Thrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,295
- Reaction score
- 9,801
- Location
- Texas, Vegas, Colombia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
true and false.
Theoretically, one could still go "live off the grid" in the wilderness, but it's extremely difficult as they would be harassed as vagrants whenever they crossed paths with local law enforcement. That doesn't negate your point, though, and I agree with it.
I need to borrow your avvy for a sec.Maybe they should get better jobs then. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed around and dropped out of school then. Maybe they should have tried being responsible then, not had a dozen kids by a dozen fathers, etc. Funny how liberals never think about the things these people have done to screw up their lives in the first place.
A bit of a stretch? Do you deny that people generally elect those who best serve their perceived interests?I think that's a bit of a stretch.
I don't know about undoubtedly, but I suppose it's possible. Either way, I don't know that it would make much of a difference at this point. The super wealthy already have more influence over the average person concerning policy.
What does this have to do with anything that I said? The only thing you've done is further explain your subjective opinion on what valid goals are to you. What on Earth makes you think that people should have to live your expectations? And what on Earth makes you think that everyone is capable of living up to those expectations?Having goals to prosper should include getting out of debt and owning property, as well as increasing one's income. Wealth is more than just income. Owning assets such as real estate is also important. Throwing money down the drain on consumer items is not only short sighted, but ignorant. Long term investment is more important.
With a subjective opinion like his, probably not.A bit of a stretch? Do you deny that people generally elect those who best serve their perceived interests?
What does this have to do with anything that I said? The only thing you've done is further explain your subjective opinion on what valid goals are to you. What on Earth makes you think that people should have to live your expectations? And what on Earth makes you think that everyone is capable of living up to those expectations?
This is essentially what you're saying: "I believe a good citizen does X, so anybody who doesn't do X isn't a good citizen and shouldn't vote". Where X is some incredibly subjective judgment. Do you not see a problem with that line of thinking?
And given the vast array of funding sources the government utilizes, exactly who is that?The only people who should be able to vote for a thing are the people whose money will actually be funding it.
Good points. There are places that are remote enough that you could probably get away with it for awhile, but you're right, it'd still be technically illegal.It is completely illegal to do so. Even in places where one is allowed to BE, it is illegal to hunt fish or gather food without purchasing a permit to do so. And you have to buy a wilderness pass to BE in the wilderness.
Funny how conservatives never apply common logic and basic facts.
FACT: Less than 99% of americans dropped out of school, have a dozen kids or have gone through a dozen spouses.
Hell, it's probably less than 0.5%
Wow, that almost sounds like an argument for abortion.80% of non-married teen mothers end up on welfare, 72% of non-married teen mothers have their births financed by Medicaid and 53% of the total cost of AFDC, Medicaid and food stamp costs can be attributed to non-married teen mother-headed families. It's estimated that out-of-wedlock births cost taxpayers $2.2 billion per year in welfare and food stamps.
Do they adjust representation based upon percentage of those disenfranchised in this fashion as also required by the fourteenth?
Honest question, as it seems you are more knowledgeable about this matter.
And homo sapiens is a SOCIAL species.
Survival of the fittest INDIVIDUAL did NOT get us from the savannah to the moon.
Could you expand a bit on who exactly these "lazy sloths" are? Is it obvious to anyone who looks at one, or might there be some who look like a lazy sloth but not actually be one?coddling lazy sloths sure didn't either
Actually the thirteenth amendment defines imprisonment as slavery:
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Could you expand a bit on who exactly these "lazy sloths" are? Is it obvious to anyone who looks at one, or might there be some who look like a lazy sloth but not actually be one?
Lol I like how people split hairs in calling our Republic with representational democracy to better fit their purpose of what we essentially were during British rule with dukes and such. I don't think I need to waste anymore thought on this topic. You clowns that think the poor need not vote simply read the pledge of allegiance think about what it stands for and then come back at me with that "only the rich should vote" bull****.
Everybody in this nation is dependent on the work of others. The idea that those on welfare are the only ones is preposterous.Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others
In other words, you're just amusing yourself by spewing rhetoric. Got it. :roll:Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others when they could work themselves or are you mad that I pointe it out
my point was not to discuss WHO is a lazy sloth but the fact is policies that coddle them did not allow us to achieve great things
A bit of a stretch? Do you deny that people generally elect those who best serve their perceived interests?
What does this have to do with anything that I said? The only thing you've done is further explain your subjective opinion on what valid goals are to you. What on Earth makes you think that people should have to live your expectations? And what on Earth makes you think that everyone is capable of living up to those expectations?
This is essentially what you're saying: "I believe a good citizen does X, so anybody who doesn't do X isn't a good citizen and shouldn't vote". Where X is some incredibly subjective judgment. Do you not see a problem with that line of thinking?
Should the Poor not be allowed to vote
Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others when they could work themselves or are you mad that I pointe it out
my point was not to discuss WHO is a lazy sloth but the fact is policies that coddle them did not allow us to achieve great things
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?