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.
"It's to help someone down on their luck.
It's to help those who CANNOT help themselves.
Not those who WILL NOT.
that's the difference. You want votes and that sense of morality and are willing to look the other way."
what part of that is saying welfare is only good for me?
What part of that is saying when others need it it is just chronic laziness?
Freaking clowns. So dishonest it's disgusting.
The fact that you perceive other people as lazy is baked into what you said. You're making an implicit assumption that some significant portion of welfare recipients could "help themselves" somehow, but choose not to for some reason. If you think I'm twisting your words by referring to that sentiment as chronic laziness, feel free to rephrase.
Here's what I do not understand. Does the left want to do anything at all to protect our voting process? They don't like Voter ID. Okay. They don't want stricter guidelines on registration (in some states you do not have to prove either citizenship or identification to register to vote). Okay. But what about those of us who are concerned, in an age where fraud is rampant in everything from identity fraud to tax fraud? Do they genuinely believe that our voting process is immune, especially in those locations where proof of citizenship and identity is not required at either the point of registration or at the voting booth?
Tell me, does the left support a system where we can't even verify voter fraud because all of the tools to do so have been taken from us? How do I verify that Joe Blow is a citizen and his name is Joe Blow if, at no point, do you require Joe Blow to prove either his citizenship or identity? Is this the argument? That we can't prove something unprovable and therefore it doesn't exist?
Seriously, what is the Democrat answer to this?
I don't understand why the right doesn't want to imprison everyone of English descent. Don't they want to protect America from someone claiming to be our rightful hereditary monarch? Seriously, what's the Republican answer to this?
I guess it's probably similar to the Democratic answer on voter fraud: it's not worth imposing real hardships on people to prevent imaginary, far-fetched consequences.
Yes you can end poverty. We just don't want to end poverty. The only way for man to become wealthy is to make others poor. We can't all be wealthy. If everyone is wealthy, no one is wealthy.
And the only way for Democrats to retain power is to keep a permanent underclass in poverty and dependent upon the assistance Democrat politicians promise. Why would Republicans want to keep people poor, if being R is just about money? Poor people have so much less disposable income than the middle/upper class.
When we started the war on poverty, the poverty rate was 15%. Last year, the poverty rate was…15%. Its dipped down a few times, but there's never been a gradual decline since these policies just do not work. There is always going to be poverty simply due to human nature. Some people have low ambition; some have poor work ethic; some aren't very intelligent, some have made horrible life choices, some have suffered setbacks out of their control. These people will most likely always be stuck in poverty no matter how much money we spend to fix the problem. We should do what we can to make sure they're fed, healthy, housed and clothed, but we can't legislate people into prosperity.
I don't understand why the right doesn't want to imprison everyone of English descent. Don't they want to protect America from someone claiming to be our rightful hereditary monarch? Seriously, what's the Republican answer to this?
I guess it's probably similar to the Democratic answer on voter fraud: it's not worth imposing real hardships on people to prevent imaginary, far-fetched consequences.
Ok, how's this: even if we take away people's voting rights to appease your baseless paranoia, you'll just find something else to be paranoid about, so it's pointless to try.
It is quite interesting that to some people it is perfectly OK to bait or tempt some folks to break the law.
A recent news story comes to mind;
The guy who was baited by a police officer who posed as a young girl to entice the guy into a sexual assignation at a motel, then arrested him.
the teen who is sent into a store (by the police) to try to purchase tobacco or alcohol, then the cops arrest the clerk and fine the store.
Oh, sure, THAT is OK, after all, it is to PROTECT THE CHILDREN!
But if somebody tries to prove that voter fraud really DOES happen by tempting someone, that is BAD!
right.
Ok, how's this: even if we take away people's voting rights to appease your baseless paranoia, you'll just find something else to be paranoid about, so it's pointless to try.
So basically, you're not in favor of doing anything at all to protect our voting process?
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.
