QuoteUnderstood jatki. I'll put you down as one of those who sees no reason to have anti kiddie-porn or anti gun straw-purchase laws. Does anyone else here agree?
Originally posted by: jatki99
There's no doubt in my mind that if there were a great demand for sarin gas or bombs.. someone,somewhere would be able to hook you up. Kiddy porn? there is somewhat of a demand because it's apparently available because I see guys getting busted for it fairly often in the news...
QuoteUnderstood jatki. I'll put you down as one of those who sees no reason to have anti kiddie-porn or anti gun straw-purchase laws. Does anyone else here agree?
Originally posted by: jatki99
There's no doubt in my mind that if there were a great demand for sarin gas or bombs.. someone,somewhere would be able to hook you up. Kiddy porn? there is somewhat of a demand because it's apparently available because I see guys getting busted for it fairly often in the news...
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiegoQuoteUmm, . . . yes, poor old DonDiego gets it, . . . although he's not sure it's ironic.
Originally posted by: snidely333
[We're a nation of states and we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor. It's just ironic that the conservative states that can't take responsibility for their poor often point at the more prosperous states as liberal and mismanaged. ya get it?
Each State has gotta work with whatever it's got. Some States will never be wealthy. Better management won't change that; better management won't raise the household income of Mississippi from $37,000 to $57,000, that of California. DonDiego opines one of the greatest advantages of living in a federation of States is that one is not prohibited from choosing to move from one to another. The more things are federalized, the less choice is available for individuals.
If "we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor", then the poorer States receiving a larger share of the alms is an inevitable result. If one favors federalization of charity, one should not complain about the inevitable result.
forkushV complained; DonDiego offered a solution, . . . based upon historical precedent. He hasn't seen another solution proposed.
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiegoQuoteUmm, . . . yes, poor old DonDiego gets it, . . . although he's not sure it's ironic.
Originally posted by: snidely333
[We're a nation of states and we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor. It's just ironic that the conservative states that can't take responsibility for their poor often point at the more prosperous states as liberal and mismanaged. ya get it?
Each State has gotta work with whatever it's got. Some States will never be wealthy. Better management won't change that; better management won't raise the household income of Mississippi from $37,000 to $57,000, that of California. DonDiego opines one of the greatest advantages of living in a federation of States is that one is not prohibited from choosing to move from one to another. The more things are federalized, the less choice is available for individuals.
If "we should all share in the responsibility for caring for the poor", then the poorer States receiving a larger share of the alms is an inevitable result. If one favors federalization of charity, one should not complain about the inevitable result.
forkushV complained; DonDiego offered a solution, . . . based upon historical precedent. He hasn't seen another solution proposed.
Better education will surely have a positive effect on the household income. Maybe it's just my bias but I see these poor states worrying more about gay marriage and creationism than about the schooling of their citizens.
