lol. So you challenge my manhood then get bent out of shape when I call you on it?
You've answered my question; yes, yes you are insane. Thanks. You need to think which one of us is harassing the other.
hint: It's not me.
lol. So you challenge my manhood then get bent out of shape when I call you on it?
I will definitely show it to her, along with the rest so she has the entire scope of your irrational and ridiculous behavior.Yeah, show your wife that one and see how funny she thinks it is, you disgusting old creep. That deserves at least a slap across your liver-spotted face so hard you end up looking for your dentures in the next county. Gawwwwwwd-damn are you a lying lowlife.
It became one fork of liberalism, not the lone brand. And I have always stated that I am a social conservative. But you knew that already, you just conveniently omitted that fact.
You can question my manhood yet I can't question your willingness to prove that claim? Clearly it was done tongue in cheek, because my tongue would never, ever have reason to bother with your lame, punk ass.You really do not know when to stop digging, do you? The entire clade of degenerates seems to have this problem. Tell 'em they've dug themselves in deep, and they just flip you off and call for a bigger shovel.
it
Why did you deny that you said this not 5 posts ago, and then when it was shown to you again, try to pass this off as "whaa, whaaaaaa, you started it you big meanie!" then? Is this any way for an adult almost old enough to retire to act? And if I'm such a "little punk," why do you keep replying to me?
You know, if I actually decided to troll you sometime you'd probably have apoplexy.
Except I don't believe in god, I don't own a gun and don't plan to (though I did earn my Marksman ribbon in the military), I fully support gay rights, and I'm pro-choice. I've stated this many times in P&N and you know this already, I'm sure.Social conservatives are all about God, guns, gays & abortion, not about social welfare spending. That's the realm of fiscal conservatives white knighting for the uber wealthy. That's what you're doing, isn't it?
Your whole schtick about alternative definitions of Liberalism is a lot like Kellyanne's alternative facts...
lol. So oblivious.Besides which, you've done more damage to your "manhood" with your grade-school attempts at mudslinging than anything I could ever say would do to it. No one reading this thread can think of you as anything but a petulant child in the body of a walking midlife crisis now, not after seeing how you act.
Because that's what slime trolls like you ask for, so I give you what you need. You would die if I didn't reply. And I don't want you to die, I want your idiocy to be apparent in here. I'm making you an exhibit, even if you don't realize it.Then why in the name of Cthulhu's unholy eldritch be-tentacled asshole do you keep replying to me?
Logic, motherfucker, do you use it? Obviously not. And you're not fooling anyone but yourself; you got your fat geriatric ass booted up and down the aisle like a soccer ball in the World Cup finals.
Where have I claimed it was morally wrong? I don't deny those who really require public assistance the help to better their lot in life. In fact, I advocate that. My complaint is about those that game the system for their own benefit in order to enrich themselves and screw everyone else. And those people are not an insignificant amount. Welfare fraud is rampant.Is it wrong morally to be public assistance?
I ask, because Ackmed and TLC imply that it is. I reach that implication because they frame is as taking from them directly via the social safety net and they want the absolute fewest people actively using that net as possible. They are imposing upon you and that is an affront to you as they take your money without having earned it. Are the majority of wealthy people moral, do you think?
I'm what I have inferred is incorrect, please clarify your stance. When is it okay for people to be on assistance? Why do you insist that it is best to look at people on the bottom and make demands of them?
Rather than making sure there are not too many people in the safety net, why not work to make it a better net and bigger, too? And also work to make better circumstances so fewer people require it?
Is it wrong morally to be public assistance?
I ask, because Ackmed and TLC imply that it is. I reach that implication because they frame is as taking from them directly via the social safety net and they want the absolute fewest people actively using that net as possible. They are imposing upon you and that is an affront to you as they take your money without having earned it. Are the majority of wealthy people moral, do you think?
I'm what I have inferred is incorrect, please clarify your stance. When is it okay for people to be on assistance? Why do you insist that it is best to look at people on the bottom and make demands of them?
Rather than making sure there are not too many people in the safety net, why not work to make it a better net and bigger, too? And also work to make better circumstances so fewer people require it?
Good heavens. Where did you claim it? I never said you did. I said I inferred it.Where have I claimed it was morally wrong? I don't deny those who really require public assistance the help to better their lot in life. In fact, I advocate that. My complaint is about those that game the system for their own benefit in order to enrich themselves and screw everyone else. And those people are not an insignificant amount. Welfare fraud is rampant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud
There has to be a better way to help those in need and weed out those who want to abuse the system. But first we need to convince people like you that there are those who abuse the system and don't look the other way or make excuses for their actions. Let me know when you're game to do that,
See above. Hope you feel better soon.Too rational. I like my demonization thanks. It make me feel better.
You said I implied it, not inferred it. There's a difference.Good heavens. Where did you claim it? I never said you did. I said I inferred it.
What amount of welfare fraud is tolerable to maintain the safety net for those who really need it? Is there a percentage?
No. I just want to keep laughing at you. You have accomplished that feat. Congrats.I get it, you want me to die laughing .
You know when I infer something it is because in my view you implied it? I feel as though you're tripping a lot on that.You said I implied it, not inferred it. There's a difference.
Of course there is going to be a certain percentage of welfare fraud, just like there is always going to be a certain level of unemployment. But welfare fraud levels are far higher. I won't pretend that low levels of welfare fraud can be prevented if others in here don't pretend than low levels of unemployment can be prevented.
Deal?
Did you miss the Wiki link that I posted previously? It cites welfare fraud levels in the US as well as Internationally, so clearly you didn't bother to click on it.You know when I infer something it is because in my view you implied it? I feel as though you're tripping a lot on that.
Please cite welfare fraud levels and explain how they are high to you. I can't make any deals when you make broad statements and I am expected to accept them as fact when you won't say how much is tolerable to you.
Also, your whole deal doesn't make a lick of sense to me.You won't pretend that some amount of welfare fraud can be prevented? That's not really magnanimous. It's just reality. Maybe I'm responding before you've had time to edit for clarity.
I hope you aren't including yourself in any group that excels intellectually. And gee, "trailer park?" Using your own sort of reasoning, isn't that just another way of saying "white trash?" Racist.
Don't you hate it when your own words backfire on you? But your sooo intellectual. /rolleyes
My statements were backed up by a well-known source. What your ridiculous statements were backed up by? Bluster you said? Just like all of the accusations you made toward other posters with zero evidence.
Keep digging deeper and telling how smart you are. Excel indeed. LOL. How sad and pathetic. So easy to manipulate and play with.
Whatever. All you had was some lame attempt at sliming me, which backfired. Like I said, I feel sorry for your girlfriends having to deal with such a vindictive wench like yourself.Well, keep laughing if you want, but remember you're the only one here who actually thinks you came out on top of this exchange.
Personally I can't imagine being that self-centered, that utterly solipsistic, but I guess you've disappeared up your own ass so long ago it's become normal for you.
See above. Hope you feel better soon.