Poll

Is it.

yes. killed by colonel mustard.
20 (22.7%)
no. killed by miss scarlett
3 (3.4%)
killed by mrs. white
5 (5.7%)
killed by reverend green
3 (3.4%)
Professor Plum.
7 (8%)
killed by mrs pearooster
11 (12.5%)
with a lead pipe
3 (3.4%)
with a revolver
6 (6.8%)
with a wrench
4 (4.5%)
with a rope
13 (14.8%)
with a dagger
3 (3.4%)
with a candlestick
10 (11.4%)

Total Members Voted: 46

Author Topic: Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®  (Read 355089 times)

How so?
there could be small apartments that would be free for people who can't afford their own (owned by the government), paid-for (by the government) passes for public transportation for people who can't afford it on their own or get a car, free food for people who can't afford to eat enough (things like bread and vegetables and meat, not candy or whatever), stuff like that
I still think there should be a minimum wage, but not because people should need it to survive
some kind of shelter
I'm sure that when you have a family, you'd be content with them living in "some kind of shelter"

I'm pretty sure the government can afford to house all the poor useless scum society has to offer...

I'm pretty sure the government can afford to house all the poor useless scum society has to offer...
Did you mean can't

I'm pretty sure the government can afford to house all the poor useless scum society has to offer...
there's no excuse for them to claim they can't afford to do something


there could be small apartments that would be free for people who can't afford their own (owned by the government), paid-for (by the government) passes for public transportation for people who can't afford it on their own or get a car, free food for people who can't afford to eat enough (things like bread and vegetables and meat, not candy or whatever), stuff like that
I still think there should be a minimum wage, but not because people should need it to survive
lissen ere commie
the gummit's too far in debt to support a bunch of welfare hobos

I'm pretty sure the government can afford to house all the poor useless scum society has to offer...

You might find it hard to believe, but the US debt is higher than you probably were when you wrote that.

They can barely afford to house themselves, if at all.

Ofcourse, they seem to ignore their debt for the most part, so I can't really claim that as the reason they don't house the homeless.

there's no excuse for them to claim they can't afford to do something


yes there is. Money comes from the people. imagine being a wealthy citizen in the United States and suddenly a new tax is made that would pay for FREE handouts to other people. Not only does this not encourage a good work ethic but completely goes against what capitalism stands for. i get that the idea is quaint but it's also loving stupid rofl


You might find it hard to believe, but the US debt is higher than you probably were when you wrote that.

They can barely afford to house themselves, if at all.

Ofcourse, they seem to ignore their debt for the most part, so I can't really claim that as the reason they don't house the homeless.
i agree dude I meant to say cant

yes there is. Money comes from the people. imagine being a wealthy citizen in the United States and suddenly a new tax is made that would pay for FREE handouts to other people.
no, I'm suggesting that they should stop spending such an absurd amount of money on the military, and use that for other things. taxes could be exactly the same as far as I'm concerned
completely goes against what capitalism stands for
who cares?

no, I'm suggesting that they should stop spending such an absurd amount of money on the military, and use that for other things

who cares?
I agree

And um pretty much everyone who makes a decent living cares about the economic integrity of America?

The military spending argument is sooooo cliché.

The military spending argument is sooooo cliché.
Right?
It's basically lost all credibility at this point

It's basically lost all credibility at this point
how exactly would something lose its credibility because it's been said a lot?

how exactly would something lose its credibility because it's been said a lot?
because ignorant people use it as their only argument.

there's no excuse for them to claim they can't afford to do something


because ignorant people use it as their only argument.
see?

because ignorant people use it as their only argument.
okay, but what difference does that make?