On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 01:34:29PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > Nice way to avoid the point. > > Nope, didn't avoid a thing. As you admit your case was constructed. > Furthermore it did not address what I said. > > > You said, and I quote: > >>> The short, short form is that EICs are issued for people being > >>> irresponsible (like, having kids while well below the poverty level), > > Your constructed example was that someone who had kids *then* lost their > job. My case is the more common no job or single, low wage job, have a kid > because the nanny state will take care of it or they can't figure out how the > darn things are made. That's two completely different cases.
Which is an argument for haveing a free public school system that teaches responsible sexual conduct. Also an agument for free abortion. Also an argument for not getting raped. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
