I'm depressed about people's poor choices

[JPGhost]

Im depressed that Taylor Swift wins AMA artist of the year -_-

 

[blackbeltninja]

Have you ever been even close to being in that situation? An awful lot of them would far rather have a regular job -- because having a regular job to show up at every day is far easier than having to scrape for mere survival every day.

I have friends who worked in the UK, and from what I can gather the social welfare system there is fairly easy to manipulate and the money is comparatively good. You can earn a lot more in government support on The Dole while unemployed than you might earn while employed. And if you have 3 or more kids, you qualify for a significantly bigger house from government, leading to people being dubbed "professional breeders."

Can any UK Jubbers back this up, or is it more urban legend?

-d-

 

[cgymike]

^UK is incredibly easy to manipulate but the easiest is social security fraud in the USA...incredibly weak computer security in SSA. It is said to be the easiest hack on earth apart from the MTS/sz ( and those who know ...know).

They use IBM computers....dinosaurs with open ends. as bad as Burroughs .....

 

[pat grimshaw]

Rarely.

Who are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

That says FAR more about you than about poor people.

What does it say?

 

[pat grimshaw]

which guy and who said it. …

I thought you were raised within the Catholic church?

Why aren't you disclosing about how you've spent so many nights distributing food over so many years to the poor people of Toronto?
And telling us about how your goodness has transformed their lives?

 

[Kabluey]

^ Do I detect a defensive Bah! Humbug?

Pat - you're claiming to have provided multiple acts of kindness. A little more detail perhaps?

 

[pat grimshaw]

^

Do you want names, dates and cash amounts? Beggars and thieves don't give receipts

 

[Kabluey]

Neither do fibbers

 

[zombiekiller]

Neither do fibbers

What's a fibber?

 

[pat grimshaw]

^

Kabluey is telling you I'm a liar.

He's suggesting that my discretion is proving his hypothesis. It doesn't.

 

[medic1]

I have friends who worked in the UK, and from what I can gather the social welfare system there is fairly easy to manipulate and the money is comparatively good. You can earn a lot more in government support on The Dole while unemployed than you might earn while employed. And if you have 3 or more kids, you qualify for a significantly bigger house from government, leading to people being dubbed "professional breeders."

Can any UK Jubbers back this up, or is it more urban legend?

-d-

It is true that many were abusing the system, however Cameron and his cronies are in the process of totally remodeling the entire welfare state.
The problem with the way they are doing it is rather simple. One size does not fit all.
Now we are seeing disabled people having to move out of specially adapted homes, because they have an extra bedroom. Which they now have to pay for.
Even though that bedroom may be used to either store their specialist equipment, such as a bath-hoist ect, or on occasion when a "carer" may have to spend an overnight, because of illness.
It is true that the welfare system was being abused, and a large percentage of this was from other nationalities.
Taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, is not the proper way to go. Though it seems to be more and more prevalent here now.

 

[Scealle]

I have friends who worked in the UK, and from what I can gather the social welfare system there is fairly easy to manipulate and the money is comparatively good. You can earn a lot more in government support on The Dole while unemployed than you might earn while employed. And if you have 3 or more kids, you qualify for a significantly bigger house from government, leading to people being dubbed "professional breeders."

Can any UK Jubbers back this up, or is it more urban legend?

-d-

My sister works in a international law firm in england (4 years now) and she told me this is true. I remember there was a news where a prisoner had multiple wives/kids/babies just so he could get by Now every time she pass by anyone (especially british) who has a kid(s) she judges them like they are criminals/ society low life

 

[ElmosToe]

OMG, I can actually understand Sloppy's posts in this thread.
It's either a good thing or JUB is infecting my brain.

 

[Kabluey]

^

Kabluey is telling you I'm a liar.

He's suggesting that my discretion is proving his hypothesis. It doesn't.

My hypothesis wasn't directed specifically at you. But I can see what you mean.

 

[zombiekiller]

Although social progress is not on topic, as alms and charity are ancient traditions (as opposed to revolutionary social thoughts), your statement is inaccurate, hence not forgotten by the reader, as it was never learned as a truth.

As was already cited in a rebuttal of this, groups like Quakers, Methodists, United Churches of Christ, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and others have often led the fight when society needed to change in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, some of the most vocal and active supporters of gay marriage are coming from progressive denominations. The same is true about immigrant policy.

Here in Albuquerque, an intrusive anti-abortion measure was introduced on the local city ballot this year, and we defeated it last week. Two weeks prior, my Sunday School class dedicated its hour to hearing from a religious coalition representative who laid out what the proposition was, how we were working to defeat it, and what we could to to help. My denomination is an active supporter nationally of such pro-women's rights legislation, and specifically, pro-choice.

Learn about history of reform and then make your claim. It is as biased as it is untrue.

No one contends that the status quo doesn't dominate some of the largest institutions in a society, including churches, but likewise, the rebel minority does not inherently work outside the framework of their own organizations which are frequently churches: same religion, different interpretation and execution of the teachings.

