Jane Elliott says white people know black people are in pain

They still can't.

 

OMG. You know you look a right duffer at this point, dontcha?

You know it's true, yet you deny it like a small kid standing over a puddle of spilled milk and an empty glass in his hand. Give us ONE example of someone getting welfare for reasons OTHER than financial. I'm going to wait.

 

Why, I'm not talking about that.

 

What I would do if I could? Find a loving home for every child. I think our schools, public and private, can be a big help teaching parents skills they can use raising their kids. That said, there are teachers who for some reason never learn how to deal with students, so there should be no assumption a teacher knows what they're doing.

We should spend more on salaries to get better teachers. Privatizing K-12 education could be done in cities first.

 

Yes you are, and have been .. repeatedly. You keep claiming that welfare isn't predicated on finances. You've said it multiple times.

I've asked you (multiple times) to show even one single example of a non-financial criteria for welfare, and you haven't been able to. Every single thing you've suggested so far is financial. You're actually confirming MY argument, and at the same time acknowledging the truth.

There can be only one reason you keep denying that it's financial .... that you're embarrassed by the truth that it's a corrupt system.

 

Putting teachers aside for the moment, what's wrong with Govt policies which promote effort and determination? No more 'rewarding' people for doing nothing.

Every time you make things easier for people, you rob them of their potential. Why would you do that?

 

A millionaire could spend a weekend in Vegas and blow the lot. Is he in need? Of course not. But the Welfare State would say he is, and thus start funding him.

No they wouldn't.

 

Tell me exactly why this destitute man would not qualify for welfare. Be clear.

You must know the reason, since you keep saying it as though it's true.

 

He still has a job and other things.

 

What's the advantage of starving out the kids?

I'll keep that in mind when I think about my bank vice president daughter who my wife, her mother, and I treated to a university education and gave her what is today $1,000 spending money every month plus room, board and a vehicle. She was no doubt robbed of her potential.

She went through her hot chick phase in university, then got serious when getting a job.

 

no. Crank said destitute. If the millionaire loses it all and is destitute he may certainly get welfare, hiding from this only looks more comical.

 

Then he's not a millionaire.

 

You completely made that part up to suit yourself. I never once mentioned a job - all I said was he lost all his money gambling.

Try again, and this time do it honestly. If you can't, then just admit you were wrong, and that welfare is predicated purely upon your financial situation.

Once again, a millionaire who blows all his money in a weekend in Vegas, is 100% eligible for welfare.

 

WTF?

I said (multiple times!) that he LOST all his money gambling. I did not mention "jobs and other things" once. You totally added that in it to save your own skin.

Our pal is right, you're comedy at this point.

 

Which means he still has his job, home, car, etc.

 

So he has a million dollars and nothing else, where does he live?

 

Dude, are you for real? Aren't you even a tiny bit embarrassed about changing the entire premise of MY point? All just to pretend you haven't sided with the vile overlords running the Welfare con?

Go back and find where I said the millionaire lost money "but has a job, home, car, etc". You can't, because it doesn't exist. You made up an entirely different scenario to suit your beliefs about Welfare. I said the millionaire lost everything, and you know full well that's what I said.

 

I said - about five thousand times - that he LOST everything gambling.

Which makes him eligible for Welfare, whether you like it or not.

 

Then he's not a millionaire, so what's the problem?

 

YOU said he wouldn't be eligible for welfare, remember. Completely untrue, as you're now admitting.

Why didn't you just admit it upfront, and save yourself all that embarassment?

 

ANY person who has nothing is eligible for welfare, if your a millionaire your not eligible. Why do you have such a bug up your ass?

 

As usual, you've changed the entire premise to cover your mistakes.

I said a millionaire who gambles away everything, is eligible for welfare. You said "no he isn't".

You were WRONG, but desperately wanted it to be untrue - that such a deliberately terrible choice (as gambling all your money away) can be rewarded by welfare, while people who've never done anything wrong can miss out on welfare because they have a dollar more than that gambler. Yes, this is the reality of the despicable system you admire.

 

So people who are destitute should not be eligible for welfare. Got it. By the way where did you get the idea that you have to have nothing to be eligible for welfare?

 

that was the entire point, welcome to it.

 

Yes. As Jesus taught in The Sermon on The Mount, the first step toward murder is dehumanizing your fellow human being.