Um, yeah...seems this problem has been going on for decades and not by choice. I would have loved to have more girls hanging around us nerds but alas, they were busy with the jocks. Am I now supposed to feel sorry for them being under represented in IT? No one felt sorry for the under representation of nerds with dates at the prom.

I'm a frican American who happens to be white!

The innovations of today just feel like trinkets...my life has been changed very little in the last several decades by innovations that matter much. Turning everything into social media to peddle trinkets of life is not a great innovation.

It's interesting and that you refute my claim by assuming I'm referring to giving to charity - which I made no reference to. You've provided absolutely no evidence to refute my original assertion that the continual stream of government help is actually hurting more than it's helping. And you completely side stepped my request for you to clarify how someone in the US could start from below nothing. So, I guess this fruitless discussion is over. Maybe this would be worth a read http://jasonrileyonline.com/me...

And I'm sure your answer to all of this is more government "help". The real question is, if you actually care, then what are YOU personally doing to help someone "deep in the negative"...if you care to define what that means in the US anyway. It's not like we're born into a caste system or communism here. Again, a faceless "handout" from the government is not a hand-up. A hand-up can only come from an actual personal interaction of help that includes humility and appreciation from the receiver...not the entitlement handicap that government handouts have created.

Unless, of course, you're going on Judge Judy.

Maybe that theory comes from the founder of Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger -

from Wikipedia "After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing, while the poor and ignorant lacked access to contraception and information about birth-control.[98] Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists.[98] She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." They differed in that "eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state."[99] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[100] In "The Morality of Birth Control," a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers." Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped"

News flash, most people don't get to pick their ethnicity. Caucasian is a race, not an ethnicity. Hispanic ethnicity is made up of a lot of people of the Caucasian race, etc. The whole ethnicity/race thing has been completely blurred by the 70's and 80's PC introduction of "African American" which is not a race and certainly confusing to people who actually come from Africa that could be of Negroid (black), Mongoloid (Asian) or Caucasian (white) race. When does "American" become and ethnicity anyway if we're all supposed to be equal in the end.

You're kidding, right? When has "giving" instead of "earning" ever worked? It doesn't matter if its a poor neighborhood that receives excessive tax payer and government attention (free school lunch, no income tax, significantly higher usage of police, fire, and ambulance, neighborhood redevelopment tax credits, Medicare, disability, planned parenthood, free cell phones, protection from getting utility cutoff for non-payment, EBT/food stamps, etc) - poor remain poor due to poor decisions, not lack of resources. The same "hand-out" instead of "hand-up" or "tough love" mentality also fails in the affluent households - think of upper middle class parents with lazy, drug addicted adults still jobless and living at home where the parents think continually giving them things actually helps their kids better themselves - it's never worked.

...and what exactly would that prove? That Twitter is a company that is free to apply its policies as it sees fit? If you don't like Twitters business practices you're free to go elsewhere...

My thoughts exactly. It seems the haters here are out in full force.

The degree of "internet stupid" increased dramatically with smartphones and tablets with everyone giving away their privacy for a "free" app. That idiocy of accepting whatever has carried over into everything on the internet and soon to be fully embedded in all OS's. If you try to avoid this stuff people start looking at you as if you live under a bridge.. "you don't have a facebook account?" "you've never been on instagram?" "you don't play angry birds?". It's like I'm the moron for not being oblivious to the privacy and security give-away.

Poor is a state of mind. Your arguments are no more in depth than any other I've heard. Its all conjecture. You're free to continue peddling your "victimology" as I'm done with this useless thread.

I'm sorry - your rebuttal is full of straw man conjecture - "hundred's of miles?" come on. I'm middle aged and very aware of being working poor myself. I think it's amazing that its too burdensome to get and ID but on election day all of a sudden the burden is removed. I live in the country and my voting precinct is as far away as the DMV - a 20mile round trip and no bus or taxi is ever going to come out here to give me a ride - certainly not for $6 - so does that make me already disenfranchised? I just don't get the defense here. Why is it so bad to prove who you are when participating in something as important as voting? To be honest, I really don't want people voting that can't take the time to fully participate in the process and that has nothing to do with race, income or party.

And to answer your question - yes, I made voting important enough to forgo other useless activities like playing the lottery, buying drinks at the bar, and not wasting money on cigarettes - all while living paycheck to paycheck and borrowing to get by. it's called priorities. I'm sorry I'm not sympathetic to people with misaligned priorities trying to vote without an ID. That doesn't make me ignorant or an ass.

That's a stretch... its also not true in my state where voter ID laws have been derided with the same fact-less "poor, minority, democrat" nonsense. There are weekend hours and extend evening hours during the week. These same "poor" seem to have no trouble using the SS office hours to get their "paycheck".