New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Maybe the poor could use that money...But the poor didn't donate to Pelosi.

EatTheRich

President
No trees, greenery, planting is, lawns, foliage of any kind in San francisco? No ability to move from that concrete jungle to anywhere in the nearby vicinity that has greenery trees plantings and the like?
I mean, there are such things (and not just in the richer suburbs) because of public greenspace funding.
 
Ya know…disagree on a policy and you’re “anti”. Kinda like how lefty sez I’m anti-vax when I have every sort of vax inaginable (I’ve routinely traveled to Asia, South America, India, etc. for decades). I’m also fully COVID vaxxed…but I don’t agree with the policy of mandates…sooo…

Anti-vax it is. :-/
Yep, I prefer the term Pro-pandemic for your ilk.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Public parks allow those not rich enough to have large landed estates to also enjoy nature.
What part of NO taxpayer money confused you?
You're in Montana and don't own property but have a hellofa lot of nature to enjoy free of charge
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Honestly the apparent quid pro quo and the subsidies for something that is supposed to be self-funding look pretty shady here, but I’m not informed enough about it to really have an informed opinion. My issue was more with the top poster acting like the poor aren’t the main direct beneficiaries of funding for public parks.
The poor use the parks to shoot dope
How do they afford dope?
 
Top