Umm, Guin, I realize that she’s wrong about pretty much every value judgement she’s posted in this thread, but she WAS asked for her opinion. On that basis, accusing her of making a claim is kinda piling on.
Perhaps, and I appology. However, there is such a thing as an uninformed opinion. Using an actual percentage makes her look like the ignorant git that she is. Just because something is an opinion doesn’t mean someone can’t back it up.
Ahh you mindlessly parroted a Simpson line. That disproves my argument that children shouldn’t be punished with a crippled future for the crimes of their parents because?
Because it’s the right thing to do. Do I have draw the curlcoaters of the world a fucking map? Immigrant children are just children. They don’t have any control of their life situation. They don’t have any power over the Mexican, nor American economies. The only difference between them and your kids is where they were born.
Actually, I purposely quoted a common line that was cribbed by The Simpsons. It was also a joke, as evidenced by the 
below it.
Of course it’s the right thing to do. I said I could understand the curlcoats; not that I agree with them. And I pointed out that if the objection is that the parents are not supporting education, then that is incorrect.
Ahh I see. Apologies for the tone of my response.
You’re talking to a woman who thinks that children of poor people on welfare just grow up to be on welfare themselves, so it’s better if they’re not even born. She’s a disgusting waste of flesh, and it’s no use attempting to appeal to either logic or common decency, because either she has neither or she’s a troll.
By that reasoning, a child of migrant workers, a child who picked crops didn’t even learn English until he was 12 couldn’t possibly make anything of himself.
Psh, **curlcoat **cares not for your logic or your statistics or your examples. She likes her own “logic,” which isn’t, and her own statistics and examples, which she makes up.
That should be I appoloGIZE. :smack:
And there’s only one “p” in “apologize.” Just, y’know, for future reference.
:smack::smack::smack:
it is jist not mie dey fer speling, iz it?
That’s a little surprising. You think that 20% of people in California who recieve welfare benefits are doing so as a lifestyle choice. I would’ve figured you for a higher number. I apologize for persisting with the questions, but I’m curious how you feel about the 80% who are receiving welfare benefits on a temporary basis.
None of which is an answer to what I asked, but if you wish to duck the question that is fine with me.
It’s not. You claimed earlier, in some other thread, that your husband is quite disabled & that you drove him to his doctor’s appts, so I wasn’t aware he could still drive. Hence the question. Why are you so defensive?
No, I am not. Would you call it assistance if I had waited until whatever age you deem appropriate to retire and then taken my SS? Is every retiree on “assistance”?
I haven’t done that either. For some reason, you find it necessary to make up these stories to deflect attention from yourself, but that doesn’t make them true.
Yes, stories like this. Apparently Shot From Guns isn’t getting enough opportunities to make things up and sling insults in the other thread, so s/he has followed me here.
Did you read forward to where I posted that cite that everyone else insists on but rarely themselves provide? Nothing is being “abolished” but there is quite a bit discussion and at least the one bill aimed at determining if our current laws apply to anchor babies.
Note that word opinion, which I was asked for. As for a cite, since all of my requests for cites have been ignored in this thread, I hardly see why I should spend time trying to find cites, that you would approve of, to back up an opinion.
Um, ok. So you wish to import all of the children in Mexico and provide an education for them? Or is it just the children that are here illegally and technically legally that you are concerned about? If the latter, why the difference? Aren’t you “crippling kid’s futures with a lack of education” and being cruel?
Or, could it be that you see that there is a limit to what we can do? And that maybe those who are actually dealing with the huge bill (and budget crisis) that educating all of these children costs might actually have a better grasp of the issues?
Y-E-S.
Maybe if we say it very slowly and loudly, it’ll penetrate.
:rolleyes:
Right, it’s inconceivable that might husband might be ill enough that he shouldn’t drive on some days but not others. He’s having medical testing done tomorrow that requires him to fast from midnight onward, which puts him at a risk of hypoglycemia and even fainting, thus, not safe for him to drive himself tomorrow. If he didn’t have to fast it would be a different matter entirely.
Really no different than when he drove me home from my colonoscopy two years ago, when I was still under some effects of sedation and thus not safe to drive.
Not that it is any of your business.
If they receive social security checks and Medicare, yes, they receive government benefits and are thus on “assistance”.
[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with that. Whoever that was that said they wouldn’t take their SS so it could go to those who need it most and will “live on what they have squirreled away” is probably being foolish. If s/he really doesn’t end up taking the SS.
I don’t know why.
As I’ve said many times before, I have no trouble with those that use welfare as it was intended to be used - to tide themselves over when they have no other source of income.
Wow. Just - wow. So, to you there is no difference between a retired worker taking their SS, and a 16 year old spending the next 15 or so years raising her kids on the various forms of welfare?
In the sense that they are both on government assistance, yes. (And please stop referring to it as “taking their SS.” It’s not the same money that they paid into the system, and you damn well know it.)
Upon re-reading the thread, I’ll say it’s because of what appears to be the low opinion you seem to have for “the poor” or those living off our tax dollars.
I think I’ve found where my error is. I know. More questions. Full permission to rolleyes as you see fit. What percentage of those on welfare do you think are *abusing the system *and if you’d be so kind, define the abuse.
Can I give a tentative no to this question? I’d not have a problem if she was using the system as intended much in the same way I’d have no problem with a retired worker doing the same. I would have a problem with a person abusing the welfare system much in the same way (and I honestly mean this as no dig at you. Merely an example of potential abuse of the system so as to properly compare apples to apples) I’d have a problem with a person doctor shopping in order to get themselves on SSDI for “chronic pain” or an “anxiety disorder.”
Step 1: Take part of everyone’s salaries.
Step 2: After they’re 65, start giving somewhat less money back to them.
Step 3: Say “See? You’re dependent on me giving your money back! So stop complaining about having to give me money!”
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!