Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should we implement your desired programs federally even if up to 90% of citizens within a state disagree with it?
I can understand overriding popular opinion when basic rights are involved, but not free cell phones and social programs.
Nimchimpsky, I'm fine with your idea of us directing tax money towards programs where we want them to go.
Yes. That's how it works with the presidency. Even if 90% of the people in a given state hated Presidential Candidate A, if more than 50% voted for Candidate A nationwide, that's who would be elected into office the next term.
Yes. That's how it works with the presidency. Even if 90% of the people in a given state hated Presidential Candidate A, if more than 50% voted for Candidate A nationwide, that's who would be elected into office the next term.
You are correct and that works for truly national issues since the Constitution allows it. However, I am referring to forcing state-level social programs on states where 90% of the citizens disagree but are forced to pay for it. We can pull unfunded mandates from both ideologies as an example.
What kills me in the commercial for the free gov't phone, is the woman that they have in it, has a killer manicure, did anyone notice her nails? She says she needs the phone so she can call her daughter's Dr. Just notice the nails next time that commercial is on, if she can afford a mani, then she can afford a phone. Oh and her hair is done beautiful and she's dressed not to shabby either.
What kills me in the commercial for the free gov't phone, is the woman that they have in it, has a killer manicure, did anyone notice her nails? She says she needs the phone so she can call her daughter's Dr. Just notice the nails next time that commercial is on, if she can afford a mani, then she can afford a phone. Oh and her hair is done beautiful and she's dressed not to shabby either.
I can manicure my own nails, most gals can they just prefer to have others do it if they have the money. Same with hair. Can't speak to clothing but if you expect people to be in stained, ripped rags that's an issue of yours.
I'm not even familar with this commercial but I assume, if it's not a paid actor, it was someone who knew they would be on film and didn't want to look as trashy as you think she should.
I can manicure my own nails, most gals can they just prefer to have others do it if they have the money. Same with hair. Can't speak to clothing but if you expect people to be in stained, ripped rags that's an issue of yours.
I'm not even familar with this commercial but I assume, if it's not a paid actor, it was someone who knew they would be on film and didn't want to look as trashy as you think she should.
exactly....
my wife every once in awhile will get her nails done in a shop.. but usually does them herself... just as her hair.. I am the one that cuts, styles and perms it. Even though yes we could afford it.. but dang it, I am cheap...lol
What kills me in the commercial for the free gov't phone, is the woman that they have in it, has a killer manicure, did anyone notice her nails? She says she needs the phone so she can call her daughter's Dr. Just notice the nails next time that commercial is on, if she can afford a mani, then she can afford a phone. Oh and her hair is done beautiful and she's dressed not to shabby either.
Media professionals have been know to employ people known as "actors" to impersonate specific characters in commercials and the like.
Its sort of sad to me that people get so outraged over things that the poor get from the govt.- they are NOT the problem in this country- look at congressional pensions for only four years of service, look at the waste in the military budget, etc. etc. etc., look at real big ticket problems. I think that those that control this country would like nothing better than for everyone to focus on money spent on helping out the needy instead of focusing on where the money really gets pissed away, at the top.
The low-cost connection will feature a paltry 1.5 Mbps download speed, and up to 384 Kbps upload, Comcast said, and the option will be available in the 39 states the cable provider currently serves. Comcast won’t charge for the activation costs or equipment rental fees either, and the company guaranteed no price increases on the $10 monthly fee.
This is only worth $10. My first thought was actually senior citizens who may not have access now, not outrage.
What's the point in working for a living? You end up worse off than the welfare crowd with their plentiful food stamps, WIC, free school meals, free cell phones, free internet, free cable television, free utilities, free transportation, even vacations, meals out.
The problem is -- there should be some reward for working for your living and the way it is now, there is not, the welfare crowd lives a higher standard of living than the middle class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
