What is pissing you off this time?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not true either, not even close to true.
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/s...rangements.htm

from your link it appears she is right...

DOES WHERE I LIVE AFFECT HOW MUCH SSI I CAN GET?

Yes, it can. If you live in your own place and pay your own food and shelter costs, regardless of whether you own or rent, you may get up to the maximum Supplemental Security Income (SSI) amount payable in your State. You also can get up to the maximum if you live in someone else's household as long as you pay your food and shelter costs. If you live in someone else's household and don't pay your food and shelter costs or pay only part of your food and shelter costs, your SSI benefit may be reduced by up to one–third of the SSI Federal benefit rate.

Originally Posted by DanaC

American conservatives getting their collective gun boner on over the London attacks. That's pissing me off.
Note to self: stop watching Fox news clips on youtube.

The main premise of gun proponents is the ability to defend yourself from bad guys/gals, and the government.
That's why they are making noise about Brits can't do that, in the wake of this tragedy.
Maybe it's time for the British reaction to not be going into mourning, but get pissed and go into action.
Keep calm and carry on doesn't work.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

from your link it appears she is right...

SSI REQUIRES me to pay half the rent and utilities anywhere I live.
No, they do not.

If you live in someone else's household and don't pay your food and shelter costs or pay only part of your food and shelter costs, your SSI benefit may be reduced by up to one–third.

Sorry, not a requirement.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah but she loses a third of her benefit if she doesn't, so she must. You sound like a Republican.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah but she loses a third of her benefit if she doesn't, so she must. You sound like a Republican.

MAY MAY MAY!!!! I've been through all this shit PERSONALLY.
You've got to stop feeding the fear. Its simply not a "FACT" - in FACT, SWIDT?, its a far cry from that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

MAY MAY MAY!!!! I've been through all this shit PERSONALLY.
You've got to stop feeding the fear. Its simply not a "FACT" - in FACT, SWIDT?, its a far cry from that.

Yes, it can. If you live in your own place and pay your own food and shelter costs, regardless of whether you own or rent, you may get up to the maximum Supplemental Security Income (SSI) amount payable in your State.

She was already assessed and the benefit determined, as long as she pays her share of the rent/food. If she can no longer prove she has the income to be able to do that, she will no longer be eligible for the maximum payment in her state. That's a fact jack, not fearmongering.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

from your link it appears she is right...





The main premise of gun proponents is the ability to defend yourself from bad guys/gals, and the government.
That's why they are making noise about Brits can't do that, in the wake of this tragedy.
Maybe it's time for the British reaction to not be going into mourning, but get pissed and go into action.
Keep calm and carry on doesn't work.

Keep calm and carry on does work. As a response to terrorists, not being terrified is a good response - that is a victory.

I am a little pissed off by the general tenor of some of the US reportage on this. All this crap about us being 'under siege' and 'terrified'. Like we're all left cowering in our homes and scared of going out.

We are not. People in Manchester and London, and indeed every other major city are continuing as normal. We will not let this foster dire hatred and change our national sense of self, because a handful of dickheads decided to follow the ISIL death cult.

There's not much the average citizenry (or even police) can do to prevent a suicide bomber like in Manchester. The attack on London could have been significantly worse, had the response time not been so fast and had people not followed the guideline advice on what to do in the event of an incident.

All three terrorists dead on the ground within 8 minutes of the first 999 calls is about as good as it gets in terms of incident response.

the idea that a bunch of civilians carrying concealed weapons might have been able to deal with the situation quicker is all very well, except that if gun ownership followed the same pattern as in the States the majority of them would have no training, or minimal training. Knowing how to handle a firearm is one thing. Knowing how to handle a firearm in a high stress and rapidly evolving situation is entirely another. The area of London they attacked (Borough Market) is a twisty, turny place, full of street furniture and crowded with people. Even with most people cleared from the area and taking cover in restaurants and pubs, the highly trained firearms responders still managed to clip a by stander with a stray bullet.

I don't think Joe Bloggs, with his 6 sessions of firearms training and a few hours on the range would have been an asset - aside from the risk of him hitting a civilian instead of the terrorist, at that stage nobody really knew how many attackers there were, whether there were more coming from other places and what their intentions were - someone in a different part of the crowd firing a weapon would have likely caused further panic.

The police acted fast and with astonishing efficacy and the number of people seriously hurt could have been much higher.

I am sick to death of the finger wagging, gleeful attempt to characterise the citizens of my country as cowards and sheep because we choose not to routinely arm ourselves to the teeth.

There have been terrorist attacks in the US where guns are everywhere. There are how many school shootings in the US?

The gun debate only really resonates in the US. It's not a factor here and there are very few voices calling for a change to that. That does not make us complicit in our own victimhood.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Keep calm and carry on does work. As a response to terrorists, not being terrified is a good response - that is a victory.

Absolutely right.

Terrorists act on the same principles as internet trolls. Much more violently, but the motive is the same. They are looking for attention and a reaction. They thrive on fear. If you give it to them, they win. If you attack them and collateral damage hurts their community, then that spawns more terrorists because they hate you now too. It's like the Hydra.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Dana There, doesn't it feel better to get that all out instead of stewing about it and snide quips?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

Absolutely right.

Terrorists act on the same principles as internet trolls. Much more violently, but the motive is the same. They are looking for attention and a reaction. They thrive on fear. If you give it to them, they win. If you attack them and collateral damage hurts their community, then that spawns more terrorists because they hate you now too. It's like the Hydra.

Absolutely wrong.

Terrorists want to kill you. They want to eliminate those who don't live the way they think people should live. They thrive on death. If they were looking only for attention and a reaction because they thrived on fear alone, they could do it without becoming martyrs. Fear is just a byproduct that they'll use if it's there. If you attack them and collateral damage hurts their community, then that spawns more terrorists because they hate you now too, why are their police and military attacking them.

British civilians have relinquished the ability to act in defense of themselves. Terrorists want to kill them and the civilian population obliges by dying without a fight. So what if they're not terrified while their people are being killed. A hollow victory.

*All rights reserved by devil's advocate. YMMV in correlation to individual martial competency. Void when encouraged by thread title.