- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Kill the Poor
Kill the PoorFollow
Lack of education. Which goes back to my point of increasing funds to schools. I realize that leaves a few generation gaps to fall through "the cracks" (sucks to be them), but over time we'd have a better quality of educated people in the US. It's cold, callous and all that ****, I don't care. We'd still have a portion of people from the shallower ends of the gene pull that we'd have to deal with, but I think we'd see a decrease in those types.
Atomicflea wrote:
The One and Only Katie wrote:
They are just misundertstood and uneducated, right? FuCk that sh*t.
How do you think the poor and disenfranchised get that way?
Liberal Conspiracy!
The One and Only Katie wrote:
Lack of education. Which goes back to my point of increasing funds to schools. I realize that leaves a few generation gaps to fall through "the cracks" (sucks to be them), but over time we'd have a better quality of educated people in the US. It's cold, callous and all that sh*t, I don't care. We'd still have a portion of people from the shallower ends of the gene pull that we'd have to deal with, but I think we'd see a decrease in those types.
I don't think it's callous so much as unrealistic. You think it's okay to have that portion of people that fall through the cracks, and yet-who gets decide who that is? Who has the authority to decide that some of us, some of our kids, have no value?
Dam Smasharoo, whats with the personal attacks? Did someone beat you with a welfare recipient as a child?
I do actually understand the three strikes law, as a law student. And again, I think it's good when it is applied properly. Would it be proper for your dog to **** on your carpet everyday? No, you would take action after the first couple times. Would it be proper to let someone who has been convicted of rape first, then assault, and then murder the third time stay out of jail? **** no.
Being locked away from society is not enough if you ask me.
The criminals in jail CHOSE to act a certain way. This is completly opposite of a child who has no choice in the decisions their parents make.
And as for "making more murder victims" by applying the three strikes law, that is the silliest logic I've ever heard. An ex-con commiting their third strike obviously didn't care about the consequences of their actions anyways.
I do actually understand the three strikes law, as a law student. And again, I think it's good when it is applied properly. Would it be proper for your dog to **** on your carpet everyday? No, you would take action after the first couple times. Would it be proper to let someone who has been convicted of rape first, then assault, and then murder the third time stay out of jail? **** no.
Being locked away from society is not enough if you ask me.
The criminals in jail CHOSE to act a certain way. This is completly opposite of a child who has no choice in the decisions their parents make.
And as for "making more murder victims" by applying the three strikes law, that is the silliest logic I've ever heard. An ex-con commiting their third strike obviously didn't care about the consequences of their actions anyways.
Lack of education. Which goes back to my point of increasing funds to schools. I realize that leaves a few generation gaps to fall through "the cracks" (sucks to be them), but over time we'd have a better quality of educated people in the US. It's cold, callous and all that sh*t, I don't care. We'd still have a portion of people from the shallower ends of the gene pull that we'd have to deal with, but I think we'd see a decrease in those types.
Nah. Extensive governemnet handouts in the way of welfare would though.
Glad you're in favor of that.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I think thats malarky, the excuse of being mentally handicapped is about over used as the whole ADD and ADHD development. I am not saying there aren't those who are, I'm saying on the whole I'm tired of hearing people claim that as the reason they did what ever they did.
Where did I ever say more welfare? I said funding for schools. Increase teacher pay, better books, bigger class rooms, more teachers, better education programs.
Flea, the adults old enough to take care of themselves would fall through the cracks. In my vision, the children would be taken in my foster homes until the parents could get their **** straight. There would be more money for foster care and for foster agents. Parents could still visit their children until they were able to take them back. Unrealistic, yes, but in my vision, thats how it would work.
Flea, the adults old enough to take care of themselves would fall through the cracks. In my vision, the children would be taken in my foster homes until the parents could get their **** straight. There would be more money for foster care and for foster agents. Parents could still visit their children until they were able to take them back. Unrealistic, yes, but in my vision, thats how it would work.
The One and Only Katie wrote:
Where did I ever say more welfare? I said funding for schools. Increase teacher pay, better books, bigger class rooms, more teachers, better education programs.
Flea, the adults old enough to take care of themselves would fall through the cracks. In my vision, the children would be taken in my foster homes until the parents could get their sh*t straight. There would be more money for foster care and for foster agents. Parents could still visit their children until they were able to take them back. Unrealistic, yes, but in my vision, thats how it would work.
