It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If You're On Food Stamps, You Should Lose Voting Privileges?

page: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Myself. I'll go homeless if I have to.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You continue to make these statments, with zero backing. I had a savings above $10,000 when I got laid off. I stretched it as far as I could.

Many people simply do not make enough to save for hard times.

What of those who have had a life crisis which took away what they had?

Why do you continue to avoid your burden of proof on these claims?


Well then you would go on welfare, for however long you needed to. It won't be the end of the world, if for a few months, or possibly years, you would have to endure shopping at another store, and not being able to vote, I don't see how this is sooo horrible.


Its so horrible because it is taking away my constitutional right for no apparent reason other than some snobby fools think its a good idea.



Why do you still avoid, and divert, from your burden of proof?


Nevermind the proof, your getting stuck on the little picture as opposed to the big one. People expect the government to take care of them. This mentality needs to change.


Link?

Most the people I know dont EXPECT the government to take care of them. All that have had to rely on assistance were THRILLED that it was there when they needed it, though.

You will be too, when that day comes, and you tune will change greatly.

Furthermore, how anyone could advocate a constitutional amendments to LIMIT the rights of the citizens of this country is beyond me. In fact, its downright scary. And shows that you have absolutely NO respect for the constitution, and NO grasp on its point.

That said, I am done with you. You spew false-truths, refuse to back up your claims, and making sweeping generalizations about people without having any experience or fact to back it up.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Honestly I don't think it is satirical. If it is, then the eggs on my face. But excuse me, in the article it states anyone on foodstamps. Just because he brings up some woman with a smartphone using foodstamps does not mean those are the only ones he's talking about.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Myself. I'll go homeless if I have to.


So you say




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You continue to make these statments, with zero backing. I had a savings above $10,000 when I got laid off. I stretched it as far as I could.

Many people simply do not make enough to save for hard times.

What of those who have had a life crisis which took away what they had?

Why do you continue to avoid your burden of proof on these claims?


Well then you would go on welfare, for however long you needed to. It won't be the end of the world, if for a few months, or possibly years, you would have to endure shopping at another store, and not being able to vote, I don't see how this is sooo horrible.


Its so horrible because it is taking away my constitutional right for no apparent reason other than some snobby fools think its a good idea.



Why do you still avoid, and divert, from your burden of proof?


Nevermind the proof, your getting stuck on the little picture as opposed to the big one. People expect the government to take care of them. This mentality needs to change.



WAT!?


Excuse me? We are asking you to prove that, that is the case. And you say, forget about proof -- your missing the point, the point is the problem!

We are asking you for proof that what you ascertain to be the problem, is actually the problem.


Also, people don't depend on the Government to take care of them. We depend on OTHER PEOPLE to take care of us.

That is what society is.

It's a group of people living in civilization with the intent to help each other out to better their civilization.

Take a look at a tribe. They have hunters that kill for food for those that cannot hunt. Those that cannot hunt, sew clothing for those that do hunt, etc.

Without the weapon smiths and the clothing makers the hunters can't gather food for the rest of society.


This I don't depend on anybody nonsense is nonsense.


You know there are rules to unemployment right? You know they cancel it if you don't prove that you are avidly looking for work right?

So basically what I'm saying is, while you may depend on your employer, those without an employer depend on the government.

It doesn't matter who you depend on, the fact of the matter is in both cases you are depending upon SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ideasarebulletproof
 


That is obvious .... the guys who pays decides what happens.

If you are invited to a restaurant would you tell the guy pay what the limits are .. he pays he decides.

I have a few exceptions though .... if the reason you live of other are : you are an old person who contributed yours and now enjoy well deserved benefits. You are young and under education preparing to do your part. You are disabled or unable due to the flukes of nature.

But if you live from other peoples money, and you are at fault, why should anyone trust you with voting rights ?


edit on 29-2-2012 by pilot70 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pilot70
reply to post by ideasarebulletproof
 


That is obvious .... the guys who pays decides what happens.

If you are invited to a restaurant would you tell the guy pay what the limits are .. he pays he decides.

I have a few exceptions though .... if the reason you live of other are : you are an old person who contributed yours and now enjoy well deserved benefits. You are young and under education preparing to do your part. You are disabled or unable due to the flukes of nature.

But if you live from other peoples money, and you are at fault, why should anyone trust you with voting rights ?


edit on 29-2-2012 by pilot70 because: (no reason given)


So you propose investigations for all 20 million or so people feeding from the tit, where you are going to find 10 million of those people aren't at fault.

Sounds like a real productive way to use the money that would otherwise just be handed out to those that need it.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Well you pretty much encapsulated both of our arguments without realizing. Your philosophy is that selling your computer or africans becoming proactive equates to something impossible. My argument is both are possible. Basically I am able to provide for myself while you and the africans are not, so what's the difference between us?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by drgood
reply to post by Laokin
 


Well you pretty much encapsulated both of our arguments without realizing. Your philosophy is that selling your computer or africans becoming proactive equates to something impossible. My argument is both are possible. Basically I am able to provide for myself while you and the africans are not, so what's the difference between us?



The difference between us is that you have better fortune than me and the Africans.

