to the local politicians and the politicians then passed a law saying it was OK for owners of fifty foot boats to take all the fish.

 

[GuyPinestra]

people who hate public schools do it for only one reason.


they dont want everyone educated

People who love our public schools do it for only one reason.


They want everyone indoctrinated.

Don't believe me?? Educate yourself...

Shocking Origins of Public Education - Gatto

Between 1967 and 1974 teacher training in the US was covertly revamped through the coordinated efforts of a small number of private foundations, certain universities, global corporations and several other interests working through the U.S. Department of Education and through key state education departments, one of which is the state of Vermont.

Three critical documents in this transformation are Benjamin Bloom's multi-volume TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES. That was the first. The second was a many-state project begun in 1967 called DESIGNING EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE, and it was set forth in an enormous manual of nearly 1000 pages and finally the BEHAVIORAL TEACHER EDUCATIONAL PROJECT which came in a manual of over 1000 pages. These were inserted into every state education department in the country and moneys were inserted there to pay faculty salaries a certain range of bribes for the school districts that would pioneer the use of these things.

Let me start with the DESIGNING EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE papers. They were the collusion with the federal education department and the presumably independent state agencies. They redefined education after the 19th century Germanic fashion as (quoting now from the document) "as a means to achieve important economic and social goals for the national character" -- and I would hasten to add that none of those goals included the maximum development of your son or daughter. State agencies would henceforth "act as Federal enforcers insuring compliance of local schools with Federal directives". The document proclaimed that ( I'm quoting again), "each state education department must be an agent of change", proclaimed further "change must be institutionalized". I doubt if an account of this appeared in any newspaper in the state of Vermont or for that matter any newspaper in the country (U.S.). Education departments were (I am quoting a third time) "to lose their identity as well as their authority in order to form a partnership with the Federal Government".

Lots more at the link...

 

[RDD_1210]

Yeah, not really. Meanwhile, you never answered the question: Can people on public assistance afford to have more babies?

The point which you are obviously missing is that not all people on public assistance have babies which is the broad generalization I was pointing out. What you're asking proves nothing to the point and is irrelevant.

Man, you guys hate it when people don't jump to your orders, don't you?

You can pretend my question is irrelevant, but you seem to be afraid to answer it. Why is that?

Because it's irrelevant, thats why. I'd be happy to answer it if it had something to do with what I said.

Why don't you answer the fact that you have may or may not have looked at kiddie porn before? Because it's not relevant.

 

[HomeInspect]

people who hate public schools do it for only one reason.


they dont want everyone educated

You make yourself look silly with such pronouncements, you know.

I see the pattern. Similar to the mindless on some other boards. They like to tell you what YOU think, make false assumptions, and put words in your mouth.

 

[daveman]

The point which you are obviously missing is that not all people on public assistance have babies which is the broad generalization I was pointing out. What you're asking proves nothing to the point and is irrelevant.

Man, you guys hate it when people don't jump to your orders, don't you?

You can pretend my question is irrelevant, but you seem to be afraid to answer it. Why is that?

Because it's irrelevant, thats why. I'd be happy to answer it if it had something to do with what I said.

News flash, Skippy: The world doesn't revolve around you. Now you might want to consider toning down the unmerited arrogance a notch or two.

DiamondDave mentioned teaching his kids to be self-sufficient and that those on public assistance are having children they couldn't afford. You decided that was a simple concept -- probably because you can't understand it yourself -- and made your grand pronouncement.

I asked you a question based on his statement. You decided it was irrelevant, which is absolutely ludicrous.

You don't want to answer the question? Fine. But don't sit there and expect others to dance to your tune, kid. You suffer a serious horsepower deficit to be able to pull that off.

Why don't you answer the fact that you have may or may not have looked at kiddie porn before? Because it's not relevant.

Typical leftist piece of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

people who hate public schools do it for only one reason.


they dont want everyone educated

No, actually, they hate government schools because they want everyone to be educated, not brainwashed and kept ignorant.

 

[HomeInspect]

So anyway this guy taught me to fish so I went to the lake to get something to eat. A game warden asked for my license and I had none, but he said it was OK because some rich guy had been out in his fifty foot boat with nets and had hauled out,not just every fish, but every living thing in the lake. When I asked it that was legal he said the boat owner had contributed to the local politicians and the politicians then passed a law saying it was OK for owners of fifty foot boats to take all the fish.

The rich guy wouldn't be fishing to eat, so the story makes no sense. The more likely story is, the poor guy gets taught to fish, but when he tries to do so, the Game Warden fines him for no license, and he's told he can't fish again until he pays for a permit required by the tax and spend lefty politicians in the county.