Flea, the adults old enough to take care of themselves would fall through the cracks. In my vision, the children would be taken in my foster homes until the parents could get their sh*t straight. There would be more money for foster care and for foster agents. Parents could still visit their children until they were able to take them back. Unrealistic, yes, but in my vision, thats how it would work.
Read up on the foster care system then think again about sending kids there if you didn't have to.
Quote:
Read up on the foster care system then think again about sending kids there if you didn't have to.
Is it better to have kids in homes with drug addict parents?
The One and Only Katie wrote:
Flea, the adults old enough to take care of themselves would fall through the cracks. In my vision, the children would be taken in my foster homes until the parents could get their sh*t straight. There would be more money for foster care and for foster agents. Parents could still visit their children until they were able to take them back. Unrealistic, yes, but in my vision, thats how it would work.
Yeah, because it's been proven time and again that the best thing for children is an even less stable home life. What you're advocating for is the creation of a future generation of criminals.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
TheAncientCrusher wrote:
Quote:
Read up on the foster care system then think again about sending kids there if you didn't have to.
Is it better to have kids in homes with drug addict parents?
While I realize that personal stories are a dime a dozen, I can safely say that I prefer my childhood to one in which I would have bounced about the foster care system.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
The One and Only Katie wrote:
Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime! What keeps the rest of us from robbing banks and chopping people to bits?
Getting shot by the cops. That's my deterrent, at least.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
They are not all bad. We have two larger foster homes here where I live. Hendricks Home for Children and Ben Richey's Boys Ranch. Both are excellent facilities. For every bad thing you hear, there are a dozen good that never get published.
The One and Only Katie wrote:
They are not all bad. We have two larger foster homes here where I live. Hendricks Home for Children and Ben Richey's Boys Ranch. Both are excellent facilities. For every bad thing you hear, there are a dozen good that never get published.
Huh, similar to the welfare system. The ignorant think that anyone on welfare is lazy, uneducated, and just looking for a handout because it's true of a minority.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Dam Smasharoo, whats with the personal attacks? Did someone beat you with a welfare recipient as a child?
I do actually understand the three strikes law, as a law student.
You clearly do not. Sorry. I realize that may not bode well for you passing the bar someday, but you clearly don't.
And again, I think it's good when it is applied properly.
When a mandatory non discresionary sentancing law is 'aplide properly'? See my point above.
Would it be proper for your dog to sh*t on your carpet everyday? No, you would take action after the first couple times. Would it be proper to let someone who has been convicted of rape first, then assault, and then murder the third time stay out of jail? @#%^ no.
Nice fact pattern, genius. I'm fairly certain that if their third offense was ******* MURDER that they might allready be sentanced in excess of the 25 to life mandated by a third strike conviction. On the other hand if they steal chocolate chip cookies, mandating they get 25 to life seems a tad bit ******* RETARDED, don't you think? *IF* Judges had discrestion not to impose that sentance for that crime, the law would make a little more sense, while still being horribly flawed in concept and execution.
Being locked away from society is not enough if you ask me.
The criminals in jail CHOSE to act a certain way.
Society CHOOSES to prosecute some people and not others. Poor people and black people are CHOSEN to be sent to prison at a vastly higher rate than others.
This is completly opposite of a child who has no choice in the decisions their parents make.
What the hell are you babbling about?
And as for "making more murder victims" by applying the three strikes law, that is the silliest logic I've ever heard. An ex-con commiting their third strike obviously didn't care about the consequences of their actions anyways.
Clearly they do, or they'd have been convicted for Murder allready and not be committing their third non fatal crime. Clearly they CHOSE not to kill anyone, because they had no reason or desire to. Most crminals aren't ruthless killers. Most vriminals when faced with the prospect of certain life in prison or killing a witness might make that decision when they might not when the consequence to them is 10 years.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Waht is your answer to the even lasting questio of waht to do about the poor?
well there is NO simple answerer but here are some thoughts.
1. better chances for education.
2. reduce the min. wage and point out companies that are making excessive proffits at the expense of the poor.
2a: note** referring to a company that makes a product for $0.50 yet sells it for $15.00 and the total cost to sell that item is only $1.50. this type of thing happens all over the place from housing, to cars, to cloths, to food.
3. create a national transportation system much like in the EU. for a low price you can buy 1 ticket that is good for 365 days and you can use 100% of the public transportation any place in the EU. Used to be called the Euro-pass, no clue what it is called now, but that was late 80s.
4. stop handing out speeding tickets and start getting drug dealers off of the streets for good. 1st offense, jail 5 years, 2nd offense jail for life.
5. wellfair (food stamps/living allowance) is to be limited to 3 years. in that time you will be given an opportunity to get free trade school education and get a job that will PAY for a living instead of mooching off of my tax $$$.
on #2, yes REDUCE the min. wage. you reduce the expense of building things, you reduce the expense of BUYING things. with inflation going out of the roof and the cost of living being so high that unless you are making $30k a year + you can not afford a 2 bedroom house with 2 car payments and 2 kids. i make between $80 - $120 a year depending on how many students i have and i can not afford a house and i only have 1 car payment. now that is gross not net my net is closer to the $30k and i still can not afford a house... reduce the cost of housing, lease property (im paying $35/sqft, way to expensive), reduce the cost of insurance, etc... and then a job making $20k a year will be able to afford a small house in a SAFE neighborhood.
rant off on #2.
anyways, as i stated above, there are NO simple answers as to how to deal with the poor. there are a lot of things that can be done that are NOT being done and there are a lot of things that ARE being done that should NOT be done.
Hm. Unfortunately, associating "boys" and "ranch" will usualy lead to "Neverland".
Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 1:10pm PST by Debalic
Edited, Nov 15th 2006 at 1:10pm PST by Debalic
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
In my vision, the children would be taken in my foster homes until the parents could get their sh*t straight. There would be more money for foster care and for foster agents. Parents could still visit their children until they were able to take them back. Unrealistic, yes, but in my vision, thats how it would work.
Would they ride around on winged unicorns to get back and forth from the foster castle to the wizard school?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
* it would seem I've stepped on several peoples toes*
Go back a few posts. I never said to do away with welfare all together. I want harder restrictions. I think once you've been on it for 2 years, thats it. No more. You had your chance. Same with the people who abuse workmans comp. It pisses me off to no end. I want reform. I want to know that my dollar is going to those who are going to help themselves. If you aren't going to help yourself, I don't want to help you.
Go back a few posts. I never said to do away with welfare all together. I want harder restrictions. I think once you've been on it for 2 years, thats it. No more. You had your chance. Same with the people who abuse workmans comp. It pisses me off to no end. I want reform. I want to know that my dollar is going to those who are going to help themselves. If you aren't going to help yourself, I don't want to help you.
The One and Only Katie wrote:
They are not all bad. We have two larger foster homes here where I live. Hendricks Home for Children and Ben Richey's Boys Ranch. Both are excellent facilities. For every bad thing you hear, there are a dozen good that never get published.
Those are not Foster Homes, those are Group Homes. Foster Homes are individual couples that take in a child like temporary adoptive parents. Unfortunatly many Foster parents see only the money they get from the goverment for taking care of the child and others don't realise what they are getting themselves into and are unable to handle some of the kids they recieve.
Quote:
5. wellfair (food stamps/living allowance) is to be limited to 3 years. in that time you will be given an opportunity to get free trade school education and get a job that will PAY for a living instead of mooching off of my tax $$$.
I like this!
on #2, yes REDUCE the min. wage. you reduce the expense of building things, you reduce the expense of BUYING things.
No, you reduce the cost of MAKING things and hope the free market reduces the cost of buying things, which nearly never happens when you allow corperations the options of colluding and price fixing and spending their increased profits on yachts.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
The Glorious GitSlayer wrote:
The One and Only Katie wrote:
They are not all bad. We have two larger foster homes here where I live. Hendricks Home for Children and Ben Richey's Boys Ranch. Both are excellent facilities. For every bad thing you hear, there are a dozen good that never get published.
Those are not Foster Homes, those are Group Homes. Foster Homes are individual couples that take in a child like temporary adoptive parents. Unfortunatly many Foster parents see only the money they get from the goverment for taking care of the child and others don't realise what they are getting themselves into and are unable to handle some of the kids they recieve.
Ok, great, so I take back foster home and replace it with Group Home. I admit that was poor wording on my part.
If they can be educated and become productive members of society, then I have no problem with helping them. But we have to help them help themselves too. There are plenty of jobs at McD's and taco bell and the like, there is no reason, other than pure laziness, to be homeless. As long as they are trying, and want to improve their situation, then I don't mind them getting assistance. It's the ones that just want to live off other peoples hard work that annoy me.
Recent Visitors: 238
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Kill the Poor
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC