‘Million Women March’ To Storm D.C. For Trump Inauguration

[Maryland Patriot]

Why don't they just call it "Welfare Queens Against Democracy"?

The sort of reply that shows that more needs to be done to stop future generations thinking like you do.

I'm not advocating any of this but...getting rid of welfare, would go a long way toward that, so would not anointing a Queen, of course if ya choose to go the other way on this then you may have to dispense with the democracy part instead.

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Intelligent welfare? Talk about an oxymoron.

I think there is such a thing, maybe not by name, but if I understand him correctly I would agree.
lets say someone is in a position that maybe the lost a job they had and are not qualified to do anything else, or they for whatever reason ended up having to work and care for a family before they had skills or education, maybe its a woman that had a kid or two and then the scumbag sperm donor decided to run off or was killed etc.. There are times when even I have to say that its the right thing to do to help these people. So in these instances, I feel (and its only my opinion Im not trying to speak for anyone else) but, in these instances and other situations that might be similar, I think it is our responsibility to see that these people are given a hand to ensure they dont starve or "die in the streets" I would be all for them getting a place to live, some spending money, medical attention if needed from the taxpayer. Its the right thing to do. However, while getting that assistance, I think they need to step up and contribute, Im not talking about going down and flipping a burger or working the register at the local dollar store, What I would want to see is them back in school, they can go to college and get an education to open the doors for them, or maybe a trade school where they can learn a trade that will allow them to take care of themselves. But they have to show that they are working towards a goal to be self sufficient. Those that want to just kick back and collect that check once a month? sorry, the free ride is over. No attempt to better yourself? no check.
That would be a good investment of taxpayer dollar. But that is not what is happening right now.
Be reasonable give 6 years maximum for them to recieve the assistance, this gives them time to secure a degree even if they cant attend the college on a full time basis.
what we get out of it? the taxpayers ends up with a new member of the taxpayers club, We have someone raising their children and teaching them respect for themselves and others. but mostly, we get someone contributing to society instead of being a life long drain.
There are ways to fix the welfare problem.
What we can not do is continue to give free housing, food, cell phones, transportation, medical care, etc... to someone that has no desire to ever carry their own weight and contribute along with the rest of us.
If welfare was used like that, I would not have a single word to say against it.
Medical insurance is a different story, that is something that should not be free to anyone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why don't they just call it "Welfare Queens Against Democracy"?

The sort of reply that shows that more needs to be done to stop future generations thinking like you do.

I'm not advocating any of this but...getting rid of welfare, would go a long way toward that, so would not anointing a Queen, of course if ya choose to go the other way on this then you may have to dispense with the democracy part instead.

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Intelligent welfare? Talk about an oxymoron.

I think there is such a thing, maybe not by name, but if I understand him correctly I would agree.
lets say someone is in a position that maybe the lost a job they had and are not qualified to do anything else, or they for whatever reason ended up having to work and care for a family before they had skills or education, maybe its a woman that had a kid or two and then the scumbag sperm donor decided to run off or was killed etc.. There are times when even I have to say that its the right thing to do to help these people. So in these instances, I feel (and its only my opinion Im not trying to speak for anyone else) but, in these instances and other situations that might be similar, I think it is our responsibility to see that these people are given a hand to ensure they dont starve or "die in the streets" I would be all for them getting a place to live, some spending money, medical attention if needed from the taxpayer. Its the right thing to do. However, while getting that assistance, I think they need to step up and contribute, Im not talking about going down and flipping a burger or working the register at the local dollar store, What I would want to see is them back in school, they can go to college and get an education to open the doors for them, or maybe a trade school where they can learn a trade that will allow them to take care of themselves. But they have to show that they are working towards a goal to be self sufficient. Those that want to just kick back and collect that check once a month? sorry, the free ride is over. No attempt to better yourself? no check.
That would be a good investment of taxpayer dollar. But that is not what is happening right now.
Be reasonable give 6 years maximum for them to recieve the assistance, this gives them time to secure a degree even if they cant attend the college on a full time basis.
what we get out of it? the taxpayers ends up with a new member of the taxpayers club, We have someone raising their children and teaching them respect for themselves and others. but mostly, we get someone contributing to society instead of being a life long drain.
There are ways to fix the welfare problem.
What we can not do is continue to give free housing, food, cell phones, transportation, medical care, etc... to someone that has no desire to ever carry their own weight and contribute along with the rest of us.
If welfare was used like that, I would not have a single word to say against it.
Medical insurance is a different story, that is something that should not be free to anyone.

