Facebook election meltdowns and tasty, salty tears |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
Was it disability or actual Social Security? Because I gotta tell you if they're on the pension they've very much earned what they're getting back.

They sure are, but they still need to understand the level of cognitive dissonance they are exhibiting.

Well maybe now that the election is over we can finally figure out what happened at Benghazi. I'm pretty sure Travyon Martin got more coverage than that terrorist attack.

10/10
 
YV1Em.jpg


Not quite facebook... but damn, "more terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history"

I find this incredibly offensive. Fuck this guy. How are people like this allowed to receive anything good in life?
 
I find this incredibly offensive. Fuck this guy. How are people like this allowed to receive anything good in life?

Because he's protected by an evil sky wizard. If we try to strike him down, he will become more powerful then we could ever imagine.

Or because he's an old coot who only 1% of the population actually take seriously and everyone else watches him just so they can record him saying idiotic tripe like that.
 
Man, reading that Robertson quote again. It is so ignorant and idiotic and mind blowing he could have that thought process. It makes no sense to what really has happened in this world. Its crazy people follow him.
 
She only gets five years LIFETIME max on welfare.

So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"
 
Except we know that plenty of white people voted for Obama. No one believes that all white people voted for Romney. No racist message is created, transmitted or sustained by that blog.

Stop being so PC.

Well, I mean that's my point, ha—we also know that not all black people commit crimes. Ah wait, as I typed that I think I get what you are saying. It's about intent. A blog called 'Black People Committing Crimes' has a racially motivated goal in mind. A blog called 'White People Mourning Romney' is not making a serious effort to generalize.
 
Fair enough, I figured with the insane amount of exit polls and research there might have been something.

...and yeah, as a university graduate myself I can appreciate that it isn't always the best indication of intelligence.

Not data from the election but studies show Northeast and coastal citizens are more highly educated *looks at election map*
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

Your anecdotal evidence isn't even consistent.

What if the iPhone was part of a family plan in which she doesn't actually pay anything? Even if it wasn't, for some people having a smartphone is essential to their job or life.

Just because you're less fortunate does not mean you should be expected to not have luxuries if you can find ways to reasonably afford them.

Uggs aren't known for being expensive.

And she makes bad decisions about her diet.

NONE of that makes her less deserving of government assistance you judgemental ass.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

How much does it happen and how much does he think it happens?
 
big rant about food stamps people having nice things
You can't control what people will buy with their money. I've never understood this argument. Would her having bought more healthy food, having a flip phone and wearing non-designer boots have made you nod your head in approval when you saw the welfare card come out?
 
Well, I mean that's my point, ha—we also know that not all black people commit crimes. Ah wait, as I typed that I think I get what you are saying. It's about intent. A blog called 'Black People Committing Crimes' has a racially motivated goal in mind. A blog called 'White People Mourning Romney' is not making a serious effort to generalize.

Yup.

Hopefully, Valnen and Ventron get it, too.

Can't wait to find out.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

Jeez, you make it sound like being on welfare is awesome. You can get iPhones, Uggs, and you don't have to say hello or thank you at checkout.

The fact of the matter is you don't know her specific situation. How do you know that phone wasn't a gift? Or the Uggs?

Although abuse exists within the system, it is not prevalent at all. There isn't a recent figure for fraudulent welfare claims, however for unemployment insurance, fraud was at 1.9%. In a city a few months (or years) back, people were using their EBT cards to pay for lottery tickets and alcohol, however that was less than one percent of the amount of people use EBT.

We all agree that abuse exists and that it should not be tolerated, but you're taking the few times you see someone like this female you're speaking off and attributing it to the entire system.
 
You can't control what people will buy with their money. I've never understood this argument. Would her having bought more healthy food, having a flip phone and wearing non-designer boots have made you nod your head in approval when you saw the welfare card come out?

He'd probably go on some self-righteous and ignorant rant about her having even money to pay for a bus ticket to get to the grocery store.
 
Well, I mean that's my point, ha—we also know that not all black people commit crimes. Ah wait, as I typed that I think I get what you are saying. It's about intent. A blog called 'Black People Committing Crimes' has a racially motivated goal in mind. A blog called 'White People Mourning Romney' is not making a serious effort to generalize.

No, it's generalizing all right--but one thing that solidly disqualifies it from being racist is that it can't reasonably be construed as making generalizations about white people. The generalization being made is about the electorate supporting Romney, i.e. that it largely consists of white people.

Edit: Actually, I think it's more correct to say that it's making the generalization that there are nearly no minorities mourning Romney. This is why that tumbler was stupid, the joke had already been made, subtler and better.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

Seems you're taking one example and applying it across the board, here. I don't know how frequently you see this (it differs in different parts of the the US, and I know because I come from one of those parts), but just because you see it often does not mean that it's logical to apply it generally.

I understand the example to which you've added your own. I am also compelled to say that there will always be some people who leech a system, and revel it in. It's truth. It's also true that they're far and away a small, SMALL section of the population. Which would mean that people complaining about welfare are focusing on a very very small problem.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"
My family was on food assistance for a few months. I had a smartphone because my parents were nice enough to buy it for my birthday and pay the bill for the couple of months I needed help. Those Uggs could be a gift as well. As for the junkfood, it's still food. You're allowed to eat what you want. That's not even considering they could be snacks for a party, a once a day treat for the kids, etc.

You don't know what someone's situation is unless they tell you themselves. So how about you stop judging people because they might need some help in their lives every now and then.
 
Don't care if he's joking or something, he was easily one of the worst, most antagonistic posters ever to be granted a GAF account:

NgPtJ.png

what makes someone say something like this? it's just unfathomable to me.

can I also say how shocked I am at how much n****r is being said. I think that's the most shocking part of these meltdowns.
 
the only thing that I can assign to many young people being so racist, besides parroting their parents, is that they now blame these groups for their lack of success in life. (because they should be rich by now right)

God forbid they actually learn to become productive citizens and show dedication and responsibility. it must be the minorities fault that these girls aren't living like Paris Hilton.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

The thing is, it is easy to notice these people, what you aren't seeing is the denominator. The vast majority of people who quietly use their government help to make it through the day, without iphones and uggs, just hungry mouths to feed.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

Let's just say you're right, and those weren't gifts or something. Let's say that a minority of people abuse the system, are you saying that we should remove it entirely? Even though most of the people it goes to it helps them? You know even Romney, early in his career, was a proponent of welfare because it's how his grandmother and grandfather were able to support his father, and subsequently Romney, because without welfare there may have been no Mitt Romney because they'd be too poor to have a child.

The system at least needs to be restructured. I've personally known drug dealers on welfare who have a lot of money. Like, if someone has unnecessarily luxury items and they're on welfare, a red flag should come up and cut them off of welfare. But you have to be a pretty cold, ignorant person to not allow someone some relief to feed their family and survive. It almost makes me wish you lost everything so you'd know what it feels like. (I don't wish that upon you)
 
what makes someone say something like this? it's just unfathomable to me.

Because they are angry, not thinking clearly, and are racist. Normally I like to point out that actions, not people, are racist, but since anger typically brings down barriers for some people, I'm happy to say that this poster is a racist and a bad person.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

Hells yes, I am quitting my job and going on welfare. You just painted an awesome picture. I want an iphone, I can suffer through crappy ugly shoes and I absolutely love junk food. Five years of that is too awesome to pass up.
 
He'd probably go on some self-righteous and ignorant rant about her having even money to pay for a bus ticket to get to the grocery store.
I'm convinced that the wealthy just feel threatened when they see the poor in any positive light because it makes them question their own lifestyle of putting material wealth above all else. As if having an iPhone and designer clothes is the greatest social status attainable and the epitome of this life.

"Look at all that junk food she is buying! Look at all those short-term and flighty pleasures she is enjoying while I am toiling away! Any and all other hardships she experiences just don't exist!"

This ties into all the post election garbage spewing about how we might as well all quit our jobs and live off the free welfare and get an obamaphone.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"

This argument comes up time and time again in the UK in our "age of austerity"

My view is that yes, whatever system you create as a "safety net" will result in some people taking the piss. That's just life.
But, there is no way that we should get rid of that support for everyone, because of the actions of a small minority and those who are getting the support shouldn't be criticised, or judged, just because of the actions of a minority.
Close loopholes, increase checks, those things are acceptable, but getting rid of it all because of the few? Just seems crazy to me.
 
I find this incredibly offensive. Fuck this guy. How are people like this allowed to receive anything good in life?

This. Why are Republicans so stupid? i'm not American but reading that i can only assume he is Republican, and why do Republicans keep saying stupid things and keep getting positions in Republican party?
 
I'm just going to bring this up, because it rarely does during discussions of welfare and social programs like this. People forget one other important component. That person that poster up there was angry at isn't the only one benefiting. People need to look like 2 feet across from that person to see who else is benefitting. That person at the register has a job, and that business has more money coming in. You can sit there and piss and moan about a few people abusing the system, but be sure that there really is only a few, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater hurts far more than you might think it does.

My wife has worked in a grocery store that I know for a fact during this recession would have been closed if it weren't for things like foodstamps, because it was in an especially hard hit area. And, despite being one of the only sources of real food in the area, it never did all that well (because the area wasn't that well off). The company would have focused their resources elsewhere and closed it down. So, food stamps helped my wife, who was a hard working person who actually had a job, and many other people in that store that were just trying to pull themselves up and earn something.
 
i've never seen this type of reactions in my country when someone looses an election and certainly there is no one talking about moving or not having children. are they serious or just ironic?
 
That is the problem I have with the system and why not every single "Republican" idea is terrible. There is a specific case of a girl I know working minimum wage jobs, getting free child-care & food stamps, but now wants to have another kid. This is not the way any human should think, no matter where you lie on the political spectrum. I am in full support of these social nets in place, but they should be limited-term deals. Maybe 18-24 months worth of assistance, and then either getting booted off of it or offered another program that will help guide them down the road of self-sustainability. I mean 18 months may not even be long enough to get people over that hump if down on their luck, but people in it for 10 years, that is another story.

I am not an avid supporter of either party & pretty moderate, but there are a lot of people on both sides, dems or repubs who leech off the system, but brush that off or sweep the fact they are using the government under the rug.

I think it's more of a moral problem people have, but if you give it any real thought, it's not worth the trouble to anything as drastic as you're suggesting. Look up the projected amount of money lost a year to things like "welfare".

To get really upset about that amount and make drastic changes, it'll probably not do much for the economy, and effect people's kids, or the people who genuinely need it more than any scammers.
 
This gives me a dead-cold, corpse-like feeling.

The next generation everybody.

Facebook/Twitter are fucking toxic in some ways, that's what I'm starting to see (though really, I had that idea for a while.)

When the handouts benefit them, no problem; but must keep up that persona that they're some fucking ideal 'boot-strapper'. Fuck off with that nonsense.

It'll be easy to identify these people and ensure that they never see position of power. Can you imagine the damage they can cause in a multicultural society today? And if corporations are only moved by the reason of benjamins then they'd do well to step away from hiring these people, who because of their racist views, may discriminate and thus are a potential source for litigation and vicarious responsibility goes a long way.

When I saw the buzzfeed I really felt like someone should promote them for an early visit with their supposed gods. I, unequivocally hate people who are prejudiced and discriminate based on race and sexual orientation.

And you know what... america, as much as it sickens you, you have brought this to reality through your complacency. People talk about 1st amendment rights but does that really extend to people dehumanizing others based on sexual orientation or amount of skin pigment? I am certain the founding fathers never meant it to be abused in such a way.

All in all, I think it's about time all this twitter/facebook/social media hate was accelerated to its natural conclusion.
 
So that makes it OK? This past Saturday when I was grocery shopping with the wife we were finishing up and got in line behind a lady with a cart full of what I would consider "non essential" foods. Snacks, candy, etc. I don't care much about other people's eating habits since anyone is free to munch on whatever they want. I noted to the wife that she was yapping on her new iPhone 5 (yep, I'm a tech geek so I know these things) which I thought was rude since she was yapping during checkout and didn't say "hello" or "thank you" to the person checking out or bagging her groceries. I usually stay off the phone, but heh, whatevs. The wife noted she was wearing Uggs, which the wife apparently thought were nice.

At the end of it all she whips out her LINK card to pay.

I was fairly stunned. New iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc... but she's on a Government handout?

So she can buy a new iPhone, Uggs, junkfood, etc - but she needs Government assistance?

This happens more than you think and just because there's a 5 year maximum handout does not make it any better that we have leechers on the system.

That money could go to people who ACTUALLY fucking need it - which I am more than happy to help out. But people who abuse the system? Fuck that.

But, according to your logic, let's waste money because "5 years herp derp!"


I bet she even has a fridge at home!!!!!
 
This one is pretty good:

I’m starting the process to put mine up for sale and leave this f***ing country. Call me unpatriotic if you want, but it seems patriotism and love of country is just not appreciated anymore.

Where to go, who the hell knows. It seems any place decent to go to is just as socialist, or being overrun by Muslims.
 
I know they're not "social media" per se, but the message boards I've checked on Internet Archive from after the 2004 Kerry loss aren't filled with anything close to the same vitriolic meltdowns from Democrats that we're seeing from today's Republicans. I even went to Democratic Underground, thinking there'd be no shortage of hyperbolic rants, and didn't see much beyond concerns about tampering with votes in Ohio and Florida. Compared to what the freepers are freeping about now, for example, it's downright calm. Maybe there's some insanely ultra-liberal hippie message board full of tin hats from back then I could look up, but I couldn't name one off the top of my head.
 
I'm just going to bring this up, because it rarely does during discussions of welfare and social programs like this. People forget one other important component. That person that poster up there was angry at isn't the only one benefiting. People need to look like 2 feet across from that person to see who else is benefitting. That person at the register has a job, and that business has more money coming in. You can sit there and piss and moan about a few people abusing the system, but be sure that there really is only a few, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater hurts far more than you might think it does.

My wife has worked in a grocery store that I know for a fact during this recession would have been closed if it weren't for things like foodstamps, because it was in an especially hard hit area. And, despite being one of the only sources of real food in the area, it never did all that well (because the area wasn't that well off). The company would have focused their resources elsewhere and closed it down. So, food stamps helped my wife, who was a hard working person who actually had a job, and many other people in that store that were just trying to pull themselves up and earn something.

Very very good post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom