Kids In Cages...

[Sparko]

I did. I just liked adding the artistic flourish...

You should have used Bill Alexander!

[carpedm9587]

I guess you didn't bother to actually read the links? None of them support what you think they do, and the one about Buttigieg is actually about how BAD he handled the homeless.

I said it took me 3 minutes to find them, Spark. Yes, I read them. They were all related to inner city issues.

The article about Buttigieg reviewed both what he DID and what he DIDN'T do. You seem to be focused only on the latter. Read the rest of the article.

And Warren's link was about paying reparations. Another idiotic liberal

First, I think you forgot the rest of that sentence. Second, the article compared the bill to "reparations." It seems to be the only thing you picked out. The actual bill is about housing in areas experiencing a lack and help for those underwater...which is common for inner cities.

How many apartment do you think are in an apartment building?

It depends on the building - but townhomes tend to be smaller, multi-building units. However, a bit more detail shows Kushner owns over 9,000 units in 17 distinct complexes (total number of buildings unknown) generating $90M in annual revenue. Given the number of complaints about mouse infestations, it appears he is at least a contributor to the problem his father-in-law is complaining about.

And again, an example is not evidence.

It depends on the building - but townhomes tend to be smaller, multi-building units. However, a bit more detail shows Kushner owns over 9,000 units in 17 distinct complexes (total number of buildings unknown) generating $90M in annual revenue. Given the number of complaints about mouse infestations, it appears he is at least a contributor to the problem his father-in-law is complaining about.

And again, an example is not evidence.

See my previous post. But I am truly curious what you think I am trying to provide evidence for...?

You see, an example CAN be evidence, depending on the claim. If someone says "There are no Dems who do X," then one example of a Dem doing X is adequate evidence to refute the claim. Or if the claim is "all Reps do X," then one example of a rep NOT doing X is adequate evidence to refute the claim. However, if the claim is "most Dems do X," then you are correct that one example is not adequate evidence to refute the claim. It is evidence, simply not sufficient to make the case.

You just used that line on me a day or two ago regarding the woman from Honduras.

Are you sure? Why don't you go back and read it again and, if you think you are correct, link the post please. I've been fairly careful about this, but it is possible I slipped.

You just need to amend it to "YOUR examples are not evidence, but mine are!"

There is nothing here that merits further response.

[Sparko]

I said it took me 3 minutes to find them, Spark. Yes, I read them. They were all related to inner city issues.



The article about Buttigieg reviewed both what he DID and what he DIDN'T do. You seem to be focused only on the latter. Read the rest of the article.

I think you have lost track of the conversation at this point. The democrats are too busy worrying about the border than their own backyards, as the Buttigieg article clearly points out. You said they can "do both" and yet they are NOT doing both. My point is that even if they CAN do Both, why not concentrate on their own constituents FIRST instead of what they are doing, putting all their focus on people who are not even citezens?

Are you sure? Why don't you go back and read it again and, if you think you are correct, link the post please. I've been fairly careful about this, but it is possible I slipped.

Do you have alzheimer's? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post655169

[carpedm9587]

I think you have lost track of the conversation at this point. The democrats are too busy worrying about the border than their own backyards, as the Buttigieg article clearly points out. You said they can "do both" and yet they are NOT doing both.

I have not lost track of the conversation, Sparko. And I also believe I have noted, multiple that they are not doing either. My point was not that they are - but that they CAN and there is n need to prioritize one over the other. That is a false dichotomy.

My point is that even if they CAN do Both, why not concentrate on their own constituents FIRST instead of what they are doing, putting all their focus on people who are not even citezens?

Because I do not prioritize need on the basis of citizenship. I prioritize need on the basis of the need. I would never suggest turning my back on someone who is in need because they are not a citizen and there are citizens that need help first.

Do you have alzheimer's? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post655169

Not last I checked.

Meanwhile, I thought you might be referring to that post. Read it carefully, Sparko. It doesn't say what you claim it says.

[Sparko]

I have not lost track of the conversation, Sparko. And I also believe I have noted, multiple that they are not doing either. My point was not that they are - but that they CAN and there is n need to prioritize one over the other. That is a false dichotomy.



Because I do not prioritize need on the basis of citizenship. I prioritize need on the basis of the need. I would never suggest turning my back on someone who is in need because they are not a citizen and there are citizens that need help first.

