The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

If you are an illegal immigrant to Australia, the military rounds you up and takes you to a remote island where you are detained.

So Australia has been looking for a country dumb enough to take 1200 or so of its illegals, but had no luck.

So Australia contacted Barry O and asked if the illegal immigrants could be dumped in America so they could learn English and live on welfare.

Naturally, Barry said sure, we'll take them.

Trump has been dubious, as well he should be.

The U.S. saved Australia from Japanese conquest in WW II, and after that Australia provided a tiny bit of help to the U.S. in several small wars.

But who needs who?

Australia has seized guns and it has become a Politically Correct example of socialism.

It lectured the U.S. constantly on the supposed evils of Gitmo.

Now the Aussies expect the U.S. to accepts the illegals it can't dump elsewhere?

Australia can deport them to their own country, not to America. Obama had also been working with Germany and France to take in 10's of thousands of their overflow refuges, that's also been stopped dead in their tracks. You can bet Germany and France had hand selected the worse of the worse to deport to America.

The Left has simply gone insane.

Go to London or Paris, and there are areas which look like Egypt.

Terrorist attacks are no longer unusual or surprising, and women have to exercise care simply walking the street.

The Left in America wants more illegal aliens, and it wants more uncheckable Islamics.

Your ancestors were uncheckable peasant workers as well.

But keep on spewing your nonsensical bull crap, I don't want to get in your way...

:lol:

His ancestors were not savages bent on destroying all that is "western" or non-Muzzie.
They WANTED to come here for a better life.

These fucktards want to come here to kill.

Do you not see the difference, Elk?

The white man pretty much wiped out the Indians.

And now the Trumpanzzes are screaming bloody murder because they claim that Muslims are out to wipe them out!!!

How ironic..................

:shock: :roll: :shock:

One historical wrong does not justify another, does it?

The Left hates America so much that it wants more illegals, it wants more uncheckable Islamics.

Go to London or Paris today, and areas of those once-great towns look like Cairo or Beirut.

Yeah, and the Indians screamed bloody murder and tried to prevent what was happening too.

So it is the same. Your point?

You can bet your liberal ass that if a Muzzie swordsman was coming for you in NYC, you would be screaming your ass off too.

The way you think, "Coming to a neighborhood near you, soon" is a pertinent phrase.

Trump is trying to stop these savages before they can do more damage here....which they surely will if they have a chance.

Many native American Indians were anti-immigrants, in fact they realized the danger of all those unvetted white people flowing into their country. There were Indians that tried to blow the whistle but they were shouted down as being anti-white. We see what that got the Indians, you would think people would learn from history, but libtards are pulling an "indian" on us.

Let's not make the mistakes Indians did, we don't future Christian Americans all living in broken down doublewides on a planation living off of social assistance. Gays and most libtards in the United States and Canada will be beheaded, the only country to flee to will be Mexico because they deal harshly with illegals including imprisonment, they certainly don't receive social assistance.

"...we don't future Christian Americans all living in broken down doublewides on a planation living off of social assistance."-RealTool

Uhh, exactly who do you think is living in them now, dummy? :lol:

libtards and Native Americans make up 80% of those living off of handouts. Social Security by the way isn't welfare, it's retirement benefits those receiving it paid into. So subtract the elderly and disabled living off of Social Security, libtards like to throw them into the mix of "those living off of handouts."

Now that the "so called" judge has blocked the ban...

and Starbucks is celebrating by hiring 10,000 refugees....

I can't wait for one of those refugees to realize his "American Dream" by bringing me my coffee.... :o :o :o :lol:

"libtards and Native Americans make up 80% of those living off of handouts."-RealTool

More made up stupid shit.
But notice you didn't deny they were mostly "Christian Americans" in those double-wides on "social assistance" who are the ones we were talking about. Nice attempt at diversion, Tool. :lol:

"Social Security by the way isn't welfare,..."-RealTool

Social Security is the very definition of "welfare", dummy.
Why do you think it was started in the first place? It's the government taking care of the elderly and poor to keep them out of poverty.
It's government money doled out for the welfare of those who don't work.

"it's retirement benefits those receiving it paid into."-RealTool

No, many didn't pay into it. But yes, those who did pay in typically contributed less than $50,000 and will typically draw $100-$200,000 paid for by everyone else. "Handouts" from those working.
Same with Medicare, another "social assistance" program consumed by all those Christian Americans in double-wides. Most will draw far more than they paid in.
But it's hilarious that now you're here singing the praises of social welfare programs. :lol:

"So subtract the elderly and disabled living off of Social Security,..."-RealTool

Why? Who else is living off Social Security, dummy? That's what we're talking about; social assistance for those Christian Americans living in double-wides. You don't get to simply eliminate the entire class of people you started out talking about in order to pretend your idiotic statement is true somehow.

