Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Free Cell phone for people who cant afford Cell phones


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#31 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:11 PM

It's state government that provides your Constitutionally required appointed counsel in state cases as well...


Let me explain it this way.

If it's in the constitution, the state and federal governments must obey.

If it's not, then the states decide.

If states didn't have to follow the constitution, they could individually deny you the rights afforded under the constitution.



#32 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:41 PM

Let me explain it this way.

If it's in the constitution, the state and federal governments must obey.

If it's not, then the states decide.

If states didn't have to follow the constitution, they could individually deny you the rights afforded under the constitution.


I understand Federalism and the Constitution.

#33 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:42 PM


Washington state lawmakers have prohibited purchases of tattoos, body piercings, alcohol and tobacco. Bars, bail bond agencies, gambling establishments and strip clubs are also now required to deactivate the ability of their ATMs to accept benefit cards. Colorado and Indiana have banned alcohol, guns and gambling.
In Massachusetts, lawmakers are considering banning card purchases of tattoos, pornography and guns. The proposal would also prohibit spending at nail salons, jewelry stores and casinos. Welfare recipients in the state are already barred from using their cards to buy lottery tickets, tobacco and alcohol. Pennsylvania legislators are calling for sweeping restrictions as well.



The inhumanity! Those poor poor. What are they going to do now that we've removed acess to their fun?

CUE: "the majority of welfare recipients are single parents... derp... don't have left over money to spend on those "indulgences" derp"


Clearly, I mean if a few people abuse a system we should make it so no one can abuse that system in the future. GUESS IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET AND DERIVATIVES, HUH?!?!

#34 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:51 PM

Clearly, I mean if a few people abuse a system we should make it so no one can abuse that system in the future. GUESS IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET AND DERIVATIVES, HUH?!?!



Right because only a few (like three or four) welfare recipients have used their welfare money for unnecessary expenditures.... and of course deflecting onto an unrelated problem absolves you from recognizing this one.


I do agree that to some extend there is a new found "McCarthyism" in regard to the poor and being lazy and irresponsible but it is more then a few and it is a problem.

The world is full of idiots both rich and poor but the problem with the poor idiots is that they are being idiotic on the taxpayer dime.

If as a child my mom give me $20 to buy a pair of shoes and instead I decided to buy candy and porn with it should I not feel some sort of backlash?

Yet we should not criticize the poor for misappropriating government issued funds because... they have it tough enough already?

#35 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:02 PM

Right because only a few (like three or four) welfare recipients have used their welfare money for unnecessary expenditures.... and of course deflecting onto an unrelated problem absolves you from recognizing this one.


I do agree that to some extend there is a new found "McCarthyism" in regard to the poor and being lazy and irresponsible but it is more then a few and it is a problem.

The world is full of idiots both rich and poor but the problem with the poor idiots is that they are being idiotic on the taxpayer dime.

If as a child my mom give me $20 to buy a pair of shoes and instead I decided to buy candy and porn with it should I not feel some sort of backlash?

Yet we should not criticize the poor for misappropriating government issued funds because... they have it tough enough already?


It's not deflecting, it's a natural continuation. Abuses of the mortgage market led to the 2008 crash in a big way. If you're prepared to say that abuses of a system that cause harm should be more heavily regulated, such as camoor eluded to, then why are you in favor of increased regulations in only this one particular area? Furthermore, it was the idiocy of those same rich people who largely led to the crash. Has the welfare system caused our entire economic system to collapse? So really, who has caused more damage to our economy, the rich, or the poor?

Am I to really to understand that because some people, of which neither one of us conceitedly has concrete numbers, have abused the system of welfare we have in place that you are in favor of completely wiping out the welfare system as a whole?

Or, are you in favor of reform and regulation of the welfare system? Fact of the matter is, you were the one who assumed that because I support welfare I was one of those "bleeding hearts" who fought for them to be able to use the money for strippers and liquor, I never said I completely opposed regulating welfare.