Thanks Drew, I know it's fucken dumb, doing something unethical only matters if it's against the law. The housos should be looking for loop-holes in the law to exploit, like the rich people do. It's just too bad that their circumstances don't allow them to do "white-collar crime".
Once again you cannot grasp the situation.
"Homeless" do not start out that way, do they? There are ample opportunities to have the taxpayer (us) provide housing, income, food in the belly and benefits to not only live, but to develop with.
Taking the piss and destroying a house which could house a family, or several? Fuck off and live in a portacabin or tent. We'll re-purpose that house to a family that will take a step upwards, not downwards.
If someone chooses to go down the ladder, then they will be the homeless. They do not start off that way.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Roundup is a bit extreme.
She should probably consider something a bit milder.
jews, innit
yeah, but you're still a darkie, right?
ergo you're bound to nick sideshowbob's TV sooner or later, probably bang his missus and eat a child or two on the way out to rob the dairy before going home to collect your benny, sink a dozen codys and bash your missus.
...duh.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
incorrect. even legally speaking.
a crime requires an injured party.
an infringment against legislature however...
however, the greater question, if it's amoral, should it be legal?
and just because dem crackers can afford (tax deductible) lawyers to argue (rightly or wrongly, as long as they're arguing, the system profits) until someone gives up, goes bankrupt, or dies...
whereas joe P. darkfulla cannot...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks