Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not a chance on the saint thing, and virgins are boring and dumb.
Well i do live on this strip of land, and know what these people strip out of the working people here who pay their way in life. They dont deserve free wifi when the rest of the city must pay for it themselves.
Yes, and they have the SAME access to it as i do. It is not free, it is paied for by the restaurant or cafe.
It is also BUM heaven. It is open to the public so there is not "rich" or "poor" to it. The "poor" are able to access this area. I am not able to access the "poor" area.
And so will they.
How do i know they dont "deserve" free wifi delivered into their free public housing? by virtue of the fact that they are not working and paying for it themselves. The poor ALREADY have access to free wifi as you have pointed out.
If the elderely are the targets of the wifi then they dont need it to "look for a better job" now do they? Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the target is the young who have never paid into anything.
They could have provided you countless services when they were working and paying taxes.
The majority of people in public housing are institutional welfare recipients.
You maybe in one of those units yourself is lady luck deals you a bad hand.
That may be, but i sure as hell wouldn't expect or demand anything for free. Wifi is not something you need to stay alive.
Not a chance on the saint thing, and virgins are boring and dumb.
Well i do live on this strip of land, and know what these people strip out of the working people here who pay their way in life. They dont deserve free wifi when the rest of the city must pay for it themselves.
Yes, and they have the SAME access to it as i do. It is not free, it is paied for by the restaurant or cafe.
It is also BUM heaven. It is open to the public so there is not "rich" or "poor" to it. The "poor" are able to access this area. I am not able to access the "poor" area.
And so will they.
How do i know they dont "deserve" free wifi delivered into their free public housing? by virtue of the fact that they are not working and paying for it themselves. The poor ALREADY have access to free wifi as you have pointed out.
If the elderely are the targets of the wifi then they dont need it to "look for a better job" now do they? Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the target is the young who have never paid into anything.
They could have provided you countless services when they were working and paying taxes.
The majority of people in public housing are institutional welfare recipients.
You maybe in one of those units yourself is lady luck deals you a bad hand.
That may be, but i sure as hell wouldn't expect or demand anything for free. Wifi is not something you need to stay alive.
This project's condition is not unique. When people who do have any self respect are given something for which they did not pay, they will not care for it. Period.
The city of Chicago did not tear out railings, shove all kinds of crap into the plumbing, steal the copper wiring and sell it for scrap. paint graffiti on every square inch of painted surface, steal everything that was not bolted down, break the locks off doors, etc.Why offer internet service to people who for the most part do not own a computer. Or at least one they did not steal.
I am not sure what this has to do with the free internet? I see the same thing in 50% of the top crust & middle class homes being foreclosed on. Somehow they want something to remember the old house by, like all the appliances, wiring, light fixtures, solar, heat & air & hot water, etc. Now I do image these people owed computers, so I see no connection to poverty.
You don't see a connection? Sad.
There is a huge difference between a foreclosed home in a suburban neighborhood and a dilapidated pub,ic housing project in the slums of Chicago.
The issue is what are people who have not the means to even own a computer going to do if HSI became available in that area?...The answer, nothing.....so a whole bunch of money is wasted on providing another taxpayer funded freebie.
How many times must the do-gooders be shown that making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results is idiotic.
We already have free public internet. It's called your local library.
And in one of those units could be the person who mugged me. A lot of maybes.
And in one of those units could be the person who mugged me. A lot of maybes.
Yeah, a lot of maybes. So you got mugged huh? It is getting worse, you should pack a gun before you end up dead.
Actually, trust me when I tell ya this, it's worked into the price of your $4 coffee....Those facilities choose to pay for that expense out of their own pocket. All of which is provided by private corporations. Give me a break. But most of them probably aren't.You get it free at quite a few restaurants and cafés, yes?
It's a dumb idea to raise taxes for ANYONE just because bankers and auto makers don't know how to balance a ledger.
They should be allowed to fail like everyone else who fucks up as hard as they did. If we HAD let them fail, we'd be coming out of this for real, instead of lying to ourselves that All Is Well!
Yes indeed, it would have helped immencely, but not comming out of a crisis as you might suppose. The debts are all real, not just some of them. You need to go back to 2000 before Bush thought it a great idea to spend the surplus.
They should be allowed to fail like everyone else who fucks up as hard as they did. If we HAD let them fail, we'd be coming out of this for real, instead of lying to ourselves that All Is Well!
Yes indeed, it would have helped immencely, but not comming out of a crisis as you might suppose. The debts are all real, not just some of them. You need to go back to 2000 before Bush thought it a great idea to spend the surplus.
Surplus?
Try $5,000,000,000,000+ debt.
God your stupid.
And in one of those units could be the person who mugged me. A lot of maybes.
Yeah, a lot of maybes. So you got mugged huh? It is getting worse, you should pack a gun before you end up dead.
If you attempt to mug me, I'll be sure to use it.
They should be allowed to fail like everyone else who fucks up as hard as they did. If we HAD let them fail, we'd be coming out of this for real, instead of lying to ourselves that All Is Well!
Yes indeed, it would have helped immencely, but not comming out of a crisis as you might suppose. The debts are all real, not just some of them. You need to go back to 2000 before Bush thought it a great idea to spend the surplus.
Surplus?
Try $5,000,000,000,000+ debt.
God your stupid.
Yes indeed, it would have helped immencely, but not comming out of a crisis as you might suppose. The debts are all real, not just some of them. You need to go back to 2000 before Bush thought it a great idea to spend the surplus.
Surplus?
Try $5,000,000,000,000+ debt.
God your stupid.
"President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion"
You are first class imbecile with his head up his ass as usual, dumb fuck.
Yeah, a lot of maybes. So you got mugged huh? It is getting worse, you should pack a gun before you end up dead.
If you attempt to mug me, I'll be sure to use it.
So did you use it on the guy that mugged you are not??
Has it occurred to anybody that financial reasons are not the only reason to oppose 'free internet' to residents in government subsidized housing?
I have long argued that it is a bad deal for the federal government to fund any of PBS and NPR as that gives government way too much influence over information provided to the people. There is a reason that protection of the Press was included in the First Amendment along with protection of free speech and religion. No people can remain free if the means of communication and ability to communicate are not unfettered in any way.
That is why those seizing the government of any nation first seize control of the media along with restrictions on religion and permissable content of speech.
When the government becomes an important funder of any part of the media or means of communication, there is far too much temptation, even likelihood, that those in power in government will utilize bribes, threats, or directives to influence what is communicated.
And wen it is in the interest of government to ensure that a dependent class of people remain dependent (and therefore faithful and dependable supporters of a specific ideology or party), how could it not be tempting for those in power to decide what information will and will not be allowed via that 'free internet'.
I think it wise that government not be involved in any content of any public communications or media other than that affecting the national security of everybody.
Yes indeed, it would have helped immencely, but not comming out of a crisis as you might suppose. The debts are all real, not just some of them. You need to go back to 2000 before Bush thought it a great idea to spend the surplus.
Surplus?
Try $5,000,000,000,000+ debt.
God your stupid.
"President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion"
You are first class imbecile with his head up his ass as usual, dumb fuck.
Has it occurred to anybody that financial reasons are not the only reason to oppose 'free internet' to residents in government subsidized housing?
I have long argued that it is a bad deal for the federal government to fund any of PBS and NPR as that gives government way too much influence over information provided to the people. There is a reason that protection of the Press was included in the First Amendment along with protection of free speech and religion. No people can remain free if the means of communication and ability to communicate are not unfettered in any way.
That is why those seizing the government of any nation first seize control of the media along with restrictions on religion and permissable content of speech.
When the government becomes an important funder of any part of the media or means of communication, there is far too much temptation, even likelihood, that those in power in government will utilize bribes, threats, or directives to influence what is communicated.
And wen it is in the interest of government to ensure that a dependent class of people remain dependent (and therefore faithful and dependable supporters of a specific ideology or party), how could it not be tempting for those in power to decide what information will and will not be allowed via that 'free internet'.
I think it wise that government not be involved in any content of any public communications or media other than that affecting the national security of everybody.
Interesting comment. Have you ever considered that the Government is people elected or appointed by the people to do their business? As evidenced during the past two national elections the people retain the power to fire the government.
Now, commercial television is controlled by the advertisers, and the people have no ability to 'fire' CEO's, company presidents or boards of directors.
Suggesting the government is or has a plan to take over commerical broadcasts because it funds (partially) PBS and NPR is ... (be nice Wry!) ... um, unlikely.
Has it occurred to anybody that financial reasons are not the only reason to oppose 'free internet' to residents in government subsidized housing?
I have long argued that it is a bad deal for the federal government to fund any of PBS and NPR as that gives government way too much influence over information provided to the people. There is a reason that protection of the Press was included in the First Amendment along with protection of free speech and religion. No people can remain free if the means of communication and ability to communicate are not unfettered in any way.
That is why those seizing the government of any nation first seize control of the media along with restrictions on religion and permissable content of speech.
When the government becomes an important funder of any part of the media or means of communication, there is far too much temptation, even likelihood, that those in power in government will utilize bribes, threats, or directives to influence what is communicated.
And wen it is in the interest of government to ensure that a dependent class of people remain dependent (and therefore faithful and dependable supporters of a specific ideology or party), how could it not be tempting for those in power to decide what information will and will not be allowed via that 'free internet'.
I think it wise that government not be involved in any content of any public communications or media other than that affecting the national security of everybody.
And furthermore... it isn't charity when it's confiscated from one and given to another.
