|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 12:52 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. Doesn't apply to me, Jack. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 1:35 pm, Kali wrote:
In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. -- Kali Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"marcia" wrote in message
... Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of church and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT to force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in many cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you' figuratively speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.) How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take your filthy hands out of mine? -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message ... Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of church and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT to force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in many cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you' figuratively speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.) How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take your filthy hands out of mine? -- Gregory Hall Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in most cases) paid into it before they became disabled. You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with. I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current state of our economy. We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we don't personally support. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 3:17 pm, Kali wrote:
In article f70e74df-b388-404b-a159-6058fcc87008 @i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says... On Feb 6, 1:35 pm, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. -- Kali Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. There, but for the grace of their own feared God, go right wingers. -- Kali Absolutely true; denial's a wonderful thing. Not a single one of those wingnuts would turn down SSDI if they needed it. It's always the "other guy" who's leaching off the system. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:06:47 -0800 (PST), marcia
wrote: On Feb 6, 1:35 pm, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. -- Kali Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Actually, the crystal ball is the Social Security Act and duly-promulgated regulations. Both for determining disability initially and whether it continues. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:17:59 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article f70e74df-b388-404b-a159-6058fcc87008 , says... On Feb 6, 1:35 pm, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. -- Kali Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. There, but for the grace of their own feared God, go right wingers. Right-wingers become disabled too. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com