"...libtards like to throw them into the mix of "those living off of handouts.""-RealStool :lol:

No, it's conservatards and Tea Party clowns who are perennially railing against Social Security benefits as "entitlements" and "handouts".
Liberals are the ones who pushed for COLA increases against all conservatard whining.

Liberals are the ones who pushed for COLA increases against all conservatard whining.

Bullshit Clown...and you know it.. :lol:

Obama was the first President in history to deny COLA to both SS and military benefits..for three years running!
Then when it was time for him to ask for votes again..
he released them, saying "Look what I got for ya, ain't I a good President?"

What an asshole .

Obama did not "deny" anyone COLAs and you know it, you dishonest scumbag.

No President can do that. They're automatic.

The government index that they are based on decides what the COLA will be, not the President, not the Congress.

Or are you complaining that gas prices fell to under $2 a gallon on Obama's watch? :lol:

What an asshole.

Typical Libtard bullshit response...someone else is at fault.....

But it Happened on Obama's watch....
Then reinstated the year he was going for re-election...
What a coincidence.!
Obama...the asshole's fault.....It was his watch! :o :o





s

"Typical Libtard bullshit response...someone else is at fault....."-sillydumbfuck

What did I just say, you moron? :lol:

"They're automatic. The government index that they are based on decides what the COLA will be, not the President, not the Congress."

I just told you that NO ONE is to blame. The COLAs are in the hands of a formula set up decades ago that both Republicans and Democrats live by.
If you have a year without COLAs, it's not anyone's "fault", you ignorant turd.

But that was a typical conservatard response...don't like reality, make up some stupid shit and go back to ignorant fucktard land where everything is conveniently the fault of someone who doesn't believe the same nonsense you believe.

Clown is wrong about Title II retirement insurance benefits.

People pay into that.

Does the amount paid in happen to equal the amount a typical retiree might receive?

No, but that isn't how pension systems work.

johnny, you can't just say I'm wrong and then agree with everything I said, dummy. :lol:

People do pay into Title II.

De facto, people even pay into Title 16 because, even though it is dubbed "welfare," the funding stems from general taxpayer revenue.

But the argument does get complicated.

For example, under the pre-1983 federal governmental retirement plan, an annuitant would pay into the plan, but the typical person's pension would exhaust his/her cost basis in about 3 years of retirement.

The problem with the original Social Security program was that it neglected to consider extended lifespans, improved medical care, and thus longer retirements.

Also, if you factor in 12 million illegal immigrants where only a small portion of them pay into Social Security, you are destroying the base of younger people who should be working and paying in to support Baby Boomer retirees.

"People do pay into Title II."-johnflubs

Of course people pay into it, johnny. Nobody ever said they didn't.

But some people also DON'T pay into it and draw benefits for decades.

As always, you being right about some partial truth doesn't make me wrong about the larger point I made.

STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFITS
Sec. 214. [42 U.S.C. 414]  For the purposes of this title—
Fully Insured Individual
(a) The term “fully insured individual” means any individual who had not less than—
(1) one quarter of coverage (whenever acquired) for each calendar year elapsing after 1950 (or, if later, the year in which he attained age 21) and before the year in which he died or (if earlier) the year in which he attained age 62, except that in no case shall an individual be a fully insured individual unless he has at least 6 quarters of coverage; or
(2) 40 quarters of coverage; or
(3) in the case of an individual who died before 1951, 6 quarters of coverage;
not counting as an elapsed year for purposes of paragraph (1) any year any part of which was included in a period of disability (as defined in section 216(i)), and who satisfies the criterion specified in subsection (c).

Clown, if you are talking about the entire Social Security system, that's true.

For Title II, where a claimant must meet insured status requirements, that's not true.

Under Title XVI, of course a person can get SSI based on low income and scarce resources (also disability).

Yes, johnny, we were talking about "social assistance" and "Social Security". You're the only one who brought up Title II.

"Now that the "so called" judge has blocked the ban..."-sillydaddy

That "so called" judge was confirmed unanimously (99 to 0) by the Senate. How often does that happen?

If he's not a suitably "real" judge to you Trump supporters then there is no one in this country that can be considered a "real" judge.
Judges don't come any more "real" than when they are agreed upon by all parties. If only we had more of them.

You malleable clowns are letting Trump drag you around by the chain connected to your nose rings.

I provided clarification based on actual knowledge.

Most people don't know there's an earnings test for Title II, but "Social Security" also embraces federalized welfare.

In a sense, there's an earnings test for that too, but it relates to a lack thereof (a paucity of income and resources).

Other elements have been tacked on, such as widow's disability based on the record of a wage earner, and so forth.