Originally posted by: wchou
no suckthing as a free lunch. free is a relative term used to fool the sheeple.
Originally posted by: smack Down
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: smack Down
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.
I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children. It's really a good form of parenting that can only be enforced if we back them into a corner and say "Look, we're not gonna feed your kid anymore, that's YOUR responsibility". The reform suggested on free lunch such as monitoring who should really deserve free lunch and how often requires way too much government monitoring (something most people on the left despise) and will cost way too much.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'll be the first one to vote. I don't think I've seen this topic on here before.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'll be the first one to vote. I don't think I've seen this topic on here before.
Nice misleading topic dumb ass
Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:
Did I say all poor parents did? Nope, I just said all of them in general (the entire picture) should spend less on those things. If they did, we could get rid of a lot of social programs and free up some money in the economy.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children.
Can't make an omelet without breaking quite a few eggs, eh.Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:
Did I say all poor parents did? Nope, I just said all of them in general (the entire picture) should spend less on those things. If they did, we could get rid of a lot of social programs and free up some money in the economy.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I think all poor parents should start spending less money on....
I think all poor parents spend money on.....
The first sentence can be used to generalize poor people and what they spend their things on based on an average but the second (which you said I said) is a completely different ballpark because it's so cut and dry.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: smack Down
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.
I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children. It's really a good form of parenting that can only be enforced if we back them into a corner and say "Look, we're not gonna feed your kid anymore, that's YOUR responsibility". The reform suggested on free lunch such as monitoring who should really deserve free lunch and how often requires way too much government monitoring (something most people on the left despise) and will cost way too much.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.
actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.
actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.
Do I really need proof that says people living in poverty in the U.S. spend their money on those things?
Yes.Originally posted by: Engineer
Since you seem to be lumping them all into the same category, then YES.Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.
actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.
Do I really need proof that says people living in poverty in the U.S. spend their money on those things?
Since you seem to be lumping them all into the same category, then YES.