On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:52:11 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:30:13 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate of
>>>>>>> those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not insist
>>>>>> others do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you insist that they support the lazy and unambitious?
>>>>> Especially when they tend to breed like flies?
>>>>
>>>> you'd rather they die like flies instead?
>>>>
>>>> blake
>>>
>>> What do you get when you feed starving people?
>>>
>>> More starving people.
>>>
>>> People should not breed what they cannot afford to support.
>>> It's not fair to the rest of us that breed responsibly...
>>>
>>> Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm seriously in to personal
>>> responsibility!
>>
>> just about no one got where they are purely as a result of their own
>> personal efforts. when growing up, you went to school that someone else
>> paid for. your got to school on roads that someone else paid for. you are
>> protected by a police force that somebody else paid for. etc., etc.
>>
>> the idea that everyone is solely responsible for their own success or
>> failure is a false one, and some need more help than others.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I have no problem with them getting help, so long as they eventually
> "get there" so they can start helping back. Not living their entire life
> on the dole...

what do you think the percentage of parasites is compared to the percentage
of people who really need help? how do you distinguish between the two?
and given the pittance that any of these people actually get, is it really
worth the amount of ****ing and moaning that some non-poor people do about
the tremendous 'burden' placed on them? don't forget, we're talking about
eleven percent of the federal budget.

don't you think it might be better to bitch about the thirty-some percent
spent on the military? do we really need to spend almost as much as the
rest of the world combined?

your pal,
blake