From: Neil Harrington on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq77o5$bgp$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PbednWiS8u2m3FvWnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>> In this country is seems to breed generations of welfare puppies who just
>> live off the government programs that were intended for those who are
>> really disabled by birth or circumstance. Less than 2% of the people
>> drawing welfare checks in this country have some disability, either
>> mental or physical. I would like to get them off of the public dole and
>> give the other 2% 50 times as much money as they are getting now. Is that
>> such a bad thing?
>
> Hmmm, what would you do with the (presumably mostly
> unable to make a living at this point) 98%?

Uh, "presumably"? Why would you presume that? Most welfare people I've seen
appear to be perfectly capable of earning a living if they wanted to. Of
course they might have to give up spending the day watching Jerry Springer
and Maury, and similarly uplifting programs.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041415175684492-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-14 14:09:38 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
> ---------------------------------
>> The language, or at least I'm trying to. Sometimes it can be successfully
>> defended, and at other times the Morlocks win, as in the sad case of
>> "prime
>> lens." C'est la vie.
>
> "The Morlocks" How Wellesian.

Yes.


From: stephe_k on
Chris H wrote:
>
> Agreed. BTW which religion are the "Religious right" in your country?
>


They call themselves Christians..

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message

>> but want to apply the new laws to it. And this (sadly) takes away some
>> peoples constitutional rights.
>
> Whoa! What "constitutional rights" does it take away? If you can show me how
> it does that, I promise to reverse my position on this, on the spot.

It's been pointed our, you continue to ignore the facts.

> No one
> believes more strongly than I do in constitutional rights --


But Neil, you are only interested in YOUR rights. Screw some minority of
the population.

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Neil Harrington wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7ofg$6e0$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the
>>>> minority from the tyranny of the majority,
>>> And you really believe "the tyranny of the majority" is more onerous than
>>> the tyranny of a tiny minority (and their enablers)? How exactly do you
>>> think democracy is supposed to work?
>> Again, do you consider 48% a "tiny minority" because that's how many
>> people voted to approve this the last time it was voted on. You keep
>> spouting this "tiny fraction" when it is anything but.
>
> Approve what, where? I don't know what you're talking about.
>
>


Lets see, I posted the link THREE times and it appears you ignore it
each time. Mainly so you can continue to be ignorant and throw around
this "99%" nonsense.

Once more Neil, explain how 99% of the people agree with you, when 48%
voted the opposite of your opinion on this subject two years ago..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

Stephanie