Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a blasphemous curse word when I hear it/read it ... may be it should be prayer ... food for thought.
The government isn't helping the homeless or the refugees ... what the hell is the government doing with all the (slave) tax dollars then ... ? oh yea, their children go to ivy league colleges, I hear they cost allot.
It sure as hell isn't the government doing it ... but I'm sure the serve steak in the WH, though.
Children of government employees go to Ivy League?
Sure, maybe sons and daughters of Presidents or VPs, but I doubt presidential candidates run for POTUS so their children can go to Ivy League. Especially Trump because he was/is already a billionaire before he became POTUS
Whenever I see one of those lame arguments about "Why don't you take them into your own home ?", it is nothing more than a way to get out of answering the question sensibly. Of course we are not set up to take people into our individual homes, that is outrageous. But, there are agencies and groups that will take these folks in and find them shelter and food.
The logical fallacy is that a country isn't a house. I own my house. Nobody owns American soil - at least, the part that's public land. That's the meaning of "public". Would I let some stranger into my house? Actually, I might, depending on the circumstances. But whether I do or do not, has zero relation to whether a country admits refugees.
The logical fallacy is that a country isn't a house. I own my house. Nobody owns American soil - at least, the part that's public land. That's the meaning of "public". Would I let some stranger into my house? Actually, I might, depending on the circumstances. But whether I do or do not, has zero relation to whether a country admits refugees.
And the logical fallacy of your logical fallacy is that “nobody owns American soil/public land”. And the “meaning of public” does NOT mean “nobody”, it means everybody. The land is owned by ALL citizens, not “nobody”.
That is the problem I see with a lot of people on the left. They think that government resources are unlimited, and taking from them, does nobody any harm. Why should we spend tax dollars on the fake refugees (not talking about the real ones)? The typical response from the left, especially people on the left who pay little in taxes, is “That is tax money, it doesn’t belong to anybody.” It did belong to someone. It had to be taken away from someone who likely worked very hard for it.
You could have make your post shorter by admitting that you are an open border globalist instead of masquerading behind "tax payers"
Also, i am a young & productive tax payer. Can i immigrate to any country in the world if i want? I am thinking about Norway and Japan. Do you think they would let me stay permanently?
Remember I am a productive tax payer
Over the past year year my Canadian daughter filled out the appropriate paper work and is now living in Tokyo for as long as she likes, why dont you try immigrating to these countries instead of just assuming its impossible .
The logical fallacy is that a country isn't a house. I own my house. Nobody owns American soil - at least, the part that's public land. That's the meaning of "public". Would I let some stranger into my house? Actually, I might, depending on the circumstances. But whether I do or do not, has zero relation to whether a country admits refugees.
Our government has every right to vet anyone under any circumstances or reasons to vet those who want to enter our country. They are obligated to protect our own citizens and their safety should be a priority.
We still allow more immigration than any other country on the planet.
Compassionate? In regard to what? If your house needs a roof a front door and windows, do you pay to put a porch on your neighbor's house, just so they can sit there in the evenings or do you fix your own house first?
Compassionate? Your kids need clothes, you've got no food in the house, do you feed the neighbors while your own starve?
Compassionate? We have spent billions on Haiti. We opened our doors and they never left. We fed them, housed them, gave them money. Mean while our homeless citizens, got sleep in sub freezing weather and sort through trash cans for food.
Where was that compassion for our own?
He never focused on those who need the help the most? Obviously you haven't either because you asked who was going to open their homes to the homeless. WE make shelters from shipping containers, we have closed military bases. We have rented entire hotels to house illegals. Those detention centers the left cries about? Yeah I would bet our homeless wouldn't mind sleeping there at night. Eating those meals.
Trump is an idiot and a selfish SOB. What's your excuse? AOC's? Pelosi's? So much for the party of the working class and poor. Homeless just don't vote enough to make them a blip on anyones political radar. besides they are so dirty right?
These liberal fools think that unless we allow every needy person in the world into our country that we aren't compassionate. They completely ignore all the facts that you posted above.
And the logical fallacy of your logical fallacy is that “nobody owns American soil/public land”. And the “meaning of public” does NOT mean “nobody”, it means everybody. The land is owned by ALL citizens, not “nobody”.
That is the problem I see with a lot of people on the left. They think that government resources are unlimited, and taking from them, does nobody any harm. Why should we spend tax dollars on the fake refugees (not talking about the real ones)? The typical response from the left, especially people on the left who pay little in taxes, is “That is tax money, it doesn’t belong to anybody.” It did belong to someone. It had to be taken away from someone who likely worked very hard for it.
On the contrary, taxes derive from private property, and even if commingled in a public budget, so that the confluence of money's streams can't be traced, the streams still have a source.
But a nation's boundaries are not the boundaries of a private piece of land. To close the border of a nation, or to open it, is not the same as to close or open the front-gate of one's property's fencing.
The root-disagreement is whether we think of a nation as just some loose and abstract coordination of public activities that make private property and private safety possible; or on the contrary, if a nation is properly an entity in its own right. I believe the former.
On the contrary, taxes derive from private property, and even if commingled in a public budget, so that the confluence of money's streams can't be traced, the streams still have a source.
But a nation's boundaries are not the boundaries of a private piece of land. To close the border of a nation, or to open it, is not the same as to close or open the front-gate of one's property's fencing.
The root-disagreement is whether we think of a nation as just some loose and abstract coordination of public activities that make private property and private safety possible; or on the contrary, if a nation is properly an entity in its own right. I believe the former.
You can believe the former, or whatever you like, but try building a house in a national park. If public land belongs to nobody, as you say, then you should be able to claim it as your own. But that would not work because the government would stop you and tell you that this land is property of the US government. If you want to make a claim on that land and fight for it, fine. If you want to offer the government a lot of money for it, that is fine too. And if you somehow defeated the US government, or talked them into selling you a piece of the national park, then it would become your land. Until then, it belongs to the government, which represents all of us, not none of us.
Over the past year year my Canadian daughter filled out the appropriate paper work and is now living in Tokyo for as long as she likes, why dont you try immigrating to these countries instead of just assuming its impossible .
Living & working in Japan does not make you a citizen of Japan. You still don't get all the benefits that Japanese citizens are getting. You are still a temporary residence of the host country.
Just like living & working in the US via H1B/L1/E1/TN visas do not make you a US citizen and receiving all the benefits US citizens are getting.
Also, i did live in Japan for one year. Compliment of U.S. CBP -CSI
You can believe the former, or whatever you like, but try building a house in a national park. If public land belongs to nobody, as you say, then you should be able to claim it as your own. But that would not work because the government would stop you and tell you that this land is property of the US government. If you want to make a claim on that land and fight for it, fine. If you want to offer the government a lot of money for it, that is fine too. And if you somehow defeated the US government, or talked them into selling you a piece of the national park, then it would become your land. Until then, it belongs to the government, which represents all of us, not none of us.
Excellent post! Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
