all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 2 years ago (9 children)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    The governments of countries that stupidly don't have single payer healthcare and the local governments punishing the unhoused for existing rather than adequately helping them find housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    They help them find housing in other states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    No. Forcing them to leave ≠ helping them in any way and even if it they wanted to, they don't have any say on housing allocation in other states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Pretty sure you're replying to sarcasm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The government doesn't use tax payer money to fund things. They could pay for both. The money is created out of nowhere by just raising the balance of people they're paying. "We can't afford that" is a fiction.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75udjh6hkOs&pp=ygUQdGhlIGRlZmljaXQgbXl0aA%3D%3D

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    But if we just increase taxes, they won't use it for more bombs and more raises for themselves, they'll solve all the worlds problems!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Like the second was ever going to happen, even without the first one.

    The real second option is "cut taxes for our rich mates".

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    America once upon a time bombed their own citizens. Seriously.

  • source
  • [+] -28 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Does helping the homeless population really benefit the country though? Why should they get free handouts? I worked hard to pay rent, they should too.

    What I'm trying to say is yes, we should keep bombing the Middle East.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I’m not 100 sure, but I think you should put “/s” at the end of your statement

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Welcome to the Internet. Signal the joke clearly so that you are not confused with stupid extremists. Joke's still there, and it's clear and unambiguous.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

    Poe's law is an adage of internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.[1][2][3] The law is frequently exploited by individuals who share genuine extremist views and, when faced with overwhelming criticism, deflect by insisting they were merely being satirical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    What kind of sadistic fucking moron do you have to be to prefer that the government spend more money persecuting and incarcerating the homeless than it would on treating and housing them?

  • source
  • parent