anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
By not jumping to ideological conclusions
It's not necessary to jump to see intent when the intent is already standing there front and center.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
By not jumping to ideological conclusions
Thanks. It starts to become clearer now.
It may be that this person has seen examples of welfare abuse, among parents at her school or something and that is what has provoked this intemperate outburst. But she'll pay the price.
As you like.It's not necessary to jump to see intent when the intent is already standing there front and center.
YepIn US its actually working people who scam the welfare system. Some don't report their income but collect welfare, but this is not the situation with most people who need welfare. Also the cost is tiny compared to other government expenditures. Point is, to scam welfare you have to keep working.
I have endless stories about people I've knownThats about as x- treme as the post.
There is abuse of the welfare system, sometimes very large scale.
Small scale, a friend at uni supporting herself
with a part time job was fuming about a guy
with a stack of t bone steaks from arms length to his chin, paid for with public assistance.
Sometimes people just need to rant.It's not necessary to jump to see intent when the intent is already standing there front and center.
Report themYep
My wife said she once knew a couple that had two kids. They received full housing assistance, full food assistance, full medical/dental assistance, extra money for school supplies, around $8k tax return on the kids even though they didn't pay taxes, etc.
They both worked at a big night club. He was a bartender and she was a waitress and between them they made pretty good $$ and its was all unreported cash.
By the way, one further question: why are you reading and copying newspaper cuttings of an event that took place over a year ago, to share with us all, only now? It seems a strange thing to do, on the face of it.After a quick google search here's one but not sure if the same one I read.
Are You Privileged?
Here's another
Staten Island Assistant Principal Unleashes Racist Rant About 'Privilege'
By the way, one further question: why are you reading and copying newspaper cuttings of an event that took place over a year ago, to share with us all, only now? It seems a strange thing to do, on the face of it.
You had just read it, over a year later? It looks as if you have specially photographed an old newspaper and scanned it to share with us. Are you in the habit of keeping and reading year old newspapers, then?Lol.
1. I had just read it
2. I thought it was worth discussing
3. Are only "new" events allowed?
People post things of interest.Where did you come across it though, over a year after the event? It looks as if you have specially photographed an old newspaper and scanned it to share with us.
You had just read it, over a year later? It looks as if you have specially photographed an old newspaper and scanned it to share with us. Are you in the habit of keeping and reading year old newspapers, then?
Hmm. I'm not sure I find the re-heating of old culture war causes célèbres to stir things up is a great thing to do, that's all. Just seems a bit, well, gratuitously divisive. Sort of a bit Trumpy. Picking at scabs. But there's no law against it, obviously.I copy and shared the picture instead of the text. The picture says it all.
It was in the link I read. I think even in one of the links I posted at your request(doubtfully you even read it though)
I read all kinds of things whether its new or old.
If you don't like what i post, you don't have to participate, especially if its only to complain.
It's a current issue, ie, that those who complainHmm. I'm not sure I find the re-heating of old culture war causes célèbres to stir things up is a great thing to do, that's all. Just seems a bit, well, gratuitously divisive. Sort of a bit Trumpy. Picking at scabs. But there's no law against it, obviously.
It's a current issue, ie, that those who complain
about the privilege of others will ignore their own.
Sometimes the oldies are the goodies.
There is abuse of the welfare system, sometimes very large scale.
If you want a system where it's better for 10,000 to suffer to stop one from getting away with something, I have no issue with opposing that philosophy 10000%