There is no other distinction but a paycheck from a different more reliable source.


Africans are proactive. To say they aren't is misleading. Sure, they kill each other -- but for what? Riches. Blood Diamonds, Emeralds, Power and Corruption. The same as over here. The last I checked we were still heading for financial ruin, gas is skyrocketing yet again, no action being taken towards balancing the debts caused by these actions. Somewhere along the line it became impossible for the people do mount a campaign against policy -- for the media is purposefully pitting the people against each other with propaganda which stops the truth from getting out and causes people to support injustice.

If I lived in a place that wasn't 20 miles to the closest gas station I'd be able to rid myself of a computer.

You ignore context and reality in lieu of a broken philosophy.


Also, that isn't my philosophy. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's improbable. Meaning it's a huge risk to myself to do so.

Risk equates to a chance of worsening your state. When your state is so bad, can you afford to worsen it?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I see the constitution as an untouchable now, and I get criticized for attempting to change it. Look, no one can come up with a perfect constitution. It doesn't exist. The constitution needs to be continually improved and changed. If this is not allowed to happen, then America will never improve in terms of society. The one we have right now is not perfect, but some claim it to be and thus, should not be changed. In fact our whole system of government seems to be an untouchable, while there are many alternatives we could try, but we don't because we approach it with the biased view that the system we are in now, is better than any other before it, and therefore is the best, and is in no need for change. I believe in less government. The government should only be concerned with governing, nothing else, no handouts, no bailouts, no nothing.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I see the constitution as an untouchable now, and I get criticized for attempting to change it. Look, no one can come up with a perfect constitution. It doesn't exist. The constitution needs to be continually improved and changed. If this is not allowed to happen, then America will never improve in terms of society. The one we have right now is not perfect, but some claim it to be and thus, should not be changed. In fact our whole system of government seems to be an untouchable, while there are many alternatives we could try, but we don't because we approach it with the biased view that the system we are in now, is better than any other before it, and therefore is the best, and is in no need for change. I believe in less government. The government should only be concerned with governing, nothing else, no handouts, no bailouts, no nothing.


I have no issue with constitutional amendments. When those amendments go against the very point of the constitution by limiting the rights of the citizens instead of guaranteeing them (which is the point of the document), then yes, you will get criticized. You get criticized because you obviously dont understand what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.



Right ^ -- because if you look at the budget of the money the government spends for different things, you will clearly see that they spend gross expenditures on things the public would be ashamed of supporting, and if cut, would halt the bankruptcy of the government.


It's not entitlements that are bleeding the economy, it's governmental defense (read: offense) spending. It's also derivatives and market manipulation for the goal of consolidation of wealth.


It has nothing to do with entitlements -- only the rich and wealthy that want the wealth consolidated propagate this myth.

Do you see how we are fighting over this issue? This is their intended goal. To divide the people, to turn them amongst one another at their benefit.

One strike against the constitution sets precedent, before you know it -- freedom doesn't exist at all.

This all happens because you support something that is so ill to society, removing the rights of a citizen because they don't make as much as you say they should.

Essentially what Andersensrm is supporting is, A philosophy stating "People that make below "X" are not whole persons."

Andersensrm, you do realize this is what you are saying right?

Do you still support it?


edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.


I meant when the government is unable to pay out. And no, I know that welfare makes up a tiny % of the debt.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I'm embarrassed that the author of that article graduated from my university.

Checking his others, it seems that isn't the only drivel he's written recently.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.


I meant when the government is unable to pay out. And no, I know that welfare makes up a tiny % of the debt.



So you admit that the problem that you deem a problem is not really a problem right?

You also admit that if you say yes, you are adamantly saying that "If a person makes less than "X" they are not considered a whole person."

Do you still support your claim?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The bill of rights was added later to the constitution to get approval from citizens, so I don't think that, rights were what it was purely about.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The bill of rights was added later to the constitution to get approval from citizens, so I don't think that, rights were what it was purely about.


Then you need to go back to school. Or try reading the document. The bill o f rights are the amendments to the constitution. You would like to use the bill of rights, to limit citizens rights.

Downright scary.
edit on 29-2-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Laokin
 


30 years from now, when the government runs out of money, this will happen all over again with people who are in need of assistance, because they anticipated money from SS. Yes we depend on other people, I get it. The point is, not to depend on the government, and when you say people don't that is BS. People depend on the government for a multitude of things and this needs to change, it is not the role of government. People still get their government assistance, it is just less desirable, and aimed at putting more desire in getting a job, or going back to school to train for a different career. If you go to college and get a degree in East Asian Studies, or underwater basket weaving, what do you expect?


When the government runs out of money? The government is out of money, kiddo. If you think its because of welfare, then its time to head back to school.


I meant when the government is unable to pay out. And no, I know that welfare makes up a tiny % of the debt.



So you admit that the problem that you deem a problem is not really a problem right?

You also admit that if you say yes, you are adamantly saying that "If a person makes less than "X" they are not considered a whole person."

Do you still support your claim?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


Minimum wage should be set at, the amount at which someone can live without the assistance of the government. If you make less than that, you are either illegal, or you aren't doing anything, and thus making nothing. They are considered a whole person, just as a convict is.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join