Research Discussion: I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself !!

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself !!
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Hägar
2011-06-11 12:37:20 EST
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for
Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans,
blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want
steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and
piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get
tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your
"home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be
inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your
own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or
you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of
trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We
will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo
and speakers and put that money toward the "common good".

Before you write that I've violated omeone's rights, realize that all of the
above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you
say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider
that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing
absolutely nothing was considered demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least
attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

This is the biggie of the best ideas.

AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes,
that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will
voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Government
welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Please forward this one to everyone. Who knows; a good idea like this might
just be law in the not-too-distant future!!

NOTICE: Before you braindead Liberals start to hyperventilate, this was
posted
in the WACO paper, e-mailed to me and I'm merely passing it along to you
clueless Liberals as an alternate solution to your Negroid's failed
cluster-fuck.



Larry Kroger
2011-06-12 05:42:19 EST
On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, Hägar wrote:
> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>
> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes,
> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will
> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Government
> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in
everything. The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice,
should be remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you
have no business electing the government. That applies to welfare
recipients and government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the
military, because they're doing more than feeding; they're putting their
lives on the line. But the fat cats, special interests, cronies, and
parasites have no business as political players. Basic conflict of
interest. That applies at the state level also. The antics of the public
employees we just saw in Wisconsin was a strike by government drones
against the people.

Hägar
2011-06-12 11:41:17 EST

"Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, H\ufffdgar wrote:
>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>
>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
>> Yes,
>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
>> will
>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>> Government
>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>
> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in everything.
> The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice, should be
> remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you have no
> business electing the government. That applies to welfare recipients and
> government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the military, because they're
> doing more than feeding; they're putting their lives on the line. But the
> fat cats, special interests, cronies, and parasites have no business as
> political players. Basic conflict of interest. That applies at the state
> level also. The antics of the public employees we just saw in Wisconsin
> was a strike by government drones against the people.


Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
"Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.

Secondly, make it illegal for employers to withhold union dues from
paychecks and let the unions worry about collecting them. You would
see membership drop precipitously, because it would give members
much more clout over the dictates of the Liberal unions as to which
political candidate to spend their member's hard earned money on.



Jason Browneye
2011-06-12 12:41:52 EST


"Hägar" wrote in message
news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...


"Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, Hägar wrote:
>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>
>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes,
>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
>> will
>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>> Government
>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>
> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in everything.
> The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice, should be
> remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you have no
> business electing the government. That applies to welfare recipients and
> government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the military, because they're
> doing more than feeding; they're putting their lives on the line. But the
> fat cats, special interests, cronies, and parasites have no business as
> political players. Basic conflict of interest. That applies at the state
> level also. The antics of the public employees we just saw in Wisconsin
> was a strike by government drones against the people.


Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
"Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
*************************************************************
Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a right to work state that he
would be able to find a job outside of the fast food and carnival
industries. Bwahahahahaha.




The Patriot
2011-06-12 13:26:22 EST

"Jason Browneye" <jasonbrowneye@charter.net> wrote in
message news:7%5Jp.4637$F25.4383@newsfe04.iad...
>
>
> "H\ufffdgar" wrote in message
> news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> "Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
>> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, H\ufffdgar wrote:
>>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>>
>>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no
>>> longer can VOTE! Yes,
>>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a
>>> conflict of interest. You will
>>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you
>>> are receiving a Government
>>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>>
>> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't
>> vote. For the same reason: Washington exists because
>> it's the government, and the people should elect the
>> government, rather than having the government elect
>> itself. That was before government grew into the
>> monstrous, super-constitutional monster it is today,
>> with its fingers in everything. The principle,
>> unlikely as it is to be put into practice, should be
>> remembered. If you're feeding at the government
>> trough, you have no business electing the
>> government. That applies to welfare recipients and
>> government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the
>> military, because they're doing more than feeding;
>> they're putting their lives on the line. But the fat
>> cats, special interests, cronies, and parasites have
>> no business as political players. Basic conflict of
>> interest. That applies at the state level also. The
>> antics of the public employees we just saw in
>> Wisconsin was a strike by government drones against
>> the people.
>
>
> Another really quick fix would be to declare all
> States of the Union as
> "Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union
> members have the
> right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
> *************************************************************
> Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a
> right to work state that he would be able to find a
> job outside of the fast food and carnival industries.
> Bwahahahahaha.
>
Browneye? I hope you use toilet paper after each post
as they consist of a lot of shit.



