What is White Supremacy?

[Porter Rockwell]

An unalienable Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against unalienable Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects privileges and immunities and allows the government to take away any Right you have via due process. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.

Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights". And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights. Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.

Citizenship, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.

Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

Human Rights
Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.

Civil Rights
Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.
​

The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right. I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary

14th Amendment
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; | nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; | nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Your post is absolute bullshit. By the numbers

1) Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?

2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment

3) Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)

4) Civil rights are government created rights

What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw

See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From? They are all man made law, NOT unalienable Rights

5) Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A) A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment citizen. They get certain privileges and immunities

B) Under the 14th Amendment EVERY person (as differentiated from a citizen) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.

So, every person is entitled to government granted Life, Liberty and Property and citizens get additional privileges and immunities

6) Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights. The terminology of Right, Rights, or unalienable Rights does not appear in the 14th Amendment

7) Unalienable Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, absolute, God given, and above the law by the courts. Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.

END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

 

[protectionist]

Of course. You thought SS had something to do with working ? Ha ha

SS isn't welfare, lass. Neither is a VA pension.

Neither is what I do. You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.

I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient. I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits. So is the following accurate?

Veterans Pension
Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans
VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to low-income wartime Veterans.

Eligibility
[snipped]

In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:

• Age 65 or older, OR
• Totally and permanently disabled, OR
• A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, OR
• Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, OR
• Receiving Supplemental Security Income

Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.

Here
Income and Net Worth Limitations

Countable income includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.

Net worth is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​

Sounds like you haven't been around too much. Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city. Been that way as long as I can remember.

In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.

Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.

If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:

Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children
in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)
By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.

Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program

Introduction: Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.

Early Years: The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.

Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.

The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​

I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension. Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.

Hold on there Hoss...as a geezer and as a Vet..I take exception.

First..Social Security Insurance...the last word is the important one..you were not 'paying into' Social Security..you were paying an insurance premium. It is almost a dead certainty that you will take out far more than you put in. People are just living far longer than they did in 1936--and the draws on the SS fund encompass a lot more than was envisioned--probably a race as to which drops dead first..you or Social Security!

How, exactly, did you pay into your VA pension? With your service? That's lame..the reason we call it service..is that we offer it to our country.. In return, in appreciation of that service..our country gifts certain low-income senior Vets with a pension. Unless you are service-connected--then I guess you could claim your disability is 'payment' but it grates..that anyone would see it so. If you are retired after 20+...they did YOU a favor..but I gather that is not the case, for you. Oh well..it takes all kinds~

You don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

And paying into a VA pension by one's service is "lame" ? Lol .YOU are what is lame. In the brain

 

[protectionist]

Sounds like you haven't been around too much. Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city. Been that way as long as I can remember.

In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.

Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.

If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:

Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children
in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)
By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.

Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program

Introduction: Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.

Early Years: The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.

Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.

The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​

I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension. Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.

Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?

VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.

But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~

FALSE! Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.

In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status. And what they have done is to protect your hide. So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"

PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law. Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.

PPS - I am not indigent without my VA pension. Without it, I have enough income to cover my reasonably good home, my utilities, food, et al, and am still qualified by the VA.

 

[protectionist]

An unalienable Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against unalienable Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects privileges and immunities and allows the government to take away any Right you have via due process. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.

Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights". And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights. Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.

Citizenship, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.

Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

Human Rights
Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.

Civil Rights
Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.
​

The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right. I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary

14th Amendment
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; | nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; | nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Your post is absolute bullshit. By the numbers

1) Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?

2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment

3) Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)

4) Civil rights are government created rights

What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw

See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From? They are all man made law, NOT unalienable Rights

5) Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A) A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment citizen. They get certain privileges and immunities

B) Under the 14th Amendment EVERY person (as differentiated from a citizen) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.

So, every person is entitled to government granted Life, Liberty and Property and citizens get additional privileges and immunities

6) Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights. The terminology of Right, Rights, or unalienable Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment

7) Unalienable Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, absolute, God given, and above the law by the courts. Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.

END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen. Children of foreigners are not included.

From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.

At least, this is the law. Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.

BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:

Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children
in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)
By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.

Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program

Introduction: Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.

Early Years: The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.

Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.

The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​

I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension. Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.

Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?

VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.

But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~

FALSE! Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.

In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status. And what they have done is to protect your hide. So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"

PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law. Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.

Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.

I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.

You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.

To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.

 

[protectionist]

I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension. Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.

Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?

VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.

But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~

FALSE! Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.

In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status. And what they have done is to protect your hide. So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"

PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law. Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.

Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.

I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.

You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.

To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.

YOU are the disgrace here. I'm not using anything. I am receiving what I and other vets have EARNED. And for you to mock that, makes you one of the lowest creatures in existence.

I don't care if you are a vet or not, you shouldn't be downgrading the system that rewards vets for their service.

Instead of insulting, you should show your graditude to every veteran, no matter what their financial status may be.

And if you don't like how the VA or US govt operates, you can get your bitchy ass out of the country, and go move somewhere else. Plenty of options. China, Cuba, Mexico, Syria. Bon voyage!

 

[The Purge]

 

[The Purge]

 

[tigerred59]

I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?

VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.

But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~

FALSE! Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.

In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status. And what they have done is to protect your hide. So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"

PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law. Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.

Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.

I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.

You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.

To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.

YOU are the disgrace here. I'm not using anything. I am receiving what I and other vets have EARNED. And for you to mock that, makes you one of the lowest creatures in existence.

I don't care if you are a vet or not, you shouldn't be downgrading the system that rewards vets for their service.

Instead of insulting, you should show your graditude to every veteran, no matter what their financial status may be.

And if you don't like how the VA or US govt operates, you can get your bitchy ass out of the country and go move somewhere else. Plenty of options. China, Cuba, Mexico, Syria. Bon voyage!

Or...I could show you the same attitude you show others--as a vet I'm fully aware that just serving in the military is no indication of intelligence or ethical integrity...you being a case in point. As you say...I earned the right to my opinions.
Downgrading the people who pay your way..using your service to represent a platform of hate and ignorance...makes you a user who is beneath contempt...that you use your service as an excuse to claim some sort of entitlement just adds to the irony.
If I don't like policy...I work to change it. As it happens...I have no issues with the VA pension system..it is a good thing..to provide for the needy and unlucky vets. It's just a shame users like you scheme your way in.

How you could claim any sort of superiority to anyone....is a mystery..to me.

 

[tigerred59]

THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED.

 

[The Purge]

THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED.

Only the felonious BLACK THUGS, that attack whites!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.

Anyone who claims any sort of superiority based on race..is by definition ignorant.

 

[protectionist]

VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.

But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~

FALSE! Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.

In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status. And what they have done is to protect your hide. So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"

PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law. Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.

Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.

I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.

You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.

To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.

YOU are the disgrace here. I'm not using anything. I am receiving what I and other vets have EARNED. And for you to mock that, makes you one of the lowest creatures in existence.

I don't care if you are a vet or not, you shouldn't be downgrading the system that rewards vets for their service.

Instead of insulting, you should show your graditude to every veteran, no matter what their financial status may be.

And if you don't like how the VA or US govt operates, you can get your bitchy ass out of the country and go move somewhere else. Plenty of options. China, Cuba, Mexico, Syria. Bon voyage!

Or...I could show you the same attitude you show others--as a vet I'm fully aware that just serving in the military is no indication of intelligence or ethical integrity...you being a case in point. As you say...I earned the right to my opinions.
Downgrading the people who pay your way..using your service to represent a platform of hate and ignorance...makes you a user who is beneath contempt...that you use your service as an excuse to claim some sort of entitlement just adds to the irony.
If I don't like policy...I work to change it. As it happens...I have no issues with the VA pension system..it is a good thing..to provide for the needy and unlucky vets. It's just a shame users like you scheme your way in.

How you could claim any sort of superiority to anyone....is a mystery..to me.

Without needing to individually address the 8 idiotic things you just said, since you aren't worth that much of my time, I will just say that you make it obvious that a great many things are undoubtedly a mystery to you.

That's one of the setbacks you suffer from being an imbecile.

 

[protectionist]

I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.

Anyone who claims any sort of superiority based on race..is by definition ignorant.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it here, but upon what do you base that statement ?

 

[protectionist]

THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED.

Upon what do you base the statement that white men love shooting unarmed black men ?

Note:. there really is no such thing as "unarmed"

 

[protectionist]

I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.

So what DO you say that Trump did wrong ? - excluding the many airhead Democrat fabrications, resulting from them having lost their minds.

And are you aware of the many things he's done right ?

 

[tigerred59]

I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.

So what DO you say that Trump did wrong ? - excluding the many airhead Democrat fabrications, resulting from them having lost their minds.

And are you aware of the many things he's done right ?

President Obama with an open mic, said to Putin, we'll talk after the election, unquote. The republicans went hog shit crazy on his black ass. Accused him of being a communist, a collaborator with Russia, in addition to all the other racist shit they through at him for 8 yrs, including being called a liar on the house floor....remember that shit with Joe? I don't have the time to go over all the obstructive shit this simplistic white fuck as done, life is just too damned short. What has he done right? Passing criminal reform bill...and since just about everybody he knows is going to prison, it was a smart move on his part.

 

[tigerred59]

THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED.

Upon what do you base the statement that white men love shooting unarmed black men ?

Note:. there really is no such thing as "unarmed"

Oh, so e-cigs, expired tags, sitting on a couch minding your own buisness and so on and so on are considered guns.....gotcha

 

[Harry Dresden]

Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.

Agreed. Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......

My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

lol...sure it doesnt....