alienjesus wrote:Who gives a shit what the Queen thinks?
+1
@Ack - thats what I heard too. To me it deosnt matter if he fired it or not, if you have a gun and threaten the police with it then you are asking to get shot. Don't forgot our police dont normally carry firearms so something must have been going on already for the armed police to be there in the first place.
Curlypaul wrote:@Ack - thats what I heard too. To me it deosnt matter if he fired it or not, if you have a gun and threaten the police with it then you are asking to get shot. Don't forgot our police dont normally carry firearms so something must have been going on already for the armed police to be there in the first place.
Actually the same article mentioned he was a suspected drug dealer, so perhaps it was part of some larger sting or something? Again though I have no details, so this could all be false.
BoringSupreez wrote:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -Benjamin Franklin
This, of course, is not completely infallible or anything, but I think it's usually quite true and applicable to our situation today. We'd save a lot of money if we followed his advice.
That has a lot of truth to it. But you can't eliminate poverty just by making it unpleasant. You have to provide opportunity as well. People have to believe they are getting a fair shake in life. If they don't believe society is treating them fairly, they have no reason to treat the rest of society fairly. Then you get things like this.
We are prepared to live in the plain and die in the plain!
Hell, if you ask me it's simply a case of putting more effort into making sure that the people receiving welfare benefits are the ones who actually NEED those benefits.
People who cheat and abuse welfare systems aren't doing any good for anyone but themselves.
BoringSupreez wrote:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -Benjamin Franklin
This, of course, is not completely infallible or anything, but I think it's usually quite true and applicable to our situation today. We'd save a lot of money if we followed his advice.
That has a lot of truth to it. But you can't eliminate poverty just by making it unpleasant. You have to provide opportunity as well. People have to believe they are getting a fair shake in life. If they don't believe society is treating them fairly, they have no reason to treat the rest of society fairly. Then you get things like this.
Defining what is "fair" is a very difficult task. Speaking in terms of very abstract examples, if every person from ages 5-18 had the same amount and quality of schooling, does that count as fair? Are we obligated to enforce them going to school, or do we allow them to drop out? At what point do we say "we've given you enough opportunities, you're own your own"? I don't have an answer for that question.
AppleQueso wrote:Hell, if you ask me it's simply a case of putting more effort into making sure that the people receiving welfare benefits are the ones who actually NEED those benefits.
Yes, if you were able to make sure that benefits only went to those who need them, then there wouldn't be a problem. Good luck actually pulling that off, though.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
AppleQueso wrote:Hell, if you ask me it's simply a case of putting more effort into making sure that the people receiving welfare benefits are the ones who actually NEED those benefits.
Yes, if you were able to make sure that benefits only went to those who need them, then there wouldn't be a problem. Good luck actually pulling that off, though.
While it is certainly difficult to effectively distribute welfare, in many cases the government's handling of it is so sloppy that it's comical.
Are there any pictures of Sony stores being burned down?
