T1B

That's what the HNIC said he would do. Question is, where is this money coming from?

LET'S PAY THEM! HOPE AND CHANGE BABY!

(!) http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... aught-tape (/!)

you fukkin' rich white haytas crack me up. why do you hate the poor? i mean the messican's are doing it, so it must be working, right?

this is probably why we have such a problem with poor folks scurrying across our southern border, right?

wait. they are away from this wonderful social program. hmmmmm. that doesn't make much sense. must be some meddling jews screwing with it.

why does the hopey changey crew always leave out one simple little part of the equation that makes this a bad idea. it's called human nature.

we are all self serving assholes.

if some chump is gonna hand out free money, most will line up for it. some may not out of a sense of pride, but, throw in a little class warfare propaganda about how the have nots are getting jammed and most of the prideful ones will hop in line as well. the result is a small rich class and everybody else half a step above poverty with those half a step up thinking that it's by the grace of uncle sugar that they are not in full blown poverty.

i can almost get how libs would site relatively successful northern euro socialist leaning countries as a role model, but, when they start citing latin american shitholes because they are relatively less deplorable than they used to be, it's pretty fukking hard to keep from going .

88 wrote:We already pay the poor in the United States. We give them subsidized housing, food stamps, cell phones etc. And it hasn't been working.

Not to mention pay them to shit out babies. Pretty sweet deal being able to get more back from the IRS than you paid in.

War Wagon wrote:

88 wrote:We already pay the poor in the United States. We give them subsidized housing, food stamps, cell phones etc. And it hasn't been working.

Not to mention pay them to shit out babies. Pretty sweet deal being able to get more back from the IRS than you paid in.

if anything, we should pay the hoodrats to get their tubes tied. i'd pay a few bucks for that.

smackaholic wrote:wait. they are away from this wonderful social program.

i can almost get how libs would site relatively successful northern euro socialist leaning countries as a role model, but, when they start citing latin american shitholes because they are relatively less deplorable than they used to be

When you read try to sort through one of e. e. suckaholic's poats, it's pretty fukking hard to keep from going

In Mexico, where it first began on a national scale and has been equally successful at reducing poverty

I laughed.

This is all wrong. Thread title should be...

To beat back poverty, eat the poor.

smackaholic wrote:you fukkin' rich white haytas crack me up. why do you hate the poor? i mean the messican's are doing it, so it must be working, right?

this is probably why we have such a problem with poor folks scurrying across our southern border, right?

wait. they are away from this wonderful social program. hmmmmm. that doesn't make much sense. must be some meddling jews screwing with it.

why does the hopey changey crew always leave out one simple little part of the equation that makes this a bad idea. it's called human nature.

we are all self serving assholes.

if some chump is gonna hand out free money, most will line up for it. some may not out of a sense of pride, but, throw in a little class warfare propaganda about how the have nots are getting jammed and most of the prideful ones will hop in line as well. the result is a small rich class and everybody else half a step above poverty with those half a step up thinking that it's by the grace of uncle sugar that they are not in full blown poverty.

i can almost get how libs would site relatively successful northern euro socialist leaning countries as a role model, but, when they start citing latin american shitholes because they are relatively less deplorable than they used to be, it's pretty fukking hard to keep from going .

You drinking or smoking bud this morning? both maybe?

South American countries would do more to follow Mexico's lead on dealing with poverty, but that Panama Canal get in the way every time.

Someone is proposing that we follow Mexico's model of fighting poverty?

Should have waited until April 1st to release that article. I suppose everyone would have seen right through it, though.

Dinsdale wrote:Someone is proposing that we follow Mexico's model of fighting poverty?

You mean ship your poor people north?

It might actually work for us, but I'm not sure that Marty et al would appreciate it.

Does canatucky have government-funded tuques?

http://thecanadiantuxedo.com/

IndyFrisco wrote:Question is, where is this money coming from?

Still waiting Jsc.

Jsc810 wrote:There are no requirements to keep children in school

I probably wouldn't be laughing so much if this was just plain ignorance, but dude's from Louisiana -- it's probably true.


JSEC, in states where it's illegal to marry your sister, it's typical to have state/municipal laws that requireall parents, rich or poor, on the dole or not, to keep their kids in school.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:We already pay the poor in the United States.

Right, but not like that.

Right, but our poor are not like that. The poor in South America would eat the excrement from a monkey with AIDS on a game show for the chance to be "America poor".

The poor from the country that started this movement are deciding that it is better to be poor in this country than their own. To even suggest that "this is working" is fucking laughable.

R-Jack wrote:The poor in South America would eat the excrement from a monkey

I hear the coffee is good in South America.

-trev

Jsc810 wrote:I'm a Republican.

I laffed.

War Wagon wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I'm a Republican.

I laffed.

Jack Republican. Just like being a jack Morman. You like like normal people / Republicans until you need to be perceived as Mormon / Republican.

Jsc810 wrote:I'm pro-choice and for same sex marriage

why I laughed at you calling yourself a Republican.... in name only.

Jsc810 wrote:Even though I'm a Republican, I'd like to help those people, or perhaps make it easier for them to help themselves.

A laudable goal. Feel free to do so with your time and your money. Nobody will stop you. You may begin at any time.

Ready.......GO.

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:wait. they are away from this wonderful social program.

i can almost get how libs would site relatively successful northern euro socialist leaning countries as a role model, but, when they start citing latin american shitholes because they are relatively less deplorable than they used to be

When you read try to sort through one of e. e. suckaholic's poats, it's pretty fukking hard to keep from going

yeah site/cite is one of the ones that kicks my ass on occasion. also, posting before my third cupajoe in the morning generally doesn't work out too well either.

so, now that we've got your cutting edge spelling/grammar smack out of the way, how about the actual topic? are you saying that maybe we should look to latin american hellholes for economic policy?

If I was a homeless American, I would change my name to Ray Theon and tell Congress I had the magical ability to defend America from nuclear attack with my "invisible force field"...kind of like a superhero.

Seriously, it would be like hitting the jackpot.

I think quite a few republicans are for limited abortion rights. I think 1st trimester abortion should be legal as long as adoption options are open to the women. Unfortunately pro-abortion whack jobs will settle for no limitation, including partial birth murder.

As for marriage, I think many republicans as well as quite a few dems could honestly give two shits about it.

smackaholic wrote:I think quite a few republicans are for limited abortion rights.

Nope -- those would be RINOs.

I think 1st trimester abortion should be legal as long as adoption options are open to the women.

Way to go, liberalholic.

Where in the Constitution does it mention abortion, or citizenship status of the unborn?

I guess that's up to individual states, then, ain't it?

Roe v Wade definitely needs to be overturned, since the SC had no authority to rule on it.

As for marriage, I think many republicans as well as quite a few dems could honestly give two shits about it.

Which Amendment mentions marriage?

I guess that's a state issue, as well -- although the fed could certainly enact laws forcing states to recognize legal marriages in other states.

My state already voted against, like every other state that voted on such things.

Dinsdale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I think quite a few republicans are for limited abortion rights.

Nope -- those would be RINOs.

I think 1st trimester abortion should be legal as long as adoption options are open to the women.

Way to go, liberalholic.

Where in the Constitution does it mention abortion, or citizenship status of the unborn?

I guess that's up to individual states, then, ain't it?

Roe v Wade definitely needs to be overturned, since the SC had no authority to rule on it.

As for marriage, I think many republicans as well as quite a few dems could honestly give two shits about it.

Which Amendment mentions marriage?

I guess that's a state issue, as well -- although the fed could certainly enact laws forcing states to recognize legal marriages in other states.

My state already voted against, like every other state that voted on such things.

Where did I say that abortion should be handled by the constitution?

Correct, I didn't. I just gave my opinion on it and I agree completely with you that the feds should have shit to do with it.

As for fag marriage, perhaps I was unclear on that as well. Lemme try again.

I DON'T GIVE A FUKK!!!!!!!!!

I do agree that it should not be given a fukk about at the state level though.

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:We already pay the poor in the United States.

Right, but not like that. There are no requirements to keep children in school and get regular medical checkups, at least not that I'm aware of.

If it were up to me, no person would receive any aid from the government whatsoever unless they: (1) regularly submitted to and passed rigorous drug screenings; (2) had no outstanding warrants; (3) were working toward a GED, if they did not have a high school diploma; (4) were seeking employment or job training; and, if they have children (5) make sure their children attend school.

For those who were unwilling to play by these rules, I would set up a system of camps. The camps would be for those who voluntarily wish to enter to receive minimal government benefits while getting themselves straightened out. In return for surrendering some of their personal liberty, they would be given housing, food and drug treatment/counseling whatever. But they could not go "beyond the wire" and receive government benefits until they were certified as complying with the requirements. The camps would be austere. No television. No cell coverage. No Internet. Nothing. They could leave at any time if they didn't want government benefits provided in the camp, with the proviso that they would not receive any government benefits on the outside.

why drug screenings and not alcohol screenings?

If it were up to me, bankers, lobbyists and CEO's would be required to submit to drug tests on a monthly basis.
All records of their personal and business affairs would be public record.
I would force them to attend "ethics seminars" every other weekend. All contact with family and loved ones would be forbidden.

At random, a few select individuals would be selected and subjected to torture enhanced interrogation...not because of any actual guilt...but you know...as an example to the rest. Some light water-boarding and beating the soles of their feet with metal rods.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Even though I'm a Republican, I'd like to help those people, or perhaps make it easier for them to help themselves.

A laudable goal. Feel free to do so with your time and your money. Nobody will stop you. You may begin at any time.

Ready.......GO.

Exactly.

FORCING people to give their money to take part in your wish would be called theft.

a minimum wage of 7 and change is theft.

IndyFrisco wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Question is, where is this money coming from?

Still waiting Jsc.

Here's a hint where to start.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Question is, where is this money coming from?

Still waiting Jsc.

Here's a hint where to start.

another hint of where to start:

America isn't asking for feudalism. It's begging for it.

Enjoy your moats.

Marty, shut up.

You're not the boss of me any more.

Martyred wrote:You're not the boss of me any more.

Marty is like the Lex Luthor of T1B

trev wrote:Marty, shut up.

Does the truth hurt?

Dinsdale wrote:I guess that's a state issue, as well -- although the fed could certainly enact laws forcing states to recognize legal marriages in other states.

Already in the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, §1 wrote:Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... icles.html

smackaholic wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:wait. they are away from this wonderful social program.

i can almost get how libs would site relatively successful northern euro socialist leaning countries as a role model, but, when they start citing latin american shitholes because they are relatively less deplorable than they used to be

When you read try to sort through one of e. e. suckaholic's poats, it's pretty fukking hard to keep from going

yeah site/cite is one of the ones that kicks my ass on occasion.

The English language kicks your ass on a daily basis.