I never said there was no religious people fighting for social progress. I said progress happens despite overwhelming religious opposition. Pointing out exceptions ain't gonna to prove otherwise.

And I find it funny that I predicted your post about coming afterward to try to claim credit.

And years from now, I'm sure people like you will try to revise history and tell people that religion has always supported gay rights and it was us evil atheists that opposed it... or some other nonsense.

The catholic church, for example, had 2,000 years to come out against slavery. They blew it. Why not end slavery then when religion had a lot more influence in state affairs?

Your religion is based on a book, right? If all these social progresses came about because of religion, then we should have seen them thousands of years ago. Instead, we progressives fight tooth and nail inch by inch for the most basic human rights despite overwhelming religious opposition.

Again, you pointing out exceptions won't change this fact. You pointing out exceptions about today's hand full of religious organizations supporting gay rights will not change the fact that most of religious institutions hate us.

 

[zombiekiller]

Actually, you said exactly that, as shown clearly in the post quoted above.

What is it with people not being able to read properly? I said social progress never came from religion. I didn't say social progress never came from religious people. And when they did, it was because these people had adopted progressive ideas, not because their religion told them so.

If by "claim credit" you mean cite real world examples from real world churches that I personally had experience with versus abstract attacks without basis, I guess you're right. Maybe you "knew" my post would follow yours because you have a history of bigotry and I have a history of making it plain.

Again, the examples you cited were exceptions. And even then, they got their ideas from progressives. Had their ideas been really from religion, most religious institutions would have come to the same conclusion. But since most religious institutions almost always came to the opposite conclusions...

"People like me"? Sounds bigoted. As for future transgressions or propaganda, I couldn't defend that, as I haven't done, am not doing it now, so am not able to do the time travel thing. It is a sign your argument has failed when you have to contrive offenses for your opponent, or people like him, to commit. Huge fail. I know lots of atheists, few who might be considered evil. Again, you paint an argument not made.

Yes, people like you. Revisionists.

The fact is, church groups ARE supporting gay rights, and that is in direct contradiction to your earlier post, and it is a public fact, not opinion. Again, bigotry loses in the face of reality.

Again, you're pointing out exceptions and trying to pass them as mainstream.

Face of reality... most religious institutions are against gay rights. They've always been against gay rights.

As I am not a Catholic, I will leave them to defend their own. BTW, I never see you post about the flaws of your own native country and its institutions, so maybe it is perfect by comparison. I'm assuming you left to be a social missionary to your current country?

The catholic church represents a sizable portion of the Christian religion. If you're going to try to pass progressive ideas as coming from religion, you can't escape including the catholic church.

Gee, religion must be much more powerful than I had ever dreamed. It is the only social force at work in society's evolution, huh? There is obviously no relevant historical evidence of biological prejudices for sexuality. Since Christianity is obviously the only force capable of repressing gay progress, it must be a well-known fact that ancient Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, Babylonians and the like had gay marriage. Let's check the murals in the ruins and find the examples.

Religion really is as powerful. Atheists are unelectable, even more unelectable than gays. And every presidential candidate must swear allegiance to religion if he wants to be electable.

And I said religion. I didn't say only Christian religion. Jesus... what's with the poor reading comprehension?

My religion is an active force in my community for change, for protection of the poor, for gay rights, and for women's rights. It is true locally, and it is true nationally, and internationally. And I have already named multiple examples of other denominations that do the the same.

You mean change as in trying to change gay people to straight? LOL I've heard that before.

Anyway, the point is years from now revisionists like you will have our children believe that there never was a fight for gay rights when it's no longer fashionable to be bigots. We're still struggling inch by inch for our rights and you're already making it sound like religion is coming out in force to support our cause.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

anys institution world ova got lot a shit
butts
anys time cans wipes theres ass ans get it agether ans get there nappys right

whilulls " instiutions celansins out theys holes look at umselfs a 1st world public wots stills shittin gurds anytime cans go get life ans figa whys theys get shit gurd
not like roman empees throwin folk lions at mo fa bit a realtiy tv

thankyou

exit down
* catch *

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Exactly. There isn't one church any longer, and the legacy of Catholicism and other prominent churches no longer encompasses the entire institution.

sorry no a connect reglion
but bunch apes make club wot eva world bank law club fa chestnuts politcal snak swallin football bath day fa membas only etc so on
Universatys nappy changin daylots

thankyou

 

[zoltanspawn]

It might be a better world if the disenfranchised were running it, but I doubt it. Poverty isn't a virtue any more than wealth is.

Poverty teaches us more about virtue than wealth. Poverty gives us cold and hunger and filth and sickness. When we know these things firsthand, we're more likely to feel empathy for those who suffer from it. Of course, no amount of suffering will increase the empathy of the naturally greedy.

And for those poor souls, wealth is the only guide.

 

[pat grimshaw]

.



Enough of all these emotional, theoretical speeches! Robert Malthus said it all TWO CENTURIES ago and the Poor are still with us.