You're leaving one big factor out of your idea, and that is most of those people are not qualified for college or able to complete it even if they got in.

I tell this story from time to time. Back in the housing bubble days when it was impossible for us landlords to find decent tenants, I would get applicants that would reply to my CraigsList ad with such deplorable writing skills the emails looked like they were written by six year olds. With no choice, I had to interview some of them only to find out that they were indeed high school graduates.

Most of the emails I deleted because I figured if these people write this way, HTF do they find a job?

You're not going to make college material out of such people no matter how hard you try.

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve, but our generosity grows thin when we see how some of these people live and conduct themselves while on the dole. That's because for Democrats, social programs are a political tool and people will take advantage of them if the offer is out there.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve,

*quickly raises hand*
I honestly would have no problem stepping over the whithering bodies of able bodied people that don't want to work or are unwilling to make the life choices that make them employable.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The sort of reply that shows that more needs to be done to stop future generations thinking like you do.

I'm not advocating any of this but...getting rid of welfare, would go a long way toward that, so would not anointing a Queen, of course if ya choose to go the other way on this then you may have to dispense with the democracy part instead.

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Intelligent welfare? Talk about an oxymoron.

I think there is such a thing, maybe not by name, but if I understand him correctly I would agree.
lets say someone is in a position that maybe the lost a job they had and are not qualified to do anything else, or they for whatever reason ended up having to work and care for a family before they had skills or education, maybe its a woman that had a kid or two and then the scumbag sperm donor decided to run off or was killed etc.. There are times when even I have to say that its the right thing to do to help these people. So in these instances, I feel (and its only my opinion Im not trying to speak for anyone else) but, in these instances and other situations that might be similar, I think it is our responsibility to see that these people are given a hand to ensure they dont starve or "die in the streets" I would be all for them getting a place to live, some spending money, medical attention if needed from the taxpayer. Its the right thing to do. However, while getting that assistance, I think they need to step up and contribute, Im not talking about going down and flipping a burger or working the register at the local dollar store, What I would want to see is them back in school, they can go to college and get an education to open the doors for them, or maybe a trade school where they can learn a trade that will allow them to take care of themselves. But they have to show that they are working towards a goal to be self sufficient. Those that want to just kick back and collect that check once a month? sorry, the free ride is over. No attempt to better yourself? no check.
That would be a good investment of taxpayer dollar. But that is not what is happening right now.
Be reasonable give 6 years maximum for them to recieve the assistance, this gives them time to secure a degree even if they cant attend the college on a full time basis.
what we get out of it? the taxpayers ends up with a new member of the taxpayers club, We have someone raising their children and teaching them respect for themselves and others. but mostly, we get someone contributing to society instead of being a life long drain.
There are ways to fix the welfare problem.
What we can not do is continue to give free housing, food, cell phones, transportation, medical care, etc... to someone that has no desire to ever carry their own weight and contribute along with the rest of us.
If welfare was used like that, I would not have a single word to say against it.
Medical insurance is a different story, that is something that should not be free to anyone.

You're leaving one big factor out of your idea, and that is most of those people are not qualified for college or able to complete it even if they got in.

I tell this story from time to time. Back in the housing bubble days when it was impossible for us landlords to find decent tenants, I would get applicants that would reply to my CraigsList ad with such deplorable writing skills the emails looked like they were written by six year olds. With no choice, I had to interview some of them only to find out that they were indeed high school graduates.

Most of the emails I deleted because I figured if these people write this way, HTF do they find a job?

You're not going to make college material out of such people no matter how hard you try.

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve, but our generosity grows thin when we see how some of these people live and conduct themselves while on the dole. That's because for Democrats, social programs are a political tool and people will take advantage of them if the offer is out there.

thats why I added trade school to it. they always need someone to ride the back of the garbage truck, to run a polisher over the mall floors at night, to change oil at a Jiffy Lube, deliver mail, there are a whole bunch of jobs for the brain dead out there. but for even the worst of the worst, unless they are actually retarded, a GED and an associates degree is not out of reach given 6 years. The problems I see are with say, those fat ass white women that for some reason have to talk like they are black, nobody is going to hire them to any position that deals directly with a customer, or involves picking up a telephone so they pretty much have "cooled" their way out of employment, they might end up being the ones that get real hungery after their 6 years has been used for the handouts.

 

[Conservative65]

Why don't they just call it "Welfare Queens Against Democracy"?

Why, are they on welfare?

Based on the picture you posted in your OP on Million WOMAN March, not all of them are women.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why don't they just call it "Welfare Queens Against Democracy"?

Why, are they on welfare?

Based on the picture you posted in your OP on Million WOMAN March, not all of them are women.

some of them that are from the farming areas are evidently bringing their pet cows along too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve,

*quickly raises hand*
I honestly would have no problem stepping over the whithering bodies of able body people that don't want to work or are unwilling to make the life choices that make them employable.

I should have wrote that better. What I meant to say are those truly in need that have no choice.

My cousin went on welfare back in the days where it didn't pay much. She had her life planned out. She married a guy with a great job working at the nuclear power plant as a manager, she was going to be your typical stay at home wife, she had a couple of kids, and life could't be better.

Then her husband found drugs. Money became scarce because that's what he spent it on, he eventually lost his job, and in spite of trying to help him, was forced to file for divorce.

There she was with two children and no income, so she applied for every program imaginable. While taking care of the kids, she became an expert on buying food and household items for almost free, and sometimes free by the smart use of coupons. When the kids entered school, so did she.

She graduated college, got a job, and got off of welfare. The money that we taxpayers spent to help her out was paid back tenfold by her getting a job and contributing into that tax system that helped her out.

That's a situation very few if any would be upset about.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve,

*quickly raises hand*
I honestly would have no problem stepping over the whithering bodies of able bodied people that don't want to work or are unwilling to make the life choices that make them employable.

Same here. As I've said for years, I don't have a problem voluntarily helping someone that is in a bad place not of their own doing or who truly can't help themselves. In addition, I don't have a problem doing what you said to those that won't do for themselves but can or who continue to do the same things that caused their situation while demanding others pay the price for those choices.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve,

*quickly raises hand*
I honestly would have no problem stepping over the whithering bodies of able body people that don't want to work or are unwilling to make the life choices that make them employable.

I should have wrote that better. What I meant to say are those truly in need that have no choice.

My cousin went on welfare back in the days where it didn't pay much. She had her life planned out. She married a guy with a great job working at the nuclear power plant as a manager, she was going to be your typical stay at home wife, she had a couple of kids, and life could't be better.

Then her husband found drugs. Money became scarce because that's what he spent it on, he eventually lost his job, and in spite of trying to help him, was forced to file for divorce.

There she was with two children and no income, so she applied for every program imaginable. While taking care of the kids, she became an expert on buying food and household items for almost free, and sometimes free by the smart use of coupons. When the kids entered school, so did she.

She graduated college, got a job, and got off of welfare. The money that we taxpayers spent to help her out was paid back tenfold by her getting a job and contributing into that tax system that helped her out.

That's a situation very few if any would be upset about.

There's a big difference between those in a situation willing to help themselves and those that demand others pay for their situation and choices. I'll help the former but the latter can do without.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve,

*quickly raises hand*
I honestly would have no problem stepping over the whithering bodies of able body people that don't want to work or are unwilling to make the life choices that make them employable.

I should have wrote that better. What I meant to say are those truly in need that have no choice.

My cousin went on welfare back in the days where it didn't pay much. She had her life planned out. She married a guy with a great job working at the nuclear power plant as a manager, she was going to be your typical stay at home wife, she had a couple of kids, and life could't be better.

Then her husband found drugs. Money became scarce because that's what he spent it on, he eventually lost his job, and in spite of trying to help him, was forced to file for divorce.

There she was with two children and no income, so she applied for every program imaginable. While taking care of the kids, she became an expert on buying food and household items for almost free, and sometimes free by the smart use of coupons. When the kids entered school, so did she.

She graduated college, got a job, and got off of welfare. The money that we taxpayers spent to help her out was paid back tenfold by her getting a job and contributing into that tax system that helped her out.

That's a situation very few if any would be upset about.

and that is the situation that I describe as being what welfare should resemble.
not the 18 year that runs down on her 18th birthday, 3 kids in tow, applying for her welfare so she can raise her kids just like her mom raised her.

 

[Valerie]

 

[Iceweasel]

not the 18 year that runs down on her 18th birthday, 3 kids in tow, applying for her welfare so she can raise her kids just like her mom raised her.

Yep, and making babies has become a business. They get a lot of state assistance per child. Somehow they manage to find "donors" to keep cranking them out. A helping hand shouldn't become a way of life.

 

[Iceweasel]

You've lost your mind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not advocating any of this but...getting rid of welfare, would go a long way toward that, so would not anointing a Queen, of course if ya choose to go the other way on this then you may have to dispense with the democracy part instead.

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Intelligent welfare? Talk about an oxymoron.

I think there is such a thing, maybe not by name, but if I understand him correctly I would agree.
lets say someone is in a position that maybe the lost a job they had and are not qualified to do anything else, or they for whatever reason ended up having to work and care for a family before they had skills or education, maybe its a woman that had a kid or two and then the scumbag sperm donor decided to run off or was killed etc.. There are times when even I have to say that its the right thing to do to help these people. So in these instances, I feel (and its only my opinion Im not trying to speak for anyone else) but, in these instances and other situations that might be similar, I think it is our responsibility to see that these people are given a hand to ensure they dont starve or "die in the streets" I would be all for them getting a place to live, some spending money, medical attention if needed from the taxpayer. Its the right thing to do. However, while getting that assistance, I think they need to step up and contribute, Im not talking about going down and flipping a burger or working the register at the local dollar store, What I would want to see is them back in school, they can go to college and get an education to open the doors for them, or maybe a trade school where they can learn a trade that will allow them to take care of themselves. But they have to show that they are working towards a goal to be self sufficient. Those that want to just kick back and collect that check once a month? sorry, the free ride is over. No attempt to better yourself? no check.
That would be a good investment of taxpayer dollar. But that is not what is happening right now.
Be reasonable give 6 years maximum for them to recieve the assistance, this gives them time to secure a degree even if they cant attend the college on a full time basis.
what we get out of it? the taxpayers ends up with a new member of the taxpayers club, We have someone raising their children and teaching them respect for themselves and others. but mostly, we get someone contributing to society instead of being a life long drain.
There are ways to fix the welfare problem.
What we can not do is continue to give free housing, food, cell phones, transportation, medical care, etc... to someone that has no desire to ever carry their own weight and contribute along with the rest of us.
If welfare was used like that, I would not have a single word to say against it.
Medical insurance is a different story, that is something that should not be free to anyone.

You're leaving one big factor out of your idea, and that is most of those people are not qualified for college or able to complete it even if they got in.

I tell this story from time to time. Back in the housing bubble days when it was impossible for us landlords to find decent tenants, I would get applicants that would reply to my CraigsList ad with such deplorable writing skills the emails looked like they were written by six year olds. With no choice, I had to interview some of them only to find out that they were indeed high school graduates.

Most of the emails I deleted because I figured if these people write this way, HTF do they find a job?

You're not going to make college material out of such people no matter how hard you try.

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve, but our generosity grows thin when we see how some of these people live and conduct themselves while on the dole. That's because for Democrats, social programs are a political tool and people will take advantage of them if the offer is out there.

thats why I added trade school to it. they always need someone to ride the back of the garbage truck, to run a polisher over the mall floors at night, to change oil at a Jiffy Lube, deliver mail, there are a whole bunch of jobs for the brain dead out there. but for even the worst of the worst, unless they are actually retarded, a GED and an associates degree is not out of reach given 6 years. The problems I see are with say, those fat ass white women that for some reason have to talk like they are black, nobody is going to hire them to any position that deals directly with a customer, or involves picking up a telephone so they pretty much have "cooled" their way out of employment, they might end up being the ones that get real hungery after their 6 years has been used for the handouts.

The problem with that is some of those people will run out those six years and then look for government to do something else for them. They've become accustomed to government always being there no matter what they do.

Yes, the Democrats are able to win elections by being Santa Clause, but by putting able bodied people on the dole to buy votes, it makes everybody on the dole look bad when we witness their activities.

For me, the most disheartening recurring event is at my grocery store when I get behind some of these food stamp people. They buy whatever they can using food stamps, and then whip out that wad of cash to pay for their alcohol, cigarettes, huge bags of dog food and cat litter, greeting cards, perfume and so on.

This is not to say it happens all the time, but enough times for me to wish an end to the program.

Or take housing for instance. Why is HUD renting and buying homes in the suburb where it's more expensive and taxes are higher than the city? I have them next door to me because the landlord was asking too much for his apartments and couldn't find anybody, so he went to HUD for tenants.

One tenant has two kids that I can see and the other has four. Their SUV's are in the driveway most of the week during working hours. If I have to use the bathroom in the middle of the night, I can see the lights on in their apartment. During the holidays, one of them took off for the week, she left her bedroom window wide open, and I don't have to tell you what kind of weather we have here up north this time of year. Why would she care? She's likely not paying for her utilities either. The bed cover she draped over the window was flapping in and out when the wind kicked up.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Oh looky, someone that thinks anyone is really interested in their Uterus.
Im betting over half those "women" dont even have a uterus.
But bottom line, if you dont want people like me to tell you what to do with your body parts, then dont ask people like me to contribute tax dollars for you to take care of those body parts.

 

[Valerie]

it's about policy, stupid.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Intelligent welfare? Talk about an oxymoron.

I think there is such a thing, maybe not by name, but if I understand him correctly I would agree.
lets say someone is in a position that maybe the lost a job they had and are not qualified to do anything else, or they for whatever reason ended up having to work and care for a family before they had skills or education, maybe its a woman that had a kid or two and then the scumbag sperm donor decided to run off or was killed etc.. There are times when even I have to say that its the right thing to do to help these people. So in these instances, I feel (and its only my opinion Im not trying to speak for anyone else) but, in these instances and other situations that might be similar, I think it is our responsibility to see that these people are given a hand to ensure they dont starve or "die in the streets" I would be all for them getting a place to live, some spending money, medical attention if needed from the taxpayer. Its the right thing to do. However, while getting that assistance, I think they need to step up and contribute, Im not talking about going down and flipping a burger or working the register at the local dollar store, What I would want to see is them back in school, they can go to college and get an education to open the doors for them, or maybe a trade school where they can learn a trade that will allow them to take care of themselves. But they have to show that they are working towards a goal to be self sufficient. Those that want to just kick back and collect that check once a month? sorry, the free ride is over. No attempt to better yourself? no check.
That would be a good investment of taxpayer dollar. But that is not what is happening right now.
Be reasonable give 6 years maximum for them to recieve the assistance, this gives them time to secure a degree even if they cant attend the college on a full time basis.
what we get out of it? the taxpayers ends up with a new member of the taxpayers club, We have someone raising their children and teaching them respect for themselves and others. but mostly, we get someone contributing to society instead of being a life long drain.
There are ways to fix the welfare problem.
What we can not do is continue to give free housing, food, cell phones, transportation, medical care, etc... to someone that has no desire to ever carry their own weight and contribute along with the rest of us.
If welfare was used like that, I would not have a single word to say against it.
Medical insurance is a different story, that is something that should not be free to anyone.

You're leaving one big factor out of your idea, and that is most of those people are not qualified for college or able to complete it even if they got in.

I tell this story from time to time. Back in the housing bubble days when it was impossible for us landlords to find decent tenants, I would get applicants that would reply to my CraigsList ad with such deplorable writing skills the emails looked like they were written by six year olds. With no choice, I had to interview some of them only to find out that they were indeed high school graduates.

Most of the emails I deleted because I figured if these people write this way, HTF do they find a job?

You're not going to make college material out of such people no matter how hard you try.

I don't think you'll find many people that want to throw these individuals in the street and let them starve, but our generosity grows thin when we see how some of these people live and conduct themselves while on the dole. That's because for Democrats, social programs are a political tool and people will take advantage of them if the offer is out there.

thats why I added trade school to it. they always need someone to ride the back of the garbage truck, to run a polisher over the mall floors at night, to change oil at a Jiffy Lube, deliver mail, there are a whole bunch of jobs for the brain dead out there. but for even the worst of the worst, unless they are actually retarded, a GED and an associates degree is not out of reach given 6 years. The problems I see are with say, those fat ass white women that for some reason have to talk like they are black, nobody is going to hire them to any position that deals directly with a customer, or involves picking up a telephone so they pretty much have "cooled" their way out of employment, they might end up being the ones that get real hungery after their 6 years has been used for the handouts.

The problem with that is some of those people will run out those six years and then look for government to do something else for them. They've become accustomed to government always being there no matter what they do.

Yes, the Democrats are able to win elections by being Santa Clause, but by putting able bodied people on the dole to buy votes, it makes everybody on the dole look bad when we witness their activities.

For me, the most disheartening recurring event is at my grocery store when I get behind some of these food stamp people. They buy whatever they can using food stamps, and then whip out that wad of cash to pay for their alcohol, cigarettes, huge bags of dog food and cat litter, greeting cards, perfume and so on.

This is not to say it happens all the time, but enough times for me to wish an end to the program.

Or take housing for instance. Why is HUD renting and buying homes in the suburb where it's more expensive and taxes are higher than the city? I have them next door to me because the landlord was asking too much for his apartments and couldn't find anybody, so he went to HUD for tenants.

One tenant has two kids that I can see and the other has four. Their SUV's are in the driveway most of the week during working hours. If I have to use the bathroom in the middle of the night, I can see the lights on in their apartment. During the holidays, one of them took off for the week, she left her bedroom window wide open, and I don't have to tell you what kind of weather we have here up north this time of year. Why would she care? She's likely not paying for her utilities either. The bed cover she draped over the window was flapping in and out when the wind kicked up.

It needs to be made clear that at the end of 6 years, its over, done, the ride ends and you dont get any more tickets to get back on.
Hunger sucks, the reason people think like they do know is because the safety net has become too large.
And the government needs to adhere to the rules. Maybe the churches,, oh wait, thats right, the left hates churches, they would never think to accept food from a Christian charity to feed their kids.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

it's about policy, stupid.

what does it have to do with this conversation?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why don't they just call it "Welfare Queens Against Democracy"?

The sort of reply that shows that more needs to be done to stop future generations thinking like you do.

I'm not advocating any of this but...getting rid of welfare, would go a long way toward that, so would not anointing a Queen, of course if ya choose to go the other way on this then you may have to dispense with the democracy part instead.

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Intelligent welfare? Talk about an oxymoron.

I'm sure if you look at it simplistically it might be. But then simple isn't real.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, not getting rid of welfare, making welfare more intelligent.

Is that what it would be called? intelligent welfare?...what's next? anointing an intelligent queen?

Yeah, sure, make jokes because you don't understand it.