posted on February 10, 2001 03:10:11 PM new
gaffan - Well, the way I see it is you and krs are more than capable of finding pretty much anything you'd like to find on the internet. Somehow, I'd guess you just don't want to.
posted on February 10, 2001 03:49:59 PM new
Just the kind of completely unresponsive post I expected. Perhaps we could; but I suspect neither of us would ever fling out something as "fact" then refuse to back it up except with a nebulous "it's out there, go look it up yourself".
-gaffan-
posted on February 10, 2001 04:14:41 PM new
gaffan - Well, I don't remember ever reading this as a board rule,TOS, or CG. I understand that many do post a URL (and so do I) when there would be something I felt needed support.
But I don't believe it to be a requirement. And I certainly don't feel I need to do so because krs or you require it. Sorry. There are many posters here that make statements and don't post URLs, so not sure why I'm being singled out. But it really doesn't matter to me.
Being most Americans have heard of welfare fraud, I don't think it necessary to post 50 or more links to prove my point on the fact that there is a lot of welfare fraud.
I think we're just playing games here. If you don't believe there is welfare fraud. So be it. It won't upset me. And remember there's always your ignore button.
posted on February 10, 2001 04:40:16 PM new
No, it's not in the TOS or CGs. It is, however, typical of rational discourse to support one's conjectures with facts, at least in those cases where one expects to be taken seriously. It is one thing to contend that welfare fraud exists -- it does. It's quite another thing to take a handful of skewed anecdotal experiences and offer them up as proof that fraud is rampant. And saying there are lots of webpages that tell all about it as a means of supporting your position is laughable. As noted above, and using similar "reasoning", I can demonstrate that most Republicans are morons. They aren't; it is the "reasoning" which is, to be as mild as possible, flawed.
-gaffan-
posted on February 10, 2001 05:27:27 PM new
Yanno, I'm not posting to this thread and am really getting to the point of bypassing it as I have a lot of other related threads on this board because all I see is a lot of stick stirring and piling on.
But I just can't let this one pass by without comment.
Perhaps we could; but I suspect neither of us would ever fling out something as "fact" then refuse to back it up except with a nebulous "it's out there, go look it up yourself".
giggle....sorry, Gaffan,it's the "US" that did it.......giggle
posted on February 10, 2001 05:44:19 PM new
Got something to say, caraid?
Oh, never mind. Unless your grammar can somehow improve from "Yanno, I'm not posting to this thread and am really getting to the point of bypassing it as I have a lot of other related threads on this board because all I see is a lot of stick stirring and piling on" there's no reason to think that you'd be understandable, anyway.
posted on February 10, 2001 05:47:47 PM newgaffan,
I'm quite comfortable with linda_k's premise, and I'm sure that I'll be able to refer to it often. Good for the goose, as they say, good for the gander.
posted on February 10, 2001 06:54:33 PM new
I live in Maryland, just outside of Washington, DC. When I first moved to this area in the 1970s I don't recall seeing homeless people. Since the 1980s we have homeless people that sleep on the grates in the city. We see them all of the time. Almost to the point that we can describe them to others and they know who we are talking about. Since the 1990s we also have homeless people living in the woods by our homes in the suburbs. Most are men, but occassionally we see women and children. I'm certain that a good percentage of these people were on welfare, but they have since been taken off of the rolls. They are probably included in the numbers used to show the success rate of welfare reform. I would prefer that they had some sort of housing assistance. I suspect that they could buy food from a fast food carryout, but I think that there would be a big ruckus if they went to the local Safeway and were seen squeezing the tomatoes
posted on February 10, 2001 07:20:34 PM newSince the 1990s we also have homeless people living in the woods by our homes in the suburbs. Most are men, but occassionally we see women and children. I'm certain that a good percentage of these people were on welfare, but they have since been taken off of the rolls. They are probably included in the numbers used to show the success rate of welfare reform.
Nope, most of these people are included in the numbers used to show the "success" of deinstitutionalization. They can benefit from "community treatment". We don't need any state hospitals.
posted on February 10, 2001 07:44:09 PM new
In the early years it was clear that many of them were deinstitutionalized. Many of them wandered the streets talking to themselves or yelling obscenities. Most of them stayed closer to the inner city. As the years have passed many of them have disappeared. I don't know if they died of old age, or were found frozen in some alley way. The ones I see in the suburbs seem to have their mental faculties. Many of them are Vietnam Vets, but a growing number of them are in their 20s and 30s. The women seem to be in their 30s. Sometimes they are associated with a group, but others are alone, which of course is very dangerous for a woman.