Hägar
2011-06-12 13:51:47 EST

"The Patriot" <xxxxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bF6Jp.4875$PA5.2131@newsfe01.iad...
>
> "Jason Browneye" <jasonbrowneye@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:7%5Jp.4637$F25.4383@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>>
>> "H\ufffdgar" wrote in message
>> news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
>>> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, H\ufffdgar wrote:
>>>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>>>
>>>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
>>>> Yes,
>>>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
>>>> will
>>>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>>>> Government
>>>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>>>
>>> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
>>> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
>>> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
>>> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
>>> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in
>>> everything. The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice,
>>> should be remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you
>>> have no business electing the government. That applies to welfare
>>> recipients and government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the
>>> military, because they're doing more than feeding; they're putting their
>>> lives on the line. But the fat cats, special interests, cronies, and
>>> parasites have no business as political players. Basic conflict of
>>> interest. That applies at the state level also. The antics of the public
>>> employees we just saw in Wisconsin was a strike by government drones
>>> against the people.
>>
>>
>> Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
>> "Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
>> right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
>> *************************************************************
>> Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a right to work state that
>> he would be able to find a job outside of the fast food and carnival
>> industries. Bwahahahahaha.
>>
> Browneye? I hope you use toilet paper after each post as they consist of
> a lot of shit.

His nickname in the Deliverance re-enactment group is
"Shit-fer-Brains" ... nuff said ....after all, the Troll now calls
himself "Browneye", which is a word of endearment among
the Nation's faggotry.



Notroll2012
2011-06-12 14:01:28 EST


"Hägar" wrote in message
news:nYmdneW3AuYoYWnQnZ2dnUVZ5jadnZ2d@giganews.com...


"The Patriot" <xxxxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bF6Jp.4875$PA5.2131@newsfe01.iad...
>
> "Jason Browneye" <jasonbrowneye@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:7%5Jp.4637$F25.4383@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>>
>> "Hägar" wrote in message
>> news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
>>> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, Hägar wrote:
>>>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>>>
>>>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
>>>> Yes,
>>>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
>>>> will
>>>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>>>> Government
>>>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>>>
>>> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
>>> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
>>> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
>>> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
>>> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in
>>> everything. The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice,
>>> should be remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you
>>> have no business electing the government. That applies to welfare
>>> recipients and government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the
>>> military, because they're doing more than feeding; they're putting their
>>> lives on the line. But the fat cats, special interests, cronies, and
>>> parasites have no business as political players. Basic conflict of
>>> interest. That applies at the state level also. The antics of the public
>>> employees we just saw in Wisconsin was a strike by government drones
>>> against the people.
>>
>>
>> Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
>> "Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
>> right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
>> *************************************************************
>> Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a right to work state that
>> he would be able to find a job outside of the fast food and carnival
>> industries. Bwahahahahaha.
>>
> Browneye? I hope you use toilet paper after each post as they consist of
> a lot of shit.

His nickname in the Deliverance re-enactment group is
"Shit-fer-Brains" ... nuff said ....after all, the Troll now calls
himself "Browneye", which is a word of endearment among
the Nation's faggotry.
***********************************************************
Again today (I believe for at least the third time) Hagar speaks of the
gays.



Notroll2012
2011-06-12 14:05:25 EST


"The Patriot" wrote in message news:bF6Jp.4875$PA5.2131@newsfe01.iad...


"Jason Browneye" <jasonbrowneye@charter.net> wrote in
message news:7%5Jp.4637$F25.4383@newsfe04.iad...
>
>
> "Hägar" wrote in message
> news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> "Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
>> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, Hägar wrote:
>>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>>
>>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
>>> Yes,
>>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
>>> will
>>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>>> Government
>>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>>
>> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
>> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
>> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
>> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
>> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in everything.
>> The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice, should be
>> remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you have no
>> business electing the government. That applies to welfare recipients and
>> government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the military, because
>> they're doing more than feeding; they're putting their lives on the line.
>> But the fat cats, special interests, cronies, and parasites have no
>> business as political players. Basic conflict of interest. That applies
>> at the state level also. The antics of the public employees we just saw
>> in Wisconsin was a strike by government drones against the people.
>
>
> Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
> "Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
> right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
> *************************************************************
> Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a right to work state that
> he would be able to find a job outside of the fast food and carnival
> industries. Bwahahahahaha.
>
Browneye? I hope you use toilet paper after each post
as they consist of a lot of shit.
*****************************************************
Oh, so you're looking for a job, too?


Hägar
2011-06-12 19:28:59 EST

"Notroll2012" <notroll2012@charter.net> wrote in message
news:L97Jp.5277$lW4.3988@newsfe07.iad...
>
>
> "H\ufffdgar" wrote in message
> news:nYmdneW3AuYoYWnQnZ2dnUVZ5jadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> "The Patriot" <xxxxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:bF6Jp.4875$PA5.2131@newsfe01.iad...
>>
>> "Jason Browneye" <jasonbrowneye@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:7%5Jp.4637$F25.4383@newsfe04.iad...
>>>
>>>
>>> "H\ufffdgar" wrote in message
>>> news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
>>>> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, H\ufffdgar wrote:
>>>>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>>>>
>>>>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
>>>>> Yes,
>>>>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.
>>>>> You will
>>>>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>>>>> Government
>>>>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
>>>> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
>>>> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
>>>> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
>>>> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in
>>>> everything. The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice,
>>>> should be remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you
>>>> have no business electing the government. That applies to welfare
>>>> recipients and government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the
>>>> military, because they're doing more than feeding; they're putting
>>>> their lives on the line. But the fat cats, special interests, cronies,
>>>> and parasites have no business as political players. Basic conflict of
>>>> interest. That applies at the state level also. The antics of the
>>>> public employees we just saw in Wisconsin was a strike by government
>>>> drones against the people.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
>>> "Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
>>> right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
>>> *************************************************************
>>> Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a right to work state
>>> that he would be able to find a job outside of the fast food and
>>> carnival industries. Bwahahahahaha.
>>>
>> Browneye? I hope you use toilet paper after each post as they consist of
>> a lot of shit.
>
> His nickname in the Deliverance re-enactment group is
> "Shit-fer-Brains" ... nuff said ....after all, the Troll now calls
> himself "Browneye", which is a word of endearment among
> the Nation's faggotry.
> ***********************************************************
> Again today (I believe for at least the third time) Hagar speaks of the
> gays.
>
>

Has it occurred to you to stop answering, faggot. How can I address you
without mentioning your penchant for butt sausage ...



Hägar
2011-06-12 19:30:42 EST

"Notroll2012" <notroll2012@charter.net> wrote in message
news:sd7Jp.8665$5v5.6510@newsfe11.iad...
>
>
> "The Patriot" wrote in message news:bF6Jp.4875$PA5.2131@newsfe01.iad...
>
>
> "Jason Browneye" <jasonbrowneye@charter.net> wrote in
> message news:7%5Jp.4637$F25.4383@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>>
>> "H\ufffdgar" wrote in message
>> news:WL2dnYREYv29Q2nQnZ2dnUVZ5judnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "Larry Kroger" <anon@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:bS%Ip.4227$F25.3431@newsfe04.iad...
>>> On 6/11/2011 9:37 AM, H\ufffdgar wrote:
>>>> This was in the Waco Tribune Herald in Waco, TX
>>>>
>>>> AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!
>>>> Yes,
>>>> that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You
>>>> will
>>>> voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a
>>>> Government
>>>> welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
>>>
>>> Makes sense. Note that the residents of DC can't vote. For the same
>>> reason: Washington exists because it's the government, and the people
>>> should elect the government, rather than having the government elect
>>> itself. That was before government grew into the monstrous,
>>> super-constitutional monster it is today, with its fingers in
>>> everything. The principle, unlikely as it is to be put into practice,
>>> should be remembered. If you're feeding at the government trough, you
>>> have no business electing the government. That applies to welfare
>>> recipients and government employees. I wouldn't apply it to the
>>> military, because they're doing more than feeding; they're putting their
>>> lives on the line. But the fat cats, special interests, cronies, and
>>> parasites have no business as political players. Basic conflict of
>>> interest. That applies at the state level also. The antics of the public
>>> employees we just saw in Wisconsin was a strike by government drones
>>> against the people.
>>
>>
>> Another really quick fix would be to declare all States of the Union as
>> "Right to Work" States. I don't think that only union members have the
>> right to earn a decent living ... all Americans do.
>> *************************************************************
>> Hags would have us believe that if he moved to a right to work state that
>> he would be able to find a job outside of the fast food and carnival
>> industries. Bwahahahahaha.
>>
> Browneye? I hope you use toilet paper after each post
> as they consist of a lot of shit.
> *****************************************************
> Oh, so you're looking for a job, too?
>
You're the only person I Know with two assholes, one for your
favorite sexual activity, the other for continuous verbal diarrhea.


Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron