I don't even have to search for that one. I think it was just yesterday that you generalized all people with "will work for food signs" as not really willing to work for food.
Bingo! There's the non answer right on cue.
What I said, and you need to read for context, was this:
Ya (that would be you) ever try to hire one of those guys? They will do anything not to get real work; and if you try to get them to mow a lawn or clean out a garage they will tell you about the bone spurs in their feet and their bad back.
Channel 4 Los Angeles did an expose on these types who sit at the end of an offramp with their "will work for food" signs. They tried to hire several of them and every one of them declined even the most menial task. The excuses were exactly the ones I gave in the previous post.
They followed one of these guys who used to set up at the 91 freeway and Orangethorpe Ave in Orange County. He was there every day as that was his designated spot.
They watched him all day and estimated his "take" based on filming what motorists gave him. Some gave bills, some gave change.
At the end of the day, they followed him to the bus stop where he boarded a bus. They figured he was going to a shelter or his digs under a bridge or whatever. He got off the bus at a Park n' Ride and got into a new ford F-150 pickup truck and drove to a large house in Laguna Nigel which is a wealthy coastal community in Orange County. The houses at that time were in the $400k range. They went to the door and knocked and tried to ask him about his panhandling and he slammed the door in their faces.
So, yes, there is ample evidence that these people are far more interested in panhandling than working as they claim they wish to do.
Also, although you were unwilling to answer the question of what your point was, I believe you were attempting to generalize all green power as profiteering if only you could prove that Pickens was.
I could tell you the point all day long and all day long you would claim that I failed to tell you my point. So what's the point in my doing so?
Also, you're always trying to make broad generalizations about gun laws from specific examples.
So if the specific example is a firearm law that seeks the banning of certain weapons, and the authors claim that this will be a model for the nation, I shouldn't take them at their word that this is a general attempt at banning firearms?
Geez Jim, generalizing from specific examples is kind of a constant with you.
Says you.