yet another fine example

[Cornsnake124]

I did not mean to say that some people don't deserve or need assistance. But Most people on welfare and such just milk the system so they don't have to work. I didn't mean EVERYONE, just MOST..

 

[vetusvates]

I did not mean to say that some people don't deserve or need assistance. But Most people on welfare and such just milk the system so they don't have to work. I didn't mean EVERYONE, just MOST..

I still think that is too strong a statement. You don't have any data to back up a term like "most". Back up and think for a minute, you don't want to anger or alienate people by making broad negative generalizations.

 

[Ricky87]

Well,....call me stupid....but this is Off-Topic.
Incidentally, I don't have a beef with Michael or Ricky, as far as I know. I have a question or two, and debated whether as to ask in a PM or here. 'Here' does not seem too much to settle things. And you can tell me it's none of my business and I won't be bothered a bit.
I was heretofore unaware of any 'disabilities'.
So you two fellas are brothers? Twins, I guess? You have the same disability? If that's the situation, I'm glad you have the internet, and I'm glad you have snakes.
Winters in New Hampshire I can imagine can be pretty cold and pretty snowy and pretty long.
Anyhoo, my maternal grandmother had, and my baby sister has M.S. (Multiple Sclerosis)....a pretty frightening and depressing disease. So I think I am pretty sensitive to the dignity and rights of people with disabilities. I don't stigmatize people, in other words.

Gravvissimo!!!. I appreciate the kindness, and it's posts like these that help to change my mental aim. Much thanks!

I disagree with this statement. There are people that need SSI and welfare to be able to support themselves and their families. People with genuine disabilities that prevent them from working.

Michael and Ricky, you both mention having worked cleaning restaurants and doing summer odd jobs part time. But you always mention that you never work so much that it cuts into your SSI. That's what people are taking offense to. If you CAN stand on your own two feet and support yourself by working, why do you take such offense to the "free ride" question, when clearly, that's what your trying to get? You're milking the system, and if you work part time to afford pets and luxuries, I can't see it any other way. Would I trade unemployment for a debilitating condition? Nope. Have I ever been in your shoes? Nope. Is anything we say ever going to make you answer the original questions without you taking offense to every little thing we say? Apparently not.

First off my pets are not a luxury. I can't work, but I still deserve to enjoy life!. Some of you are only too eager to throw out "milking the system", and now I have to show KJUN the receipts of every thing I have so he can see how I paid for it?. Fudge that!!!. I get 600$ a month for disability, period!. If I can turn that into mortgage, food, heat, electricity, internet, and things that complete my life, than more power to me!.

As for looking to be offended, that's just dumb. KJUN was clearly trying to hash up something that would annoy me, and your blind if you can't see that. My name is not "Rickeal", and he had no business being an a$$. My initial post was more than sufficient to sustaining a peaceful thread, but a few people here like to try and antagonize people, because that's all they have to offer!.

 

[KJUN]

First off my pets are not a luxury.

Luxury - : something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary b: an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease. From webster.com. Its the ones that seem to fit your context the best. How can you say your snakes AREN'T a luxury after saying the improve your life (in so many words)? If your snakes exacped, would you die from lack of blood flow to your liver or some other cause. How is it NOT a luxury?

KJUN was clearly trying to hash up something that would annoy me, and your blind if you can't see that. My name is not "Rickeal", and he had no business being an a$$. My initial post was more than sufficient to sustaining a peaceful thread, but a few people here like to try and antagonize people, because that's all they have to offer!.

1. You accused me (as someone against the plan) of not even knowing anything the plan said. I count that as you throwing the first pitch in this game. I stated things I was against. Have you supported the parts of the plan you like? You've been asked many times to prove you read it - since you seemed to think that was an important step before having an opinion against it. Goose and Gander here.

2. It is no doubt that you and Micheal post as one (even if separate people), and the name changes may not be new. Whether you are one or two people, calling someone a nasty name like you just did is not comparable to me saying you are possibly posting under two different names (i.e., the Rickeal nym). It really doesn't matter - one person or two, neither of you have defended your position on supporting ObamaCare...or do you not support it? I believe YOU are the one that hasn't read any of it.

3. I don't see how accusing people of having an ignorant position (being against something without having read any of it) just because it differs from yours and then ignore requests that you demonstrate that you support something you have read is a peaceful post.

 

[Cornsnake124]

1. You accused me (as someone against the plan) of not even knowing anything the plan said. I count that as you throwing the first pitch in this game. I stated things I was against. Have you supported the parts of the plan you like? You've been asked many times to prove you read it - since you seemed to think that was an important step before having an opinion against it. Goose and Gander here.

2. It is no doubt that you and Micheal post as one (even if separate people), and the name changes may not be new. Whether you are one or two people, calling someone a nasty name like you just did is not comparable to me saying you are possibly posting under two different names (i.e., the Rickeal nym). It really doesn't matter - one person or two, neither of you have defended your position on supporting ObamaCare...or do you not support it? I believe YOU are the one that hasn't read any of it.

3. I don't see how accusing people of having an ignorant position (being against something without having read any of it) just because it differs from yours and then ignore requests that you demonstrate that you support something you have read is a peaceful post.

AMEN!!!!!!

 

[Ricky87]

If my first post was too much for you KJUN, than boo-frickin-hoo!!!. It wasn't personal, it wasn't out of line, and it was based strictly on my opinion. You know the "Uncle Obama" statement was meant to say I like Obama, because of all the money he gives me in handouts. It's beyond evident!. Then you ask me how I afford what I have right after, as though it requires validation. Then I've got Robbie saying "milking the system", and asking why I can't even do a tele-marketing job!. You guys just have no idea whatsoever.

I'm not afraid to answer your question at all!. I watch the Situation Room most evenings, and I follow the health-care crisis. I put why I understand the idea of government run health care a few pages back. I'll re-post it;

As for him being in a rush, I see no reason to hesitate. Things in this world move very quickly, and who knows when these opportunities will come about again. Many people say America is an empire on the decline, and what better time to introduce change than when a majority are willing, and so is our leader. The fact most people ignore about health-care is that we'll have to pay for it either way. The reason we need to change the system we have is because not enough people are getting the treatment they need, and hospitals aren't liable to care. If their was a united institution to provide health-care to the needy, than their won't be any middle man or any excuse to not provide. People get sick, we all pay!. Yes, for some their paying more than they would, but for others their whole lives change. I've seen my Grandma lose everything because she couldn't afford health-care, and who is anybody to say she shouldn't have it. Capitalism takes a back seat to a healthy society, and thank god we have someone in place who sees that!.

That post was an attempt to put the train back on the tracks. Too bad it got derailed just a few posts later!. I in no way tried to exploit my own disability to gain sympathy; you threw it out there. The proof is in the posting. Of course it's my obligation to clarify. Their could be plenty more misrepresented disabled folk just like with Ceduke, and we deserve no prosecution into the luxuries we possess. You act like you pay for it!. The fact is that I don't drink alchohol, I don't smoke Cigarettes, and I never eat take-out food. Bonus money I receive is always sporadic, and I use it to try and propel my dream of one day owning a snake breeding business. I also paint all the time, but every artist knows how hard it is to sell stuff. Sorry I can't get a conventional job, but when in Rome do as the Romans do. My mortgage is paid on time, and I don't get behind on my responsibilities. Sorry if I'm able to maximize a 600$ a month budget. I didn't realize it made disabled folk look privileged!.

 

[Michael823]

When I vote, I try to keep my mind on two simple things, 1) who will make me feel safest as a citizen, for myself, my family, my friends, and my nation,...and 2) Who will do least damage to minority rights, which includes and ranges retrograde from gay civil unions to Roe versus Wade to Brown versus the Board of Education.

Same here! I really focus on what the president will do for the poorest and most mistreated citizens, which is usually minorities, and put my own personal welfare 2nd. And who I feel will leave the country a safer place, I answered Obama to both of these questions, and personally like many qualities he possesses.

 

[Michael823]

Luxury - : something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary b: an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease. From webster.com. Its the ones that seem to fit your context the best. How can you say your snakes AREN'T a luxury after saying the improve your life (in so many words)? If your snakes exacped, would you die from lack of blood flow to your liver or some other cause. How is it NOT a luxury?

Well you must be the type that survives off of bread and water, and can define necessity for everyone else. I would like to start a business that involves reptiles, so yes it would be a necessity to own them. Not to mention I've already stated that I paid for them out of my own pocket.
And if I didn't have my pets I would rather be dead, so it is vital for my survival. I couldn't bare a life relying only on humans, that would definitely be it for me.

1. You accused me (as someone against the plan) of not even knowing anything the plan said. I count that as you throwing the first pitch in this game. I stated things I was against. Have you supported the parts of the plan you like? You've been asked many times to prove you read it - since you seemed to think that was an important step before having an opinion against it. Goose and Gander here.

Does anyone even know what the health plan is well enough to suggest it's bad?

You're right, my first post was definitely a blatant accusation aimed specifically at you.

2. It is no doubt that you and Micheal post as one (even if separate people), and the name changes may not be new. Whether you are one or two people, calling someone a nasty name like you just did is not comparable to me saying you are possibly posting under two different names (i.e., the Rickeal nym). It really doesn't matter - one person or two, neither of you have defended your position on supporting ObamaCare...or do you not support it? I believe YOU are the one that hasn't read any of it.

Does anyone even know what the health plan is well enough to suggest it's bad?

My first statement clearly implied that I didn't know enough to defend or support it, and I was curious who did. I know, it was a huge mistake, Hail Mary god forgive me.
As for the two separate people argument, it is about as futile as the Obama proof of birth. This would have been quite a task to lie about specifically for this type of thread, and wouldn't make any logical sense in the first place.

 

[ceduke]

I did not mean to say that some people don't deserve or need assistance. But Most people on welfare and such just milk the system so they don't have to work. I didn't mean EVERYONE, just MOST..

BULL. If that's what you meant that's what you would have said, not that it's a DISGRACE that ANYONE would accept government aid.

 

[diamondlil]

I did not mean to say that some people don't deserve or need assistance. But Most people on welfare and such just milk the system so they don't have to work. I didn't mean EVERYONE, just MOST..

That sort of statement is made often about people on social security benefits over here.
There certainly are people who claim benefits while working in the black economy, only declaring enough hours worked so they still get their help. A proportion of those wil be freeloaders, but the rest will be desperately trying to improve their standard of living. The transition from having healthcare (prescriptions) housing and other help to being on a low-income wage means that people on a minimum wage would actually have a lower income than when on benefits.
Not everyone has the ability to get a decent job. I thank my lucky stars that I was able to train and secure one. Would I work long hours on minimum wage only to find I couldn't support my boys? Our govt has tried various schemes but cutting off all help at such a low level of income is a major disincentive to people who would otherwise be working full-time.

 

[ForkedTung]

I did not mean to say that some people don't deserve or need assistance. But Most people on welfare and such just milk the system so they don't have to work. I didn't mean EVERYONE, just MOST..

OK so now you say "MOST" Could you provide any documentation whatsoever for that statement?
Any?

 

[vetusvates]

In fact, and I know fire and brimstone will rain down on me for this....from ALL directions,....but think about it first : When I vote, I try to keep my mind on two simple things, 1) who will make me feel safest as a citizen, for myself, my family, my friends, and my nation,...and 2) Who will do least damage to minority rights, which includes and ranges retrograde from gay civil unions to Roe versus Wade to Brown versus the Board of Education.

Same here! I really focus on what the president will do for the poorest and most mistreated citizens, which is usually minorities, and put my own personal welfare 2nd. And who I feel will leave the country a safer place, I answered Obama to both of these questions, and personally like many qualities he possesses.

Michael, be careful and read my two criteria carefully, before you too quickly agree. I mean my words verbatim, not to be paraphrased.
I am saying much in a few well-chosen words. Too much paraphrasing can easily shift a meaning.
Then, be careful to answer those criteria....carefully.
You may find,....that KJUN and I somewhat overlap....in that, ' Amendment Two not being touched ' is very important to both of us in this precise context.

"Do No Harm" ≠ "Do Much For A Special Demographic"

 

[KJUN]

If my first post was too much for you KJUN, than boo-frickin-hoo!!!.

Haahaahaa. So, you can say what you want, and it's my problem if I don't like it...but I had better not say something you don't like because you shouldn't have to take it, eh? Well,

boo-frickin-hoo

to you, too, if that is the attitude you feel is necessary to have. As I said before, goose and gander.

 

[Cornsnake124]

oh and rickeal, please answer KAJUN's question..

 

[Roy Munson]

...and he had no business being an a$$.

oh and rickeal, please answer KAJUN's question..

Maybe some of you need to review the site rules before you post again. Inflammatory posting, implied profanity, and name-calling are not permitted. If you can't make points without breaking site rules, don't post. If you decide to do so anyway, accept the consequences. I think we've become more tolerant around here in regards to petty infractions, but that doesn't mean that repeated disregard for the rules won't be met with stricter interpretation when it's called for.

The next "a$$," "fudge that," or "Rickael" is going to earn someone a suspension.

 

[Ricky87]

Maybe some of you need to review the site rules before you post again. Inflammatory posting, implied profanity, and name-calling are not permitted. If you can't make points without breaking site rules, don't post. If you decide to do so anyway, accept the consequences. I think we've become more tolerant around here in regards to petty infractions, but that doesn't mean that repeated disregard for the rules won't be met with stricter interpretation when it's called for.

The next "a$$," "fudge that," or "Rickael" is going to earn someone a suspension.

That's fair enough, though the "Rickeal" is kind of what incited my whole annoyance in the first place. Still, I'll be even more careful with the words I choose, and I hope the other side will, too. My ambition was definitely not for this thread to turn into this, and I would have preferred it stay to the topic. I know they never do, but this one just got ugly. I'm now off to the photo gallery to atone for my sins!. Sorry Roy!!.

 

[Ricky87]

Haahaahaa. So, you can say what you want, and it's my problem if I don't like it...but I had better not say something you don't like because you shouldn't have to take it, eh? Well, to you, too, if that is the attitude you feel is necessary to have. As I said before, goose and gander.

The difference is I kept my post relevant to the thread. I'm not boo-hooing, because you dished to me what I dished to you. I never even referred to you, let alone called you an inflammatory name; one which you go to everytime your political opinion gets critiqued. Personally I think that's wrong, but this time you just had a couple people who were willing to take a few punches themselves. I can't help what defines for you, what I find offensive, but "Uncle Obama" was rude and unnecessary, and the few people on here who are familiar with disability benefits agreed. Maybe you guys aren't sensitive to other peoples conditions, but you still should respect the perception of those who live it!.

 

[KJUN]

I'm now off to the photo gallery to atone for my sins!. Sorry Roy!!.

Right after one more post first.

The difference is I kept my post relevant to the thread.

If Ricky (or Micheal) wanted to keep it on topic, then he would have just answered the question(s) posed many pages back since he should have been simple questions. Instead, misdirection was the key hoping we'd forget that you can't seem to answer the question you accused others of being uninformed about. That is NOT keeping posts relevant to the topic IMO.

I never even referred to you, let alone called you an inflammatory name;

Not called me an inflammatory name? See post #63. Sure, I referred to both of you first as a nym (actually, I think I called Micheal that in the beginning and not you, but I guess you consider that a mute point) that combines your name and Michael, but I didn't do it for the main purpose of "baiting you." I did it because even you two can't even keep track of which one of you said what when or which one is answering something directed towards the other. I promise all that I won't personally us that term - or a similar one - again.

Assuming y'all don't just accidentally post under each other's names, then you yourselves can't seem to keep straight who is who. Obviously, those of us reading can sometimes have trouble telling one apart from the other - especially since the posts tend to be so closely identical in thought and format. I mostly meant the term is as shorthand to refer to both of you at once. I'm not saying there wasn't some rancor in my thoughts behind the use of the name (implying y'all are the same person in real life and nothing else), but I can hold a grudge for a long time after being called nasty names in the past.

one which you go to everytime your political opinion gets critiqued. Personally I think that's wrong

I only mind it when people want to critique my opinions and refuse to even try and support their opinions in return. I believe you don't like it because I can give you reasons for mine, and all you can do is ignore the question and say, "You would like him if he looked the part." Stop calling people prejudice because they disagree with you (as you have done many times), and maybe you wouldn't have so many that lack respect for your unsubstantiated statements. Support them, instead, so they can be validated and respected. We've asked and offered you the chance many times.

what I find offensive, but "Uncle Obama" was rude and unnecessary,

Much less run and unnecessary than the times you've called your opponents racists in the past. Those insinuations of yours in the past are much more offensive to me and definitely a personal attack. Mine may have been unnecessary, but most of this thread is unnecessary on a cornsnake site. What's the point? LOL. It's only offensive if you take it that way, and I can't help how you take it. I didn't mean it to offend you, and all I am responsible for are my meanings. In fact, I just picked up the habit from some radio shows I've listened to following my move back home. I explained already what it meant to me, biut maybe the Uncle Sam reference is what the original users to my ears really meant. I have been wondering that myself. I hadn't thought of that yet.

Maybe you guys aren't sensitive to other peoples conditions, but you still should respect the perception of those who live it!.

What about the side that pays for those benefits only to hear over and over that "it isn't enough" and "but I don't want to work at THAT job." I am referencing the ones that abuse the system - not the ones that need it and get off of it as soon as they are physically able to do so. I'll ask you: can't you respect the perception of THOSE people enough to even say what parts of ObamaCare you like, why, and what makes it something others are responsible to pay for? Coming from people who pay into the current system, don't ask for respect of your "perception" if you can't give the same level of respect to ours.

Please - what do you think about the part where employers would have to pay for benefits for you for those few hours a week you (or was it Michael? I'm sorry, but I don't remember which is which) work? Think they could afford to keep you? Think that is a good thing? Think that will help Amerika to have so many people making a little money on the side getting fired? I don't think it'll help at all, and we will all be the losers. Of course, this only refers to people paid "on the books" legally. There are a lot of people in this scenario - citizens and illegal residents - all over America right now, and I don't see how those people can complain about not getting enough BACK from the .gov. Anyone cheating taxes by being paid under the table to avoid paying into the system deserve nothing from the system in return.

What about the VA comparison? Think we'll get better under ObamaCare? How and/or why?

 

[ForkedTung]

oh and rickeal, please answer KAJUN's question..

Yeah and maybe you could answer my question as well, here I'll make it easy so you don't even have to scroll back up:

OK so now you say "MOST" Could you provide any documentation whatsoever for that statement?
Any?

 

[starsevol]

The difference is I kept my post relevant to the thread. I'm not boo-hooing, because you dished to me what I dished to you. I never even referred to you, let alone called you an inflammatory name; one which you go to everytime your political opinion gets critiqued. Personally I think that's wrong, but this time you just had a couple people who were willing to take a few punches themselves. I can't help what defines for you, what I find offensive, but "Uncle Obama" was rude and unnecessary, and the few people on here who are familiar with disability benefits agreed. Maybe you guys aren't sensitive to other peoples conditions, but you still should respect the perception of those who live it!.

I am more than someone "willing to take a few punches" here. I am genuinely curious how you or ANYONE with an ounce of sense can be behind this thing. Even members of Obama's own party are coming out against it!

So, please...try to convince me WHY this health care legislation is a GOOD thing. Please tell me specific points that you like about it. Please try to convince me. That's all I'm asking.

My suspicion is that the ONLY reasons you are for this legislation are that you think it will "help" people, although you don't know the details....and because your man Obama says it's what's best,,,and you will go along with ANYTHING Obama says.....
Please prove me wrong....