Political Fart Noise Part II

[TTQ B4U]

Brandon disagrees with you, a couple of shitshow threads ago he said that any charity breeds dependence and is bad, no matter where the money comes from.

 

 

He's both right & wrong. Every individual is different. Some will be dependent others will aspire to do better and become great. Key with any of these programs is to provide support but not forever and perhaps not at the same rate for the entire period of time. People do have to crawl and walk before they can run. I also think there needs to be both a financial and time limit to do so. Without a time-frame and goal there really can't be a plan. Weave in a some pay-back contribution where needed and applicable too.

 

That said, what charities and the open market chooses to do is really on them. I don't see a need for the Fed. Gov't to micromanage this area of society.

[BStowers023]

Brandon disagrees with you, a couple of shitshow threads ago he said that any charity breeds dependence and is bad, no matter where the money comes from.

 

Huh? Can you provide a link? I don’t remember saying that.

 

I don’t completely disagree with that though. Giving someone a hand out does create dependence but what someone does with their money (charity) is not my concern. Feel free to go give your money to the needy, I don’t care. That’s your money. What I do have a problem with is the Government who already takes too much of my money, justifies taking even more for people who won’t work for theirs (in simplified terms). And we have people like you and Kerry who call people like me and Tim names if we dont agree with giving away our earned money. In some alternate reality that makes sense to you, enough sense for you to argue all day long that it should be done.

[greg1647545532]

Huh? Can you provide a link? I don’t remember saying that.

 

Here.

 

How will people get out of poverty if we make it easier for them to stay in poverty by giving them enough handouts to scrape by but not succeed. Maybe the difference between my mindset and yours is that I believe in people and you don't.

[greg1647545532]

He's both right & wrong. Every individual is different. Some will be dependent others will aspire to do better and become great. Key with any of these programs is to provide support but not forever and perhaps not at the same rate for the entire period of time. People do have to crawl and walk before they can run. I also think there needs to be both a financial and time limit to do so. Without a time-frame and goal there really can't be a plan. Weave in a some pay-back contribution where needed and applicable too.

 

That said, what charities and the open market chooses to do is really on them. I don't see a need for the Fed. Gov't to micromanage this area of society.

 

Would you be OK with the immigrants coming in if private charities agreed to pay for them?

[CRed05]

What are we even arguing here?

 

I'm arguing that we don't need to change immigration laws, they're fine the way they are. Are you (greg & geeto) proposing we loosen the laws? We need to let more people in? Lower the standards? Let in any Tom, Dick and Jose who wants in?

[Geeto67]

He's both right & wrong. Every individual is different. Some will be dependent others will aspire to do better and become great. Key with any of these programs is to provide support but not forever and perhaps not at the same rate for the entire period of time. People do have to crawl and walk before they can run. I also think there needs to be both a financial and time limit to do so. Without a time-frame and goal there really can't be a plan. Weave in a some pay-back contribution where needed and applicable too.

 

Can you be specific about which programs you are referring to? because as far as I am aware the only ones that are doing the things you don't like are the ones that take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled. What programs are you referring to that don't serve those people, but also don't have time and financial limits?

 

 

That said, what charities and the open market chooses to do is really on them. I don't see a need for the Fed. Gov't to micromanage this area of society.

 

The reason we don't typically trust charities to fill in is three fold:

 

1) because historically speaking charities have a pretty awful track record of abuse of the system with very little accountability

 

2) Sometimes these programs are implemented to address the root cause of another issue that is within the government's wheelhouse like crime, healthcare, or public utility.

 

3) because sometimes to assist in these issues there needs to be legislation as well as money to fix the problem. Case in point the opiate epidemic we have on our hands. Rehabilitation programs are a necessary part but so is legislating the Pharma companies to hold them accountable for the crisis they caused.

 

 

 

Huh? Can you provide a link? I don’t remember saying that.

 

I don’t completely disagree with that though. Giving someone a hand out does create dependence but what someone does with their money (charity) is not my concern. Feel free to go give your money to the needy, I don’t care. That’s your money. What I do have a problem with is the Government who already takes too much of my money, justifies taking even more for people who won’t work for theirs (in simplified terms). And we have people like you and Kerry who call people like me and Tim names if we dont agree with giving away our earned money. In some alternate reality that makes sense to you, enough sense for you to argue all day long that it should be done.

