I find that pointless. My eyes are full of soap ;-)
That's due to the fact that you are a carbon retard.
yeah, I don't understand that. I see it too.Les Cargill wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...
Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it.
They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.
I have had a LOT of crap from people lately, about my health& being
on disability.
Clearly!
No, I haven't. No apology necessary.
Exactly.
People pretty much seem to drift through public spaces in a fog.
Grrr! Makes me thing a long, duster-style coat and a 12 gauge is in
And you are a carbon failure. Nature screwed up with you.
But smarter than you.
Speaking of dead, you are brain-dead, AlwaysWrong. It is apparent from
AlwaysWrong is even wrong with his quotes. Carbon retard? Coming from
WTF do I care? Who but a dim bulb would believe such marketing crap, DimBulb?
Always Wrong.
AlwaysWrong, deep in scat.
What an idiot, you are, DimBulb.
A *long* way from it, AlwaysWrong.
Yes, but you forget that those $50 LED bulbs will be selling for $5 in
The Germans have had adequate social security rather longer than
Neat trick.
Interesting claim. Where's the evidence to support it?
I will respond within a few days.
Then you have a problem with technique. Your eyelids should be covered
I couldn't quickly find exactly when it started.
Right.
First one, then the other.
That smacks of false alternative. And I'm pretty sure the answer will
These posts are quite discouraging. In March, when these sameOn Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.
One video leads to another and I end up here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
Mikek
The poor thang ;-)
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.
...Jim Thompson
The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.
On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.
But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.
Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.
It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.
There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!
What's the useful life of a woodframe building? If you put it intoOn Wed, 02 May 2012 09:20:54 -0700, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx <a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.
One video leads to another and I end up here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
Mikek
The poor thang ;-)
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.
...Jim Thompson
The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.
On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.
But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.
Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.
It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.
There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!
Charlie
The neighborhood where I grew up was a nice area of single-family homes (even
with some interspersed farm land) built for soldiers returning from WWII.... my
parents bought a house there in 1947.
The government housing is run down? Perhaps they don't collect enoughThe neighborhood was a middle-class mix of whites _and_ blacks... the
wealthiest was a black family (with a turkey farm
Now it's a slum with many homes replaced by multi-story government housing
(tenements)... so run down
Ah, you're afraid of black people.
True that government cannot depigment those who frighten you.
Charlie dimly perceives that many people can't make ends meet. The sad
As I pointed out before, few people made more than the zero bracket
Something's terribly wrong when the US economy cannot produce jobsMore and more people are encouraged to use government relief services
in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under
the load.
And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!
Shrimp is a cheap food these days, cheaper than vertebrate fish.On 5/2/2012 11:20 AM, Charlie E. wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 7:22 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:08 pm, flipper<flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:34:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:22:54 -0500, amdx<a...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
On 4/26/2012 2:28 PM, Joel Koltner wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=player_embedded
Well, hey... it's pretty well-produced; definitely gives Michael Moore
some "competition," I suppose.
One video leads to another and I end up here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=bavou_SEj1E
At 2:18 she says "somebody needs to pay for all my children...take care
of all our suffering... somebody needs to be held accountable."
Mikek
The poor thang ;-)
What we need is a welfare rule where adding a kid _after_ you go on welfare
_reduces_ the take.
...Jim Thompson
The problem with notions of what is, in essence, a 'child tax' is it
punishes not only the 'excess' child but the others as well.
Giving someone money, just less, is punishment?
But, if they just published a schedule showing a decreasing
incremental benefit, the extra kid-for-ransom production would drop.
Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.
On welfare? Lose any children. It's child abuse to allow children to grow up
in a welfare home and become the next generation of dependents.
But most of them don't. And with slightly more generous social
security, even fewer of them end up dependent - not so many more as
end up dependent after having grown up with a silver spoon in their
mouths.
Right-wing nitwits find reality much too complicated to cope with so
they idealise the world into 100% good bits, replete with mom and
apple pie, and 100% bad bits where all fathers are absentees and every
mother is a crackhead.
It's nonsense, but it is the kind of nonsense that even krw can
understand.
There used to be a stigma about being on relief. You didn't want to
do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.
But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole. And, the sad
truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority. People dependent
on the government voted for more government. Government that promised
to 'take care' of people got reelected. So, now we have a society in
which half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. More and more
people are encouraged to use government relief services in their
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.
And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!
Charlie
Yes, there is no longer shame!
Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
Electronic Funds Transfer
My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
"if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
Mikek-
Food stamps have been around since the 1950s that I know of. Using the
A combination of low wage workers and tax subsidies make products
s/machines/Asians/
Do you want a houseful of cheap crap, or a job that will support a
In the process we've lost our national treasure, the Yankee ingenuity