- Sep 27, 2013
- Reaction score
1. a border wall does nothing to cut off the benefits so no this is a horrible argument on your part
Less illegals, less benefits. So simple.
2. a 6 billion dollar difference on a number beeg reported (not mine) ok what is your argument
We get $156B in benefits and pay $16B in to the treasury. Less illegals, less needless money out of the treasury. Pretty simple.
3. It won't stop any, very little is carried across the border. the narcotics are coming through the ports. If you honestly cared you'd spend the money there but you don't honestly care.
Already said that money goes to improve drug interdiction at the border crossings. To say little or none is being smuggled across by the cartels in the open areas is simply untrue. Won't say dishonest because I assume you don't know better.
4. no it won't, the majority of people getting addicted to opioids are getting addicted by legal pharmaceuticals
Should have differentiated between addicted and supplied. It is you and your hospital that is responsible for the addiction. You deserve prison time for the deaths you cause.
5. They can claim asylum from across the border they don't need to cross.
Very stupid response. Driven by binary thinking.
Those with a legitimate claim to asylum and use formal legal channels deserve a full and complete hearing on their petition.
You are not stupid. Get your act together.
I do consider these provisions of the eminent domain law to be one of the stains of the Depression-era programs - an outgrowth of the zeal and urgency to implement the WPA, CCC and TVA. I'm actually kind of surprised it's been kept on the books and/or has survived any constitutional challenges.
When it comes to property rights I'm practically a right winger. My personal conviction is that the property tax is wrong - probably not explicitly unconstitutional but goes against the founding principles of the country. The eminent domain law is a necessary evil but an evil nevertheless.
Sure, give them the 5.7 billion. That would be a much better use of the money and actually solve one of the listed crises.
Really? That’s the biggest? People dying left and right of drug overdoses but that’s the biggest?
My post was in regard to immigration as an issue. Yes, people should be free to discriminate against immigrants. It's one of the best natural ways to control immigration without walls or laws. Now, that's not a progressive goal, natural control. You guys want someone with a bullhorn and a gun shouting instructions to everyone, I know.
Yes, people should be free to discriminate against immigrants. It's one of the best natural ways to control immigration without walls or laws. Now, that's not a progressive goal, natural control. .
Who said we should mistreat immigrants? Man, your straw men get more and more creative.
Yes, people should be free to discriminate against immigrants. It's one of the best natural ways to control immigration without walls or laws.
Straw man? What exactly do you mean by:
Discriminate does not mean mistreat.
How the word "discriminate" became such a dirty word by the progs is a mystery. Every single one of us discriminates every day, multiple times a day.
Those darn Progs not letting you make up your own definitions to words. Making you feel bad for pro-discrimination and a proud racist. It ain't easy being 2.