I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[Ravi]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Yep. It would end up like putting people in prison for being addicted to drugs.

 

[Moonglow]

Poor people don't suffer enough

If we don't make them suffer they will not want to stop being poor

He'll also want the disabled to toil also...maybe break limestone with a sledge hammer? Yeah,,,that's the ticket.. And all you old folks, euthanize at GT's request to eliminate their parasitic nature...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Yep. It would end up like putting people in prison for being addicted to drugs.

Eh I would decriminalize both drug possession and drug use.


I would , however, be draconian when it comes to drug related offenses such as DUI and such. Under my rule NO ONE would ever get a DUI 4.

 

[ricechickie]

Are you guaranteed life on this planet? I don't understand.

Should everyone work hard while some (again, this scenario is not for all of the poor, just the ones who refuse to help themselves and take advantage) get to do nothing yet enjoy many of the fruits of said labor? That's not fishy to you, morally?

Yes, adults should work hard. But you want someone to decide who shall get help and who shall not. In other words, you think that some people, given the choice, would not want to work for what they have. This involves a significant amount of red tape. Doctors deciding who is able-bodied and not. Perhaps psychiatrists. Then the lawyers get involved when someone disagrees.

Furthermore, do you know there's already a limit to how much time people can spend on welfare?

 

[G.T.]

Poor people don't suffer enough

If we don't make them suffer they will not want to stop being poor

He'll also want the disabled to toil also...maybe break limestone with a sledge hammer? Yeah,,,that's the ticket.. And all you old folks, euthanize at GT's request to eliminate their parasitic nature...

none of the above


dismissed on account of being red herring laced hyperbole

 

[Skylar]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Frankly, I don't want anyone deciding who among the poor are guilty of the offense of 'criminal poverty' and indefinitely incarcerated in camps without trial. The entire idea is a little spooky.

 

[Carla_Danger]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

 

[Ravi]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Yep. It would end up like putting people in prison for being addicted to drugs.

Eh I would decriminalize both drug possession and drug use.


I would , however, be draconian when it comes to drug related offenses such as DUI and such. Under my rule NO ONE would ever get a DUI 4.

What is a DUI 4? You mean the forth time? And what if they drive drunk all the time and never harm anyone....

 

[G.T.]

Are you guaranteed life on this planet? I don't understand.

Should everyone work hard while some (again, this scenario is not for all of the poor, just the ones who refuse to help themselves and take advantage) get to do nothing yet enjoy many of the fruits of said labor? That's not fishy to you, morally?

Yes, adults should work hard. But you want someone to decide who shall get help and who shall not. In other words, you think that some people, given the choice, would not want to work for what they have. This involves a significant amount of red tape. Doctors deciding who is able-bodied and not. Perhaps psychiatrists. Then the lawyers get involved when someone disagrees.

Furthermore, do you know there's already a limit to how much time people can spend on welfare?

Yes, I did know that but there are very simplistic work arounds being employed by the very ppl I'm seeking to get off of our society's back. They are criminally negligent, and also their negligence exacerbates urban crime/warfare and lack of education.

I don't THINK that some people would not want to work for what they have, I KNOW.

and here's the kicker ---> I also KNOW that it's a small minority that have gamed the system.........but guess what? that very small minority are procreating en masse statistically, and raising children in this cycle who become criminals.

to me it's not a color issue, either. It's a geographical issue, the poor are concentrated in urban centers and magically - - > urban centers are the hub of crime

the overall problem is not just the leeches, mooches, whatever you want to call them. (and I qualify calling ANYONE a mooch or a leech as one who "games" the system, not just simply a poor person).

its the infrastructure of despair their lack of ambition creates, and its a vicious cycle.

 

[G.T.]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

 

[haissem123]

this brings up a good point. The care taker of Eden wanted to keep it green and growing. He knew he would have to use bees to make it so..But a "smart convincing kabal of bees" convinced the others that they can take as much honey for themselves as they wanted, because that was what the kabal wanted to do for itself and knew it must split the hives social contracts and common cares or course. it was every good "smart hardworking" bees God given right, so they preached to take as much as their might might take.. More and more took more and more and that spelled the end of the hive that's for sure. Their complex evolutionary collective society bound by all their mutual survival, had collapsed under the greed and vanity of those easily tricked bees turned wasps.

 

[G.T.]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Frankly, I don't want anyone deciding who among the poor are guilty of the offense of 'criminal poverty' and indefinitely incarcerated in camps without trial. The entire idea is a little spooky.

its not indefinite.

its until they look for a job or go to school

sorry, but hyperbole doesn't work in the pool of ideas

 

[Carla_Danger]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

In my state, you only get 3 months of SNAP if you are a single adult. SNAP is mainly for the children and elderly, is it not?

 

[Jarhead]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

Those who can but refuse to make up such a small minority of those that utilize the assistance, making a change for them would be a waste of time and money.

Now...those that do well supporting themselves with cash jobs like sheet rocking and baby sitting for relatives who ALSO get the other benefits because their income is "off the record"....THOSE are a big problem and a larger percentage of the people. They are thieves and should be found and prosecuted.

 

[G.T.]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

In my state, you only get 3 months of SNAP if you are a single adult. SNAP is mainly for the children and elderly, is it not?

I don't support taking food and shelter away from kids and the elderly, so I'm missing your point.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Yep. It would end up like putting people in prison for being addicted to drugs.

Eh I would decriminalize both drug possession and drug use.


I would , however, be draconian when it comes to drug related offenses such as DUI and such. Under my rule NO ONE would ever get a DUI 4.

What is a DUI 4? You mean the forth time? And what if they drive drunk all the time and never harm anyone....

OT , but my DUI policy would be the following

DUI 1 - if under .1 let's use common sense and say people can make mistakes and misjudge how much they had to drink 1 time. Say something like a $100 fine nothing more. Most people are going to pay more attention after that. DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD DUI TOTAL FOR FUTURE PENALTIES and does not stay on record

DUI1 > .1 - You are beyond drunk and need a little more reminder. $1K fine and 3 months in jail. Stays on permanent record

DUI 2 any level above legal limit - You need a little more reinforcement here. $5K fine and 5 years jail

DUI 3 any level - you obviously have a total disregard for the safety of anyone and will be treated appropriately. $20K find and 20 year mandatory prison sentence.

So, I shouldn't have said NO ONE will get a DUI 4 because certainly it is possible, though unlikey

DUI 4 and level - LIFE IN PRISON , no parole.

So in actuality, no one would ever get a DUI 5

 

[G.T.]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

Those who can but refuse to make up such a small minority of those that utilize the assistance, making a change for them would be a waste of time and money.

Now...those that do well supporting themselves with cash jobs like sheet rocking and baby sitting for relatives who ALSO get the other benefits because their income is "off the record"....THOSE are a big problem and a larger percentage of the people. They are thieves and should be found and prosecuted.

The small percentage is exacerbated by the criminal and violent world it incubates.

 

[boedicca]

No, they show up voluntarily.

Nodding....but you hold them indefinitely *by force* (which I assume includes violence) without trial, counsel, crime or even charge unless they do exactly what you tell them to do.

This you define as 'freedom'.

As I said, you fail the 'freedom' test the moment you incarcerate them. That you've set narrow 'conditions for release' from incarceration you have no authority to impose only demonstrates how little you understand the meaning of the word you're trying to use.

You fail the freedom test by taking taxpayer dollars by force and using them to support those who can but will not support themselves.

In that situation ^, someone's freedom is already infringed upon.

It's time to mitigate that taking of freedom, and making those who take advantage work towards the betterment of the situation.

They can't support themselves.

And the above are the people who benefit the most from SNAP.

This thread is not about people who cannot support themselves.

It's about people who can but refuse to.

In my state, you only get 3 months of SNAP if you are a single adult. SNAP is mainly for the children and elderly, is it not?

Nowadays, single adults just go on SSI Disability.

 

[G.T.]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

Yep. It would end up like putting people in prison for being addicted to drugs.

Eh I would decriminalize both drug possession and drug use.


I would , however, be draconian when it comes to drug related offenses such as DUI and such. Under my rule NO ONE would ever get a DUI 4.

What is a DUI 4? You mean the forth time? And what if they drive drunk all the time and never harm anyone....

OT , but my DUI policy would be the following

DUI 1 - if under .1 let's use common sense and say people can make mistakes and misjudge how much they had to drink 1 time. Say something like a $100 fine nothing more. Most people are going to pay more attention after that. DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD DUI TOTAL FOR FUTURE PENALTIES and does not stay on record

DUI1 > .1 - You are beyond drunk and need a little more reminder. $1K fine and 3 months in jail. Stays on permanent record

DUI 2 any level above legal limit - You need a little more reinforcement here. $5K fine and 5 years jail

DUI 3 any level - you obviously have a total disregard for the safety of anyone and will be treated appropriately. $20K find and 20 year mandatory prison sentence.

So, I shouldn't have said NO ONE will get a DUI 4 because certainly it is possible, though unlikey

DUI 4 and level - LIFE IN PRISON , no parole.

So in actuality, no one would ever get a DUI 5

just curious since I don't know the answer..............

since drinking and driving became illegal, how drastically have dwi/dui related accidents and deaths been reduced?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Are you guaranteed life on this planet? I don't understand.

Should everyone work hard while some (again, this scenario is not for all of the poor, just the ones who refuse to help themselves and take advantage) get to do nothing yet enjoy many of the fruits of said labor? That's not fishy to you, morally?

Yes, adults should work hard. But you want someone to decide who shall get help and who shall not. In other words, you think that some people, given the choice, would not want to work for what they have. This involves a significant amount of red tape. Doctors deciding who is able-bodied and not. Perhaps psychiatrists. Then the lawyers get involved when someone disagrees.

Furthermore, do you know there's already a limit to how much time people can spend on welfare?

Yes, I did know that but there are very simplistic work arounds being employed by the very ppl I'm seeking to get off of our society's back. They are criminally negligent, and also their negligence exacerbates urban crime/warfare and lack of education.

I don't THINK that some people would not want to work for what they have, I KNOW.

and here's the kicker ---> I also KNOW that it's a small minority that have gamed the system.........but guess what? that very small minority are procreating en masse statistically, and raising children in this cycle who become criminals.

to me it's not a color issue, either. It's a geographical issue, the poor are concentrated in urban centers and magically - - > urban centers are the hub of crime

the overall problem is not just the leeches, mooches, whatever you want to call them. (and I qualify calling ANYONE a mooch or a leech as one who "games" the system, not just simply a poor person).

its the infrastructure of despair their lack of ambition creates, and its a vicious cycle.

why don't you just advocate locking blacks up until they are no longer black?