Put the money in a bank account for the kids so at least they can get interest on it or spend it on personal stuff. That really is taking candy from babies. THEY need lawyers to find out where their money is going without their permission.
Oh, no, sorry, that was a plan to have poor kids do janitorial work in their own schools to learn how to earn a living. It's hard to keep the different flavors of disgusting grinchitude straight.
Somewhere a Koch Industries beancounter is working up an ROI spreadsheet, to add to the powerpoint "Liquified Crippled Kittens: Advantages For Fracking"
Throw in a few "legitimate" amputations for some of the not-disabled (yet) kids, maybe the loss of an eye or two, and you're starting to get some serious Conservaporn!
Put the money in a bank account for the kids so at least they can get interest on it or spend it on personal stuff. That really is taking candy from babies. THEY need lawyers to find out where their money is going without their permission.
Boko Haram?
there is no bottom . . . just more down.
This is a much more christian way of raising revenue than raising taxes. Now that is immoral!
NO!
. . . and i saw you pick that penny up off the sidewalk . . . fork it over!
blackwater/xe
Didn't The Newt already suggest that?
Oh, no, sorry, that was a plan to have poor kids do janitorial work in their own schools to learn how to earn a living. It's hard to keep the different flavors of disgusting grinchitude straight.
Perhaps you could pool your risk with others who have also made this type of investment. It's worked out well in the past.
A request: Could you please identify Dan Hatcher as a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law? Many thanks!
Somewhere a Koch Industries beancounter is working up an ROI spreadsheet, to add to the powerpoint "Liquified Crippled Kittens: Advantages For Fracking"
Train? You mean use trains ... to get them to the Doritos Soylent Extreme Snax factory, right?
Otherwise, yeah, it doesn't pencil out.
Government sure is the problem! If you're defining "the problem" as "providing for the General Welfare" instead of "maximizing private profits."
The average wingnut believers don't bother with details like definitions, or outcomes.
More like "I saw the Feds drop a penny in your bowl. Of course, the bowl, and now the penny in it: ours."
Wow, that's rather personal! Does he identify as a professor? Maybe he's just law-curious and not ready to out himself just yet! :/
Soylent Industries?
Throw in a few "legitimate" amputations for some of the not-disabled (yet) kids, maybe the loss of an eye or two, and you're starting to get some serious Conservaporn!