XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.republican, alt.politics.conservative
From: tim.howard@suddenlink.net
On 3/22/2011 7:53 PM, Voltaire wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Stan de SD
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 4:22 pm, Voltaire wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT), Stan de SD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 21, 10:38 pm, Tim Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> So what is your solution for the poor, who you call "lowlifes" that
>>>>>>> cannot afford housing and medical care on their own?
>>>
>>>> My solutions is that they put a bit more effort into their own
>>>> education and self-improvement so they can improve their earnings
>>>> potential. Other things, such as not having children you can't afford
>>>> to take care, would also improve their situation...
>>>
>>>>>> Very simple. For one, restrict HUD residents to lower income housing
>>>>>> and not the suburbs.
>>>
>>>>> How is that kind of economic discrimination any different than a racist
>>>>> policy that says all blacks must be confined to certain places, and not
>>>>> live next to whites?
>>>
>>>> You're either too stupid or stubborn to get it - which one is it?
>>>
>>>> There's a HUGE difference between someone who CAN afford the rent/
>>>> mortgage to move into a given location, but being prohibited from
>>>> doing so, vs. not being able to live somewhere because you can't
>>>> afford the price of entry. Maybe I can complain of "economic
>>>> discrimination" because I can't afford to live in Beverly Hills or
>>>> Grosse Point, MI or on the Upper West Side in Manhattan?
>>>
>>>>> Secondly, if you need public assistance, you> should be fixed so you
cannot have more children. It makes no sense for
>>>>>> working people to limit their family to two children while lowlifes are
>>>>>> having eight. Thirdly, all people on public assistance should be
>>>>>> required to take drug screenings just like working people. If you fail
>>>>>> the drug test (much like a job) you lose your benefits.
>>>
>>>>> You have a very hateful attitude toward the poor.
>>>
>>>> How is holding people up to standards "hateful"?
>>>
>>>> (rest of idiotic liberal nonsense snipped for brevity...)
>>>
>>> So you think that people losing jobs and health care is avoidable?
>>
>> To some extent, yes. If you haven't bothered to acquire any useful
>> skills along the line, you stand a greater chance of not being able to
>> find work in the event you get laid off.
>>
>>> You believe that people are always in control of what happens to them
>>> and there isn't one person on earth that deserves a helping hand?
>>
>> Never said anything of the sort - but then again, you're obviously not
>> interested in arguing with what I actually said or believe. Liberals
>> are seldom interested in acknowledging the truth or engaging in honest
>> discussion, because they can't win that way...
>>
>>> Maybe America can find a way to create a super race and none of this
>>> will ever happen.
>>
>> I have lost my job before, but unlike hysterical bed-wetters like you,
>
> You are the only one that is hysterical here. You saeem to be very
> unstable.
>
>
>> I never expected that anyone else was obligated to take care of me.
>> But then again, that's the difference between me and you. I
>> acknowledge and face risk in the world as an adult, while your type
>> tries to legislate it away, even it involves taking away the personal
>> freedoms of others...
>
> What freedoms would those be? Man you really go off the deep end don't
> you? Are you self medicating or just a social reject from the start?
>
> Man you really know how to rant and assume. You are obviously a very
> hateful individual.
Finally some backup! You can't mind Stan Mr. Voltaire (btw I am reading
on of his books now by coincidence). Stan worships the concept of the
"free market"; it is his god.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
