|
Has anyone else noticed the trend among horrible parents clothing decisions?
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...5dc65a0506.jpg |
Originally Posted by cordycord
(Post 1476788)
Regardless of what Congress thought was the main question, THIS is the main question. It should be plain as a flashing neon sign.
|
|
|
Welfare began as workfare, to my understanding.
|
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1476926)
Welfare began as workfare, to my understanding.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...6963695edc.png In other words, if you take someone who has been receiving money for nothing, and then require that they do something useful in exchange for money, you are unfairly exploiting them. So.... How do you unravel such a social dynamic? I really would like someone to explain this to me, in a step-by-step format. Remember, not only do welfare-recipients vote, but charity programs exist which are specifically targeted towards helping them register to vote, educating them as to who to vote for, and providing them with transportation to and from the polling places. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1476932)
And, going back to the question I asked of Lokiel, we have plenty of evidence that, when people who are accustomed to receiving free money are suddenly required to do some form of work in exchange for that money, the result is mass claims of forced servitude.
In other words, if you take someone who has been receiving money for nothing, and then require that they do something useful in exchange for money, you are unfairly exploiting them. TL;DR: Big boy pants required if we count your opinion. |
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1476984)
I was going to say ignore them, until you mentioned the part about wanting their votes. I prefer to disenfranchise them for being "dependents of the state" and not full adult members. They obviously aren't capable of being responsible for themselves and should not be regarded as competent participants in the process.
But times change...
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1476984)
TL;DR: Big boy pants required if we count your opinion.
In a perfect world, I'd be right there with you. Most (but not all) states, for instance, disenfranchise those presently incarcerated, and some continue this prohibition after release. I see no valid technical reason why those who are "dependents of the state" ought not to be similarly disenfranchised, but then this opens up a whole other can of worms. Posit: Are people aged 65 and up who receive Medicare and Social Security benefits "dependents of the state?" What about retired members of the armed forces, or disabled veterans? Arguments like this tend to get rather messy at the policy-implementation level. |
|
the conservative struggle is real:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...8a0cda4279.png I have found that if I use "show first" on the feeds I'm not seeing, they sometimes show up. at least more often than not now. but I no longer see ANYTHING from Milo unless I go directly to his page. oh he straight up may have been banned banned now, I get this now when I go to his page: https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...90077ad12f.png edit working now, still: https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...75f330e6cb.png |
and this is exactly why old people are old and shouldn't have any power to do anything:
Facebook Post |
“When I place my coffee cup on the computer cup holder, will I get an ad for coffee? Yes or No , mr zuckerford”
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1477017)
and this is exactly why old people are old and shouldn't have any power to do anything:
|
people.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1477017)
and this is exactly why old people are old and shouldn't have any power to do anything:
https://www.facebook.com/cnet/videos/10156544563437275/ In my ~20 years of dealing with corporate bureaucracy, I've found that these are the best answers. Like, someone asks you a really convoluted, nearly incoherent question, and you just look at them seriously, pause for a moment, and then assertively say "no." It tends to establish dominance in the conversation. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1477073)
Watching that video, I kept wishing that Zuck would just say "Yes" or "No," and then leave it at that.
In my ~20 years of dealing with corporate bureaucracy, I've found that these are the best answers. Like, someone asks you a really convoluted, nearly incoherent question, and you just look at them seriously, pause for a moment, and then assertively say "no." It tends to establish dominance in the conversation. |
|
rofl!
https://nypost.com/2018/04/11/scienc...site%20buttons Living under communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades, according to a landmark new study. Researchers testing historical connections between cultures found that whether a country had been under communism was the biggest factor for those with lower health, income and educational levels. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1477073)
Watching that video, I kept wishing that Zuck would just say "Yes" or "No," and then leave it at that.
In my ~20 years of dealing with corporate bureaucracy, I've found that these are the best answers. Like, someone asks you a really convoluted, nearly incoherent question, and you just look at them seriously, pause for a moment, and then assertively say "no." It tends to establish dominance in the conversation. |
Originally Posted by Enginerd
(Post 1477461)
or ask them to reframe a question only to watch them squirm as they realize that they themselves have no idea what they’re trying to ask. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands