>The original title of the article was "This WILL reduce welfare
>rolls."  I didn't know whether to label this post as a "crackpot post"
>or simply grant the writer a "Knuckle-Dragging, Slope-Skulled Author
>Award."  It's a tough call.  Anyway, the writer's name, which is both
>a noun for a piercing tool and a verb for incising boils and
>hemorrhoids, is "Lance."  Lance likes to spend his time masturbating
>to pictures of horses asses and editing his personal ad: "SWMT [Single
>White Male Troglodyte] seeks SF [Single Female] interested in peeping
>in people's windows, crossdressing, wearing concealed poo-poo diapers
>to Bruce Willis movies, watching my "Faces of Death" video collection,
>looking up all the big words in HOOTERS magazine, and working on a
>petition drive to get Rush Limbaugh back on TV.  And -- oh, yeah --
>long walks on the beach.  UF [Upright Female] preferred if she doesn't
>talk back too much, but I will settle for a less erect species."

>>It looks like you have no class at all. Your post speaks for itself.
>>I'm sure that you're just as brave/flaming when you talk to people
>>face to face.

>Mr. Lance, I gave you EXACTLY what you deserved.  Your post was an
>affront to every value for which American stands.  Not only did you
>mock the condition of a segment of the population already weakened by
>their condition, you took it further and recommended that we victimize
>them further and nationally humiliate these people to worsen their
>condition.  The way I see it, direct argument is wasted on your kind.
>The best solution is to turn your mockery onto itself, because the
>values upon which such ideas as yours are based are nonexistent;
>arguing from a moral high ground would be a waste of time.  You're
>arrogant, which makes you dumb to reason.  It doesn't, however, make
>you dumb to mockery, which stings those most who posture themselves
>haughtily.  It didn't even matter to me if YOU were offended.  I
>wanted to hold you up for ridicule for everyone else in the
>newsgroups.  That I chapped your ass was a bonus.  On a serious note,
>you must generally hate people or yourself to a great degree to enjoy
>concocting such cruelties against the weak.  And I'm sure my post
>speaks well of me, regardless of your reaction.  If I had been you and
>had had my ass deservedly chaffed by someone having such a damn good
>time, I would have reacted similarly.  I recommend that in the future
>you be a little more considerate, and if you can't be considerate,
>stop having such a good time being a monster.

>>>The original title of the article was "This WILL reduce welfare
>>>rolls."  I didn't know whether to label this post as a "crackpot post"
>>>or simply grant the writer a "Knuckle-Dragging, Slope-Skulled Author
>>>Award."  It's a tough call.  Anyway, the writer's name, which is both
>>>a noun for a piercing tool and a verb for incising boils and
>>>hemorrhoids, is "Lance."  Lance likes to spend his time masturbating
>>>to pictures of horses asses and editing his personal ad: "SWMT [Single
>>>White Male Troglodyte] seeks SF [Single Female] interested in peeping
>>>in people's windows, crossdressing, wearing concealed poo-poo diapers
>>>to Bruce Willis movies, watching my "Faces of Death" video collection,
>>>looking up all the big words in HOOTERS magazine, and working on a
>>>petition drive to get Rush Limbaugh back on TV.  And -- oh, yeah --
>>>long walks on the beach.  UF [Upright Female] preferred if she doesn't
>>>talk back too much, but I will settle for a less erect species."

>_____________________________________________
>Alric Knebel
>al...@datasync.com
>_____________________________________________

>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?

>>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
>>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
>>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
>>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
>>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
>>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
>>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
>>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
>>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
>>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
>>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?

>There was a time when poverty was the best incentive to get out of poverty.
>Now it is a viable alternative lifestyle created by the liberals. The
>original purpose of welfare and food stamps was as a temporary measure for
>those who truly needed it and there are people who fit that category. What
>it has become is the largest free handout to whoever wants it. It has also
>become the largest instance of vote buying this country has ever seen.

>You say that people will be embarrassed if the were filmed getting food
>stamps. So What! Most of them should be.

>The segment of the population that you were referring to overcame some very
>great odds. They overcame being sold into slavery by their own country, they
>overcame slavery and the gained civil rights. To call them weak is a gross
>overstatement and extremely racist.  I recommend in the future that you will
>be a little more considerate.

>Go look for some real victims.

>>American values are not about free handouts. That would be called liberal
>>values. Your assumption that a segment of the population is weak is quite
>>arrogant on your part. It is in fact an insult to that segment of the
>>population to which you were referring. If I were to believe what the
>>liberals have told me about myself I would be standing in line with my
hand
>>out and be indebted to those who perpetuated the myth by voting for them.
>>But I was not brought up to believe that crap. I was told that if you were
>>honest and worked hard you would get along quite well in the world. I was
>>told correctly. It works. And now as an adult I am not indebted to any one
>>group of politicians because they "helped" me out. A politician has to
earn
>>my vote. It is not for sale or barter.

>>There was a time when poverty was the best incentive to get out of
poverty.
>>Now it is a viable alternative lifestyle created by the liberals. The
>>original purpose of welfare and food stamps was as a temporary measure for
>>those who truly needed it and there are people who fit that category. What
>>it has become is the largest free handout to whoever wants it. It has also
>>become the largest instance of vote buying this country has ever seen.

>>You say that people will be embarrassed if the were filmed getting food
>>stamps. So What! Most of them should be.

>>The segment of the population that you were referring to overcame some
very
>>great odds. They overcame being sold into slavery by their own country,
they
>>overcame slavery and the gained civil rights. To call them weak is a gross
>>overstatement and extremely racist.  I recommend in the future that you
will
>>be a little more considerate.

>>Go look for some real victims.

>Look at this, everybody: Another slope-skull lifts his knuckles off
>the ground just long enough to mimic a human.  First, you
>shit-for-brains, club-wielding grunt, I never said these people I'm
>defending are WEAK.  I said their conditions makes them weak, and by
>that, I mean the condition of poverty makes them vulnerable to the
>whims of the more solidly middle- and upper-class society, and to any
>emergencies that might disrupt the flow of their subsistence.  Second,
>I was not in any way, shape, or form insinuating that the people I was
>talking about had slaves in their lineage.  Statistically, there are
>more white people on welfare than any other race.  So your bigotted
>assumption belies YOUR racism.  And what a disingenous display: While
>pretending to defend their dignity from "liberals" like me, you swipe
>at the programs YOU assume they are misusing.  Which is it?  Are you
>defending them, or are they a program-abusing, lazy race?  What a
>slope-skull you are!  Do you think you can express yourself and not
>give yourself away?  When your brain churns through an idea, your
>thoughts thunk down like someone wielding a sledgehammer that is far
>too heavy for him: You follow the thought only half way, then let it
>go because thinking is too hard for you, and you end not knowing what
>you said or what your even talking about.  Let me set you straight on
>the situation as it really is.

>First, regardless of the lesson the Neanderthals you elected to
>Congress have inculcated to the mooing masses otherwise known as their
>constituents, liberal politicians and welfare programs did not create
>poverty, and neither do they foster that condition.  Poverty existed
>long before the liberals and programs came along.  The liberal
>politicians RESPONDED to the condition of poverty, and that response
>led to the programs.  Contrary to what the monkeys argue, the programs
>themselves were never intended to eradicate poverty; the programs were
>designed as a means to alleviate some of the suffering and hardship of
>poverty.  When you remove the programs, the poverty will still be
>there, with the misery compounded by the lack of assistance for those
>unfortunate enough to live in it.

>Another erroneous assumption is that the programs were set up as a
>temporary measure.  Where did you get this information?  Rush?
>Gingrich?  Lott?  Are low-paying jobs a temporary phenomena in our
>society?  If not, then enrollment in a program might not be temporary.
>If it's not, suffering and misery is mitigated by the program to some
>degree.  That's a good thing, whether you have the moral sense to
>realize it or not.  The only real solution to the problem of poverty
>is for the purveyors of capitalism to adopt a less exploitive approach
>to enterprise.  Until that day comes, the programs will be the only
>solution for the misery generated by a society that postures Christian
>values while practicing social Darwinism.  And that's what YOU
>practice, social Darwinism.  You're okay with it; I'm not.  It's a
>question of values; I have them, you don't.  Instead of complaining
>about these programs, you should be humbly thankful that you have no
>need for them.  And while you're at it, you should maybe ask for
>wisdom and look inward to see what it is that possesses you to wish
>further hardship on men, women, and children you have never met, who
>wish you no harm, and whose lifestyles in no way affect yours.  That
>is a good question, and you need to be asking it.  Pick apart your
>attitudes and separate them as you would spilled fiddle sticks;
>examine your emotions until you discover the shit fertilizing these
>hateful thoughts of yours.  The first thing you should learn is that
>you ain't all that enough be feeling superior to those struggling in
>the poverty class.  If you resent the help they get because you can't
>get any help yourself while considering yourself laboring under
>hardship, then maybe you should be supporting broadening eligibility
>so you can apply for benefits, too.

>My own values, which you attempt to besmirch in your benighted mind by
>sneeringly attaching the misnomer of "liberal values," are based on
>simple common decency, a set of core principles ostensibly supported
>by almost every religion and culture in the world, but practiced only
>by a few.  So my values are not "liberal values," though I've
>discovered that liberalism is the best expression for them in a
>political context.  The values came first, based on a private sense of
>something decent and moral; the political affiliation came later, when
>the values needed expression as a solution to social ills and national
>vision.

>And on what are YOUR values based?  Have you even thought them through
>enough to gauge their eventual consequences if they were practiced
>unchecked?  Like a rocking chair stranded with cobwebs, your own
>thinking is creaky and outdated.  You evidently haven't studied enough
>history, since there are many examples past and present of the
>consequences of unfettered capitalism.  India is a current example, as
>is Mexico.  If you like those systems so much, maybe you and your kind
>should move there, where you social Darwinism can go unchecked, and
>your monkey values won't disrupt the evolution of civilization.  If
>you think that humiliating people on welfare is a fine idea, your
>departure can't come quick enough for me.
>_____________________________________________
>Alric Knebel
>al...@datasync.com
>_

>Poverty! What do you know about poverty? To you it is just a figure that is
>put together by a bunch of liberals who have no idea what poverty is. You
>must be doing pretty good if you can afford a computer. People who are truly
>in poverty can not even afford the flour to make a loaf of bread. People
>that are truly in poverty must walk quite some distance to get the water
>that they need on a daily basis. These things are not happening in this
>country.

>Your values appear to be based on hate. You can't wait for my departure. How
>does human decency fit in there? When you can not adequately defend your
>views you resort to calling people names.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

>I think the best way to eliminate welfare is to make it a personal loan with
>a multi tiered ceiling limit.
>Anybody who needs it can 'barrow' from this fund but are required to pay
>back the borrowed amount beginning 6 months after the initial withdrawal. If
>an individual fails to to payback the amount, liens on future withdrawals
>will be made. Liens could also be placed on paychecks, property or other
>items of value or can be 'worked off'. If all attempts to pay back the loan
>fails then it should be considered a crime and appropriate penalties applied
>and all future access to the welfare loan program be revoked for a minimum
>of 10 years.

>What do I know about poverty?  A lot!  I was born and raised in it.  I
>lived in the projects until I was sixteen.  My mother one time ate
>molded bread so her children could eat the unspoiled food.  She also
>made bread from the flour included in boxes from the federal
>government that was generically referred to back in the sixties as
>"commodities."  Her children smeared that bread with peanut butter
>obtained from the same boxes.  At the age of thirteen, I experienced a
>particularly threatening event that fixed for the next thirty years
>how I would react to the world.  From that age on, I never had an
>inkling of what I wanted to be; all I knew is what I wanted to avoid,
>and anyone with even the most basic tools for self-actualization will
>tell you that the first rule is to fix your sights on where you want
>to go, not on what you want to avoid.  In the interim between that day
>and my awareness of its importance to my development, I was like a
>caged animal on fire.  I am thankful now to have at least achieved the
>awareness of it.

>So you see, my little monkey, I understand poverty very well, and
>unlike a lot of other people traumatized by that experience, I am able
>through my own gifts to articulate the insidious effects it has on a
>person's development.  Maybe this ability to express myself is a
>God-given gift, and it will serve no other purpose than to empower me
>in these crude dialogues and make people like have to work harder to
>justify your empty values.  Maybe that's it, and to also provide
>others like me with the words to defend what they instinctively know
>is morally right: that unfettered capitalism is an insidious system
>that without mitigating measures creates societal dysfunctions that
>must be dealt with sooner or later.  Why do you think the jails and
>prisons are filled to overflowing?  From what econmic group do you
>think most inmates come?  And why do you think prisons are so cruel?
>If prisons were places housing offenders from the more affluent
>classes, they wouldn't be so backwards and cruel as to draw the
>censure of international organizations like Amnesty International.  Of
>course, you probably still have the Republican hook in your cheeks
>that describes our prisons are havens of bliss, and THAT'S why crime
>is so rampant: We're not cruel enough to prisoners.

>The United States is morally a third-world country, and people like
>you make it so and are committed to keeping it so.  Hardships have
>never been, and will never be, the character-building experiences you
>claim them to be.  Too much struggle breaks more people than it makes,
>and the evidence supports my view, not yours.  Sure, there are some
>inspiring stories showcasing a particular person as having overcome
>great difficulties to achieve some great thing.  But we focus on what
>they accomplish, not on how they felt and what was driving them to
>accomplish whatever it is that brought them into the spotlight.  I
>once read a story about Steve McQueen as told by his wife.  He had
>been an orphan, I think, and she said when he ate, he ate as if he
>expected someone to come and take his plate before he was finished.
>Was that essential to the man's character?  Did not his previous
>experiences deprive him of a sense of security ALL OF HIS LIFE?  His
>emotional perseveration prevented him from savoring his later
>successes, and regardless of what he accomplished, he, too, had been
>traumatized by his earlier sense of want.  These are facts.  Look into
>them.

>I don't like the country you want to create, where the poor are mocked
>and humiliated for doing what they can to make ends meet.  The country
>I want to live in is better than the animal kingdom you want to
>maintain.  Republicans again and again tell us how morally empty we've
>all become, but it is their fiscal policies which express the more
>pervasive moral deprivation.  And you and the rest of your species
>support it.

>And you're right: I do call people like you names.  That's because I
>realize we're engaged in a war for the soul of America, and the other
>side has recruited the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailles for the
>front lines, destroying dignified political debate by debasing the
>opponents.  I've seen it again and again, the sneering references to
>liberals while never addressing liberal successes.  Rush has become a
>millionaire doing it.  I've taken a lesson from him and have come to
>appreciate the effectiveness of the same techniques.  Never refer to
>the other side except in the most derisive terms: "Monkeys," "knuckle
>draggers," and "social Darwinists" seem to me the most vivid for my
>purposes.  You don't like it?  Well, welcome to your world.  It's a
>jungle out there, but -- hey, what the hell -- it builds character.

>_____________________________________________
>Alric Knebel
>al...@datasync.com
>_____________________________________________

>"I have a problem with an institution such as the independent
>counsel that has no real accountability, that goes on and on
>like Tennyson's brook, without end and with an open-ended
>checkbook."
> - Henry Hyde in defense of Oliver North

>Do you by chance write for the Boston Globe?

> >>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
> >>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
> >>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
> >>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
> >>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
> >>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
> >>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
> >>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
> >>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
> >>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
> >>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
> >>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
> >>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?

>Rose

>Lance wrote in message <729ri0$ek...@ramp2.tir.com>...
>>I think it would be constructive for us to take action which
>>will lower the number of people on welfare in both electoral,
>>and covert ways. While voting for those who would eliminate
>>the welfare bonanza that currently exists, we could also use
>>tactics that will make welfare recipients reluctant to seek
>>out their freebees. A small group of persons with a video
>>camera could document those who enter, and exit the
>>building at the main welfare office, food stamp center, and
>>the like. If asked what they are doing, they could simply state
>>that they are documenting those who are seeking out benefits
>>for purposes of pursuing repayment which will be forced by
>>upcoming legislation. I think this could go a long way in
>>reducing welfare dollar output. What do you think?