Well I do. When it comes to spending this country's resources I think they should go to it's own citizens who are suffering before going to people outside the country.

Meanwhile, I thought you might be referring to that post. Read it carefully, Sparko. It doesn't say what you claim it says.

Really? You changed "evidence" to "argument" and are going to claim it means something different?

It makes your catch phrase even more stupidererer. Of course an example is an argument. Duh. That's exactly what it was used as.

[carpedm9587]

Well I do. When it comes to spending this country's resources I think they should go to it's own citizens who are suffering before going to people outside the country.

Then we disagree. As noted, I don't think addressing need is based on which club you belong to. I don't think that way for my country - and I don't think that way for my family. I have often asked my family to sacrifice because someone had a greater need. I imagine a world where everyone functions that way, and believe it would be a far better place to live.

Really? You changed "evidence" to "argument" and are going to claim it means something different?

Yes. Evidence is what is used to construct and support an argument. They are not the same thing. I would have thought you would have been aware of that relationship.

It makes your catch phrase even more stupidererer. Of course an example is an argument. Duh. That's exactly what it was used as.

Ok...so maybe you aren't.

[Teallaura]

Then we disagree. As noted, I don't think addressing need is based on which club you belong to. I don't think that way for my country - and I don't think that way for my family. I have often asked my family to sacrifice because someone had a greater need. I imagine a world where everyone functions that way, and believe it would be a far better place to live....

You've had your family live in the street and go without food? You've had your family go without routine medical care? You've had your family doing without basic needs - so someone ELSE could have them?



That's extremely POOR stewardship.

Sparky isn't talking about minor sacrifices (or major, if you're a teenager addicted to GOT) like cable TV - or maybe just not buying as many niceties as you would have otherwise because you used the money to help another. THAT isn't what he's talking about at all.

50,000 is the estimated number of homeless in LA. The city's response is to routinely roust them from their campsites, not infrequently destroying all their remaining possessions in the process. The city counsel's response is to authorize new housing - a mere 10,000 units that will take several more years to build - and to erect fencing to prevent homeless from occupying vacant lots.

San Francisco has similar numbers - and they seem to have no response at all. They can't even keep up with the human waste in the streets. But they CAN offer sanctuary to illegal aliens while leaving citizens to fend for themselves in squalor - literally in down town San Francisco!


California wasted millions on a train they can't build. The city and state regulations are so Byzantine that it's nearly impossible to build the new homes needed - even adding to an existing home is tens of thousands of dollars in fees and unnecessary requirements. But they can provide medical care to illegal aliens?

Yeah, right. It'll look pretty on paper. Some will benefit and the rest will either move to where they can actually get work or live in squalor with their homeless American neighbors who were also unable to move to a better state.

[lilpixieofterror]

You've had your family live in the street and go without food? You've had your family go without routine medical care? You've had your family doing without basic needs - so someone ELSE could have them?



That's extremely POOR stewardship.

Sparky isn't talking about minor sacrifices (or major, if you're a teenager addicted to GOT) like cable TV - or maybe just not buying as many niceties as you would have otherwise because you used the money to help another. THAT isn't what he's talking about at all.

50,000 is the estimated number of homeless in LA. The city's response is to routinely roust them from their campsites, not infrequently destroying all their remaining possessions in the process. The city counsel's response is to authorize new housing - a mere 10,000 units that will take several more years to build - and to erect fencing to prevent homeless from occupying vacant lots.

San Francisco has similar numbers - and they seem to have no response at all. They can't even keep up with the human waste in the streets. But they CAN offer sanctuary to illegal aliens while leaving citizens to fend for themselves in squalor - literally in down town San Francisco!


California wasted millions on a train they can't build. The city and state regulations are so Byzantine that it's nearly impossible to build the new homes needed - even adding to an existing home is tens of thousands of dollars in fees and unnecessary requirements. But they can provide medical care to illegal aliens?

Yeah, right. It'll look pretty on paper. Some will benefit and the rest will either move to where they can actually get work or live in squalor with their homeless American neighbors who were also unable to move to a better state.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/grow...te-survey.html

[Sparko]

Then we disagree.

see? you could have just said that in the first place instead of posting your smug virtue signaling* (*I did that on purpose) and wasting three pages.

As noted, I don't think addressing need is based on which club you belong to. I don't think that way for my country - and I don't think that way for my family. I have often asked my family to sacrifice because someone had a greater need. I imagine a world where everyone functions that way, and believe it would be a far better place to live.

Well good for you! Pat yourself on the back! - but if your children were living in rat-infested squalor in a tent in some inner city slum I am sure you wouldn't spend your limited resources on some stranger and not help your children first.

Yes. Evidence is what is used to construct and support an argument. They are not the same thing. I would have thought you would have been aware of that relationship.



Ok...so maybe you aren't.

Nothing to respond to here. Your idiocy speaks for itself

[carpedm9587]

see? you could have just said that in the first place instead of posting your smug virtue signaling* (*I did that on purpose) and wasting three pages.

Well good for you! Pat yourself on the back! - but if your children were living in rat-infested squalor in a tent in some inner city slum I am sure you wouldn't spend your limited resources on some stranger and not help your children first.

If that were true, I would BE one of the people in need, so you've moved the goalposts. We're talking about the richest nation on the earth prioritizing whom to help on the basis of what club/country they belong to, not the poorest nation trying to figure out how to use its meager resources.

Nothing to respond to here. Your idiocy speaks for itself

[carpedm9587]

You've had your family live in the street and go without food?

No

You've had your family go without routine medical care?

No

You've had your family doing without basic needs - so someone ELSE could have them?

No - and no one is suggesting the U.S. do that either. We have the resources to solve ALL of these issues - so you're comparing apples to oranges. We have the means - we lack the will.

That's extremely POOR stewardship.

Sparky isn't talking about minor sacrifices (or major, if you're a teenager addicted to GOT) like cable TV - or maybe just not buying as many niceties as you would have otherwise because you used the money to help another. THAT isn't what he's talking about at all.

50,000 is the estimated number of homeless in LA. The city's response is to routinely roust them from their campsites, not infrequently destroying all their remaining possessions in the process. The city counsel's response is to authorize new housing - a mere 10,000 units that will take several more years to build - and to erect fencing to prevent homeless from occupying vacant lots.

San Francisco has similar numbers - and they seem to have no response at all. They can't even keep up with the human waste in the streets. But they CAN offer sanctuary to illegal aliens while leaving citizens to fend for themselves in squalor - literally in down town San Francisco!

California wasted millions on a train they can't build. The city and state regulations are so Byzantine that it's nearly impossible to build the new homes needed - even adding to an existing home is tens of thousands of dollars in fees and unnecessary requirements. But they can provide medical care to illegal aliens?

Yes - we have the means and resources to provide medical care to anyone in this country that needs it, AND solve the housing issues. We are the richest nation on this planet and hold almost one third of the world's wealth. As I've said several times now, we simply lack the will. But there is no need for a dichotomy. We could build a separate house for every homeless person in the U.S. (554,000) in the most expensive place in the country (Kings County, NY) and the cost would be about 1/8 of the federal budget for a single year - or less than 1/50th of the national debt. Imagine if we actually housed them in lower-cost, subsidized apartments that can be built for a fraction of the price.

Yeah, right. It'll look pretty on paper. Some will benefit and the rest will either move to where they can actually get work or live in squalor with their homeless American neighbors who were also unable to move to a better state.

I have no idea what "it" means here. The simple fact is, we are a wealthy super-power - we have the resources. We don't need to choose. We just need to have the will to act.

[Teallaura]

No

Yes - we have the means and resources to provide medical care to anyone in this country that needs it, AND solve the housing issues. We are the richest nation on this planet and hold almost one third of the world's wealth. As I've said several times now, we simply lack the will. But there is no need for a dichotomy. We could build a separate house for every homeless person in the U.S. (554,000) in the most expensive place in the country (Kings County, NY) and the cost would be about 1/8 of the federal budget for a single year - or less than 1/50th of the national debt. Imagine if we actually housed them in lower-cost, subsidized apartments that can be built for a fraction of the price.

Yet the problem of the homeless and the destitute in California only gets brought up by conservatives - there is no political will to help the citizens - and we see no reason why we should develop a political will to meet Leftist goals without any quid pro quo. Show real effort to address the issues at home - THEN we can talk seriously about what we can also do abroad. But the leftist/Democrat mantra of 'you gotta help the people here illegally and let more in' isn't convincing to conservatives who have acceded previously - and got stiffed. Remember amnesty?

