In article ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.

On 11/27/2011 3:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.


Yeah right! Now it's all the "tea party" fault... lol!

On 11/27/11 3:18 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 11/27/2011 3:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.


Yeah right! Now it's all the "tea party" fault... lol!


It's dumb enough to be tea party propaganda. Oh, wait...*you're* a tea
party dummy.

On 11/27/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/27/11 3:18 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 11/27/2011 3:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.


Yeah right! Now it's all the "tea party" fault... lol!


It's dumb enough to be tea party propaganda. Oh, wait...*you're* a tea
party dummy.

Harry calling someone a dummy, lol!! Guy didn't even graduate high school...

On 11/27/11 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 11/27/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/27/11 3:18 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 11/27/2011 3:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.


Yeah right! Now it's all the "tea party" fault... lol!


It's dumb enough to be tea party propaganda. Oh, wait...*you're* a tea
party dummy.

Harry calling someone a dummy, lol!! Guy didn't even graduate high
school...


You are over your head in your delusional fantasies about me, shortstack
of ****.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

In article ,
says...

On 11/27/2011 3:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.


Yeah right! Now it's all the "tea party" fault... lol!

He didn't say it was the tea party's fault, he said it was tea party
generated BS, and it is.

On 11/27/2011 3:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.


I believe! At least till someone *proves* it wrong.

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:14:52 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.

Did you read the obituary? You reckon the paper lied?

On 11/27/11 8:49 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:14:52 -0600, Boating All wrote:

In ,
says...


The obvious answer is to cap welfare benefits at two children, no
exceptions. I suppose in this case we'd have to say two children per
mother since it's not always clear who the father is.

You didn't actually believe that, did you?
It's tea party generated BS.

Did you read the obituary? You reckon the paper lied?


Your analysis was just right-wing bull**** and from a guy who lives off
the government teat and has socialized medicine.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug