• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I get conservative guys point about public assistance

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Azuma Hazuki said:
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.
Click to expand...
I will definitely show it to her, along with the rest so she has the entire scope of your irrational and ridiculous behavior.

She loves reading about unhinged nutjobs too, and you are certifiable. I feel very, very sorry for your girlfriend. I bet you go through girlfriends like eating candy, once they find out that you're batshit insane.

Sheesh.
 
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.

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.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Azuma Hazuki said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Are you stupid, or something else? You must be because you can't separate reality from the internet.

You are wasting my time now. You're nothing more than an angry, angry wench who can't seem to separate reality from internet jousting.

Seriously, seek professional help before you go off the deep end and do something even more stupid.
 
And here's Exhibit B. What'd I tell ya about that shovel, boy? You're not making yourself look any better, and that "It was just a joke, calm down!" bullshit is the first resort of someone who knows he's well and truly busted.
 
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.
 
Jhhnn said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.

So it appears you are confusing "fiscal" conservatives with regular conservatives Jhhnn. Nice try but...fail. btw, if you disagree with my link regarding Liberalism, edit the Wiki link. No doubt you'd be smacked down in no time flat by those who know better.
 
Azuma Hazuki said:
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.
Click to expand...
lol. So oblivious.

You try way, way too hard.

But rage on. I've owned slime trolls far better than you in P&N. You are barely a blip on the troll radar.
 
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.
 
Is it wrong morally to be on public assistance?

I ask, because Ackmed and TLC imply that it is. I reach that implication because they frame it 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?

If 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?
 
Last edited:
Azuma Hazuki said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

So troll on. You've been awesome in proving my point. Keep it up.
 
jackstar7 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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,
 
jackstar7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Too rational. I like my demonization thanks. It make me feel better.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
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,
Click to expand...
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? Or if we cannot have a pure safety net for only those truly in need, is it better that none have it?
 
I get it, you want me to die laughing 🙂

Oh, Chickenshit, you silly little man...claiming the moral high ground only works if you actually have the moral high ground. No one who's seen how you've been acting these last several pages would say you do, and the downside to your strategy is that if it fails, you look exponentially worse.

No, you don't stop posting because you can't. Your ego won't you. Your sacred "manhood" was challenged, and by God you won't leave without thoroughly and decisively avenging this insult!

And what better way to prove your mature, morally superior, well-ripened manhood than telling not one but two women you've never met in your life to service you sexually, and then post the encounter online?

And of course, when your...ahem...generous offer is rebuffed, the manly mature thing to do is regress to the second grade and make allegedly humorous bodily-function-themed alterations to your opponent's name.

Manly!

Keep it up, Chickenshit.
 
jackstar7 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jackstar7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 might want to read that first before doing any chest puffing and looking foolish in the process.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
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
Click to expand...

Svnla said:
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.
Click to expand...

In all fairness not a lot of intellectual types down down at the trailer park to learn how smart people appear, not that there's much learning going among the low edu/iq crowd with that perpetual chip on their shoulder about it.

Oh, and btw, life long inhabitant svnla is vietnamese, he just hates on welfare queens and whatnot so that white nationalists might slot him in between.
 
Azuma Hazuki said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Stay angry. It's plain for all to see in here. Congrats again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top