I have no idea what "it" means here. The simple fact is, we are a wealthy super-power - we have the resources. We don't need to choose. We just need to have the will to act.

The usual - healthcare for illegals - which has zero chance of working in reality. And no, we DON'T have those kinds of resources - and you perfectly well know it.

[Sparko]

If that were true, I would BE one of the people in need, so you've moved the goalposts.

I was assuming they didn't live with you, since they are grown. IF they were living in abject poverty you would not give away your limited resources to strangers before helping them FIRST.

We're talking about the richest nation on the earth prioritizing whom to help on the basis of what club/country they belong to, not the poorest nation trying to figure out how to use its meager resources.

We have limited resources. And we have people homeless and living in the streets. We can't house and feed them all and you want to add MORE of them by letting more people without homes or jobs into the country, who mostly can't even speak the language?

That isn't HELPING them, Carp. Not at all.

You seem to live in some idealistic universe that the rest of us can't see. Maybe because you never really had to deal with these situations? You seem to imagine the USA has unlimited resources and money.

[carpedm9587]

Yet the problem of the homeless and the destitute in California only gets brought up by conservatives - there is no political will to help the citizens -

Out of curiosity, how do you get billions of dollars in taxpayer funded initiatives about homelessness in California, a state that is dominated by Democrats, with a supermajority in the legislature, if Democrats are not talking about homelessness?

And I believe you just reiterated my point: we lack the political will to solve the problem, not the means/resources.

and we see no reason why we should develop a political will to meet Leftist goals without any quid pro quo. Show real effort to address the issues at home - THEN we can talk seriously about what we can also do abroad.

So long as we do not address problems abroad, we will not do anything to narrow the gap between the wealth/opportunity of Americans and the wealth opportunity of other countries. So long as that gap remains huge, America will remain a magnet for illegal immigration, complicating the problems at home. It's a fairly simple reality: people tend to want to go where the opportunity and wealth are greatest. Narrow that gap and you reduce the incentive to migrate. I have no desire to reduce the quality of life of Americans, so the choice is fairly obvious.

But the leftist/Democrat mantra of 'you gotta help the people here illegally and let more in' isn't convincing to conservatives who have acceded previously - and got stiffed. Remember amnesty?

As I recall, amnesty was a Reagan program. The problem with amnesty was not the idea - it was the execution. There was simply no follow through in that administration, the Bush administration that followed, and the Clinton administration that followed that. Immigration laws stayed badly flawed, enforcement spotty at best, and the result is the mess we have today. I have outlined, several times, what I thin should happen on this front. It does not amount to "let more in" (beyond those that truly qualify for asylum).

The usual - healthcare for illegals - which has zero chance of working in reality. And no, we DON'T have those kinds of resources - and you perfectly well know it.

Then we disagree. When it comes to healthcare for all immigrants, documented and undocumented, we are already paying that bill, as I previously outlined. And we are doing so in a sloppy, ad hoc, disproportionate manner. Universal healthcare coverage for all people in the U.S. eliminates all of that. And yes, we have the resources. Anyone who can look at American wealth and say we do not is simply ignoring the obvious. The U.S. is home to over 30% of the world's wealth and houses less than 5% of the world's population. Those numbers alone demonstrate the vastness of our resources - if they are appropriately tapped and used.

[carpedm9587]

I was assuming they didn't live with you, since they are grown. IF they were living in abject poverty you would not give away your limited resources to strangers before helping them FIRST.

You assumed incorrectly, on both fronts.

We have limited resources. And we have people homeless and living in the streets. We can't house and feed them all and you want to add MORE of them by letting more people without homes or jobs into the country, who mostly can't even speak the language?

Can you point to where I have advocated letting more people into the country - beyond the statements that immigration should be pegged to employment needs/opportunities, and people with a credible claim to asylum should be granted asylum? You and Teal have continually returned to this theme - which has never been part of my argument. If you cant show where I have said it, I'm going to let you continue to argue with this straw man you have created. I'm sure you will defeat it handily. Unfortunately, you won't have said anything to address the points I've actually made.

That isn't HELPING them, Carp. Not at all.

You seem to live in some idealistic universe that the rest of us can't see. Maybe because you never really had to deal with these situations? You seem to imagine the USA has unlimited resources and money.