You can ask your attorney for a citation if you like. However, if you can only work 2 hours at a time (which I’m willing to take your word for) you are not capable of part-time sedentary work.
I based my assessment on your own post, as Sarafeena noted above, and I will happily retract it based on the additional information you’ve provided.
That doesn’t conflict with what I said at all. In fact, it confirms it. Like it or not, you are on welfare. If you find that term insulting, that’s unfortunate, but it’s mostly the fault of people who share your political beliefs, so my sympathy is somewhat limited.
If this wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny. You started out in this thread calling me a liar and moved up from there.
Uh, actually? I’ve said several times that the reason that people here spend so much time and energy on trying to “prove” I’m not disabled is because of my attitude towards children, as if one had anything to do with the other.
I suppose you will just ignore the fact that you were wrong about this, as you did about my not admitting my errors.
FTR, I was curious about whether you were actually disabled because of your stated opinions about government entitlement programs. I share much of your feeling about children.
I’m not accusing you of anything…I’m only trying to explain to you what it sounds like when you give explanations in little bits that don’t seem to tie together or make sense.
I don’t have a quarrel with your definition of “disabled.” Another thing that people are having trouble with, however, is the fact that you are eager to defend the disabled (a group you are a member of), while seemingly not cutting even a tiny bit of slack to anyone else who might have a problem in life.
It’s pathetic? That’s how you come off. It’s good that you realize how pathetic you are. Glad I could help.
Also, I didn’t start off this thread calling you a liar. Disagreeing with you is not the same as calling you a liar. A link to my first post in this thread, 31 pages ago. You claimed that, because you were poor, you never went to the store with your mother. I pointed out that poverty might, in fact, be a reason why people have no choice BUT to bring their kids to the store. I notice that, quickly thereafter, you backed off your idiotic and counter intuitive point. Now, how does that equate to calling you a liar? Please, do explain, if you can, considering how much more intelligent and less pathetic you are than I am. If you can’t, please admit your error and how pathetic is that YOU have to lie about such stupid shit.
What am I wrong about, exactly? Do be clear, dear. I was wrong that people are mean to you because you don’t like kids? No, it’s because you are such. a. flaming. monster. about kids, so petty, so grasping, but fail to see that your own plight is hardly exemplary. When you live in a glass house and throw stones at others, you should hardly be surprised when they fly back at you.
And you did not admit your error. When I asked you to admit it, you claimed you had already. But maybe I missed it in the sheer volume of your posting. Please give the post number where you admitted it without prior prompting from me.
That’s still a 16 hour drive in one day. I couldn’t do it, and I’m not disabled. My husband drives short haul and he doesn’t even do that. His truck has power steering, by the way, curlcoat. It’s not too late to get your CDL and rejoin the ranks of the gainfully employed!
If you mean to say that she lied several pages back, then I agree. She can not claim that she can’t sit for more than 2 or 3 hours while at the same time claiming to drive 16 hours in a day with little more than a nap in the middle.
Wouldn’t you like to know what the nature of this disability is? I would, because it’s confusing. She can’t sit for more than 2-3 hours, but she can drive for 16 hours in one day. She can’t keypunch, but she can post 303 posts just to this thread. Certainly you can understand everyone’s skepticism? The contradictions abound.
In other words, you discovered that there is no such thing as partial or temporary disability under SSDI?
Which, as I pointed out, is the problem. You all are so eager to jump on me that you make extreme negative assumptions based on almost nothing.
I am not “in need”.
Of course it’s an insult. Welfare means you would most likely starve/freeze/be homeless if it wasn’t for the government giving you money. And these days, it is generally the result of irresponsible choices.
If I was 62 and applying for regular SS, would you call that welfare?
Agreed, however she has made it a point to say that she has made a lifestyle of raising service dogs and has other dogs that she cares for as well. And truly, if it was a once on a great while experience I would figure that she would not be able to pay careful attention to this thread, yet she has. She is a liar. Full. Stop.
Not really. Curlcoat’s life is none of my business, and since it isn’t relevant to hating kids, I don’t care. Personally, I don’t see disability as welfare. Society has a responsibility to care for those who can’t support themselves, the disabled and unemployable and the very young/very old. If the state or country has deemed her fit to receive disability payments, that’s good enough for me. In a thread this long there are bound to be a couple of contradictions or misunderstandings, especially when people feel the need to pick apart every post they disagree with and examine it under a microscope. Are these people taking notes are something?
What has paying attention to this thread got to do with raising dogs? I rescue myself, currently I’ve got 8 animals living with me in a 1200 square foot house. I work 40+ and go to school and mow the grass too, but I’ve posted on almost every page since the first one. Oh, and you’re a bitch. Full. Stop.
You realize that this includes children, right? Children who have parents who, for whatever reason, can’t care for them adequately themselves, qualify as “those who can’t support themselves.” curlcoat doesn’t seem to agree with this, or at least, she bitterly resents it and rails against it. If you don’t, then you and she are not on the same side of this argument.
I don’t care if you don’t like kids. You’re not hurting anyone and if you don’t begrudge them what society provides, like schools, playgrounds, and don’t oppose it if they receive aid if they don’t have enough food, clothing, and shelter, then we are not at odds.
Paying attention to this thread, while driving 16 hours in a single day with one nap and claiming a disability that prevents her from working are exclusive events. And as far as it goes, I do not hold a very high regard for you–you brag about kicking children. You come from a racist, backwater family by your own admission. Listen, you may think you are better than what you come from but the benchmark was set pretty low.
Yes, that includes children. I don’t begrudge them playgrounds and as a fairly recent graduate of the public school system, I’m fine with my tax dollars supporting education. However, in my opinion those parents who can’t support themselves aren’t entitled to have kids they can’t afford and burden society even more. I think that anyone who is on any sort of government assistance, pell grants included, should not be allowed to have children. Once they are fully supporting themselves, fine. I’d totally support handing out pills and Depo shots to women when they picked up their food stamps. And don’t even get me started on forced sterilization.