 

To be fair you say a lot of things where the facts don't bear out to support what you are saying. Pointing out your ignorance isn't calling you a name, it's stating a fact - you choose to take it as an insult and frankly I don't care to correct you on this because you advocate people talking to you like this. When you say things and get all huffy that they are contextually racist and someone points that out, it's the other person's problem not yours and apparently victim mentality. So to your above statement I say, stop being such a whiny victim and having a victim mentality when the big bad "liberals" call out your ignorant statement and contextually racist shit. Take some responsibility for your statements. if you are going to say shitty things, at least know why people are saying they are shitty, if you are saying something and someone calls out your ignorance, maybe find out why they are saying that. Stop being such a victim. geez.

[greg1647545532]

What are we even arguing here?

 

I'm arguing that we don't need to change immigration laws, they're fine the way they are. Are you (greg & geeto) proposing we loosen the laws? We need to let more people in? Lower the standards? Let in any Tom, Dick and Jose who wants in?

 

I'm arguing that Democrats who want to stop putting children in cages on the border are doing so because it's the right thing to do, and not because they think it will keep them in power. Brandon apparently disagrees, and thinks that every Democrat doesn't actually care about any issue.

[CRed05]

I'm arguing that Democrats who want to stop putting children in cages on the border are doing so because it's the right thing to do, and not because they think it will keep them in power. Brandon apparently disagrees, and thinks that every Democrat doesn't actually care about any issue.

 

Ah. Well I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think most people want to see kids in cages, regardless of political views. Democrats are using it as a political tool, sure, as would republicans if the shoe was on their foot.

[greg1647545532]

See, that's what I thought too. But apparently a lot of Americans want to see kids in cages because they think it will keep Central American immigrants out.

[TTQ B4U]

I'm arguing that Democrats who want to stop putting children in cages on the border are doing so because it's the right thing to do, and not because they think it will keep them in power. Brandon apparently disagrees, and thinks that every Democrat doesn't actually care about any issue.

 

 

I'm interpreting his view but my opinion is that these people need to be contained and not released into the general population. Not in cages but in camps for sure and the cost of that shouldn't be funded entirely by the US. Again, limits on the numbers and costs need to be held to and enforced. If that means changing laws to turn people away or prevent them from entering then so be it. I don't support just because someone makes it to our land that they all of a sudden are guaranteed to be cared for. They should be brought back to the border and told to start walking just as they did when they came in.

[Geeto67]

Ah. Well I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think most people want to see kids in cages, regardless of political views. Democrats are using it as a political tool, sure, as would republicans if the shoe was on their foot.

 

eh....maybe....remember the republicans hold the power in both the house and senate, , and they have both underwritten the current executive administration's decision to do this, as well as been slow to act in response (or not at all). Since the 1990's it has been a conservative position that enforcement needs to be absolute and this is what absolute looks like. It's hard to argue that they aren't getting exactly what they want and are happy that a political outsider like trump gets to take the heat for it.

[CRed05]

eh....maybe....remember the republicans hold the power in both the house and senate, , and they have both underwritten the current executive administration's decision to do this, as well as been slow to act in response (or not at all).

 

Nobody wants kids in cages, but how do you deal with this issue? You can't just come into any country you want. Like Tim said, we can't just release them into the US. Either you come in here legally like everyone else or GTFO and go back to your country.

[Geeto67]

Nobody wants kids in cages, but how do you deal with this issue? You can't just come into any country you want. Like Tim said, we can't just release them into the US. Either you come in here legally like everyone else or GTFO and go back to your country.

 

Families didn't need to be separated to have a zero tolerance policy, it wasn't an explicit requirement of any immigration law. Prior to it implementing it was viewed as a positive side effect of prosecuting the parents because it would discourage border crossing. Keep in mind we didn't "send everybody back", we sent the parents to federal prison in the US to serve prision sentences and then deported them, and basically incarcerated the children under the care of the US without trial with no plan to deport or otherwise release.

 

So which is worse? releasing them into the US or putting them in US federal prison where taxpayers pay that expense. Almost 3000 children were separated, only about 400 parents were deported (after serving prison sentences for which taxpayers paid for), and right now about 1/5 of the children still remain separated from their parents and under US care. This is better than "Catch and release" (which really wasn't "catch and release" at all but catch detain as a family and then deport or release pending court date)?

 

 

 

W Bush tried this in 2005 (operation streamline) and abandoned the program when he realized it was a horrible idea. Even his policy had a carve out to keep from separating whole families at the border.

 

Obama built family detention centers during his administration, so there literally was no reason to separate families at all other than to discourage others from crossing

 

I don't know that you can say nobody wants kids in cages. The Executive branch that put this in place made a conscious decision to do this unnecessary action and chose it, then defended it publicly, and only suspended it when the unpopularity of the action threatened trumps campaign. They wanted this, they had no plan to do anything but this, don't make excuses for bad behavior and poor planning by saying nobody wants this but what can you do - turns out you can do not this and still have a zero tolerance policy.

[BStowers023]

Can you be specific about which programs you are referring to? because as far as I am aware the only ones that are doing the things you don't like are the ones that take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled. What programs are you referring to that don't serve those people, but also don't have time and financial limits?

 

 

 

 

The reason we don't typically trust charities to fill in is three fold:

 

1) because historically speaking charities have a pretty awful track record of abuse of the system with very little accountability

 

2) Sometimes these programs are implemented to address the root cause of another issue that is within the government's wheelhouse like crime, healthcare, or public utility.

 

3) because sometimes to assist in these issues there needs to be legislation as well as money to fix the problem. Case in point the opiate epidemic we have on our hands. Rehabilitation programs are a necessary part but so is legislating the Pharma companies to hold them accountable for the crisis they caused.

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair you say a lot of things where the facts don't bear out to support what you are saying. Pointing out your ignorance isn't calling you a name, it's stating a fact - you choose to take it as an insult and frankly I don't care to correct you on this because you advocate people talking to you like this. When you say things and get all huffy that they are contextually racist and someone points that out, it's the other person's problem not yours and apparently victim mentality. So to your above statement I say, stop being such a whiny victim and having a victim mentality when the big bad "liberals" call out your ignorant statement and contextually racist shit. Take some responsibility for your statements. if you are going to say shitty things, at least know why people are saying they are shitty, if you are saying something and someone calls out your ignorance, maybe find out why they are saying that. Stop being such a victim. geez.

 

 

You literally use examples of opinions and say you’re using “facts” to prove your point and call me ignorant. I have never claimed being a victim. Somehow you created that illusion in your illogical fat head. If you tell yourself you’re right enough you start to really believe it. You’re living proof of that and it’s hilarious.

[BStowers023]

Here.

 

Weird. I don’t see myself referencing charities once in that post. I’m glad your programmed mind created that though.

[greg1647545532]

Nobody wants kids in cages, but how do you deal with this issue? You can't just come into any country you want. Like Tim said, we can't just release them into the US. Either you come in here legally like everyone else or GTFO and go back to your country.

 

I'm not sure you've been following the horribly chain of events that has led us to this situation.

 

America legally allows people to come to the US border and request asylum. That is, their home country is so awful, or their personal situation so dire, that they would like to enter the country for their own safety. This is a legal path to residence.

 

However, they can only legally do this if they come to a border patrol checkpoint. And we've made that very difficult for them to do.

 

*IF* you're an asylum seeker and you enter the US illegally, and then get picked up by ICE and request asylum -- now you've committed a misdemeanor offense, that of entering the country without permission, and the Trump administration is going to prosecute you. Zero tolerance on misdemeanors. This is intentional, because it will deter people.

 

However, we have due process thanks to a pesky thing called the "Bill of Rights", which conservatives love only when it suits them, so we need to have a trial. But since we now have a "zero tolerance" policy and our immigration courts are SWAMPED, this trial will take months. So you get to live in an ICE detention center for months.

 

BUT... the USSC said that you can't keep kids in detention centers for more than 20 days. So now what do you do?

 

Well, the Bush and Obama administrations just let people go with a court date. Most people don't come back for that court date, which sucks, but from a human rights perspective, it's better than the alternative, which is....

 

kids in cages.

 

 

 

OR you can have an immigration policy that doesn't suck, an immigration enforcement system that isn't underfunded and overwhelmed, and a personal belief system that puts letting illegal immigration happen in small numbers above putting kids in cages.

[greg1647545532]

Weird. I don’t see myself referencing charities once in that post. I’m glad your programmed mind created that though.

 

You didn't see it then, either, because you're too dense to see the logical progression of your own thoughts.

 

Charity breeds dependence. But you're OK with charity. You're OK with breeding dependence. But you're not OK with breeding dependence.

[Geeto67]

You literally use examples of opinions and say you’re using “facts” to prove your point and call me ignorant. I have never claimed being a victim. Somehow you created that illusion in your illogical fat head. If you tell yourself you’re right enough you start to really believe it. You’re living proof of that and it’s hilarious.

 

Right here:

 

And we have people like you and Kerry who call people like me and Tim names if we dont agree

 

that is you claiming victim status because people don't agree with your opinion. You are a victim of being called names. Stop being such a whiny victim, own your shit.

[BStowers023]

You didn't see it then, either, because you're too dense to see the logical progression of your own thoughts.

 

Charity breeds dependence. But you're OK with charity. You're OK with breeding dependence. But you're not OK with breeding dependence.

 

I'm not okay with breeding dependence but what you or anyone else does with their money isn't my concern. If you want to fund charities to help the poor, whatever I can't stop you it's not my money. You want to advocate for the Government to take even more money out of my check to fund the poor? Yeah, I've got a problem with that.

 

Right here:

 

that is you claiming victim status because people don't agree with your opinion. You are a victim of being called names. Stop being such a whiny victim, own your shit.

 

You think the names you call me offend me?

[Geeto67]

 

You think the names you call me offend me?

 

yes because you are whining about it (and also that time you threatened to come to my house and do harm to my family). Any other questions?

[TTQ B4U]

and also that time you threatened to come to my house and do harm to my family).

 

 

It's just CR Guys......let's leave the crazy shit to the knuckleheads making news today.

[greg1647545532]

I'm not okay with breeding dependence but what you or anyone else does with their money isn't my concern. If you want to fund charities to help the poor, whatever I can't stop you it's not my money. You want to advocate for the Government to take even more money out of my check to fund the poor? Yeah, I've got a problem with that.

 

You continue to dance around the obvious. I understand that you don't want jackbooted thugs going around preventing people from giving to charities, and I understand that you don't want jackbooted thugs taking your money to give to charities. I got it, nobody likes jackbooted thugs.

 

But if we can set the jackboots aside and forget about the government, if I said, "Brandon, is it a good idea for people to give to charities to help the poor?" your response, if I can summarize your thoughts for you, would be "No, charities for the poor breed dependence, and that's bad."

 

Just own it, man.

[BStowers023]

yes because you are whining about it (and also that time you threatened to come to my house and do harm to my family). Any other questions?

 

Quit being a victim. You're fabricating a threat to try to make your point. Go eat a few cheeseburgers a milkshake a large fry and calm down.

[greg1647545532]

Seems like the most hated people in this country today are straight white males.

 

Nope, no victim mentality here.

[BStowers023]

You continue to dance around the obvious. I understand that you don't want jackbooted thugs going around preventing people from giving to charities, and I understand that you don't want jackbooted thugs taking your money to give to charities. I got it, nobody likes jackbooted thugs.

 

But if we can set the jackboots aside and forget about the government, if I said, "Brandon, is it a good idea for people to give to charities to help the poor?" your response, if I can summarize your thoughts for you, would be "No, charities for the poor breed dependence, and that's bad."

 

Just own it, man.

 

 

Well in broad terms, yes. It's bad to give money to people who aren't helping themselves. So you don't confuse this and continue to make assumptions and put words in my mouth. Yes, there are a lot of good charities out there. Yes, some people do actually need help. No, not everyone that gets a hand out needs it or "deserves" it. There are a lot of people in this country fully capable of working 40+ hours a week that simply choose not to. Those are the people I am referring to.

 

If I haven't been clear, I'll go ahead and try to clear it up a bit. Giving money to people who constantly hold their hands out who are perfectly capable of working does breed dependence regardless of where the money comes from. I am allowed to have that belief while also believing that I have no say in what a privately funded charity does with it's money.