Topic: Why is she even in Congress? Wtf..
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #88,152
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,008,427
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 33 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,429
Because she got voted into office.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 41 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,447
I want UBI. Screw the rich. Time for the people to have something good in life.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,448
I’d be in favor of it if it was truly universal not what Tlaib is proposing which is only for the poor.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 53 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,450
Anonymous B replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,453
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,454
@1,008,450 (D)
The poor should be funded by charity. Then you can give them as much of your stuff as you want.
The poor should be funded by charity. Then you can give them as much of your stuff as you want.
Anonymous F double-posted this 7 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,455
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,459
Anonymous B replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,489
@previous (E)
Well, they're shrinking. You might not have to worry about them for too much longer.
Well, they're shrinking. You might not have to worry about them for too much longer.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,490
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,492
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,516
@1,008,454 (F)
> The poor should be funded by charity. Then you can give them as much of your stuff as you want.
charity is bullshit
I fucking hate people coming at me for charity, and I don't mean homeless, I mean comfortable people with a cause they want money for
"fuck off, I paid taxes for that shit"
> The poor should be funded by charity. Then you can give them as much of your stuff as you want.
charity is bullshit
I fucking hate people coming at me for charity, and I don't mean homeless, I mean comfortable people with a cause they want money for
"fuck off, I paid taxes for that shit"
Anonymous F replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,542
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 58 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,568
It's just a glorified negative income tax.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,571
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 3 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,572
Anonymous F replied with this 7 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,590
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Why? Do some countries not get to have respect for their borders?
And the law would be the same as every country's law of it's illegal for anyone to enter where and whenever they want, and illegal to stay longer than temporarily permitted.
You can't have open borders and tax your citizens to provide things like welfare.
Why? Do some countries not get to have respect for their borders?
And the law would be the same as every country's law of it's illegal for anyone to enter where and whenever they want, and illegal to stay longer than temporarily permitted.
You can't have open borders and tax your citizens to provide things like welfare.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 32 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,595
@previous (F)
some countrires have governemnts that are fuckin jerkoffs, so fuck em
laws are from man, sometimes a fuckhead man
some countrires have governemnts that are fuckin jerkoffs, so fuck em
laws are from man, sometimes a fuckhead man
Anonymous F replied with this 7 years ago, 26 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,600
Anonymous B replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,602
@1,008,590 (F)
> You can't have open borders and tax your citizens to provide things like welfare.
Plenty of countries have open border agreements with the countries surrounding them and provide welfare programs to their citizens funded by tax money. Even within the microcosm of the US, states run individual state welfare programs while keeping open borders with the states surrounding them.
> You can't have open borders and tax your citizens to provide things like welfare.
Plenty of countries have open border agreements with the countries surrounding them and provide welfare programs to their citizens funded by tax money. Even within the microcosm of the US, states run individual state welfare programs while keeping open borders with the states surrounding them.
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,606
@1,008,568 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
> It's just a glorified negative income tax.
And why would a glorified negative income tax be bad? Post an actual criticism.
> It's just a glorified negative income tax.
And why would a glorified negative income tax be bad? Post an actual criticism.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 7 years ago, 6 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,637
@previous (E)
So long as it doesn't phase out other programs for low-income houses I have little reason to criticize the plan.
So long as it doesn't phase out other programs for low-income houses I have little reason to criticize the plan.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,705
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 31 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,710
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Well, technically is is English grammar, albeit not good quality... although it was good enough for George Orwell.
Well, technically is is English grammar, albeit not good quality... although it was good enough for George Orwell.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,008,751
double plus ungood
"bad" was stricken from newspeak
"bad" was stricken from newspeak
