None of you cowards would walk into an environment full of black folks or gay folks, for that matter, and spew the garbage you do here daily
And you know it.
.. Not everybody here is one of those nerdy white people from the movies... Just saying...
I highly doubt you would call me a coward in a person, let alone to an environment of neo-nazis or skinheads.
But instead of adding some substance to the thread you would rather plea for social justice warrior points . Pussy
Btw I wouldn't call random black people niggers. There is a difference you know. That is offensive and uncalled for. If a black person is acting like a nigger towards me I'm going to tell him to step the f back nigger using the most offensive language possible. Which would be dropping the n word in that case. Correct..
Same thing for white trash , gooks homosexuals etc etc...
No, you wouldn't. You're self-preservation instincts would kick in, and you'd slink away with your cowardly tail tucked between your legs. You're just a candy-ass, like all right wingnut minions.
The liar and hypocrite is at it again with his idiocy. He uses the ad hominem attack to avoid dealing with reality. The deluded fool thinks that that is sound reasoning instead of a fallacious argument.
NeoConvict » 28 Aug 2015 6:26 am wrote: These "beggars" have cut in line in front of hundreds of thousands of people who are in the process of immigrating legally.
No they haven't. You just lied. They were never IN that line - that line is for people with visas, and visas are under-available for most of the folks being pushed and pulled by the two governments treating them like cattle. And a putative christan putting beggar in quotes when referring to people who hang around at Home Depot looking for the opportunity to do grueling, unpleasant work for short money?
All I need do is highlight that; It speaks for itself - it speaks for your empathy, your spiritual health and your moral code.
Empathizing with others is not a bleeding heart - just a mature, well developed and masculine one, son.
Not one person with a visa was denied entrance to the USA because someone got upsies in your imaginary international lunch line. That's not just a talking point invented for you by a think tank engaged in hater-training. It's a retarded talking point. I don't believe I've ever seen you take a position quite that stupid before.
There's not a line. That's not how this thing works. Have you ever been on a plane? Crossed a frontier? If your papers are in order, in you go. No one consults a magic 8 ball to determine how many people WITHOUT papers sneaked across the border in the last 12 hours and 17 minutes. There's no formula that hourly functionaries consult before deciding to stamp the legitimate papers on their counter. They examine based on the parameters of their training, and they stamp as directed if none of the tell-tale issues they've been trained to detect are present.
This line you keep talking about? Is it the line you were in when you received this precious little talking point? Was there a bus at the end of it - a short bus?
NeoConvict » 28 Aug 2015 6:26 am wrote: I am certain that many are just as in need, just as desperate, as those who have chosen to break the law and become illegal aliens.
Of COURSE they are. Because they didn't make the cutoff. They were pushed out of line by a sneaker - a sneaky little sneaker - and the immigration official that WOULD have stamped THEIR documents was required by the dibbs rule to honor the dirty sneaker's demand for improper entry. Yeah - that's the ticket. The last thing those LOSERS who OBEYED the rules saw was the imaginary door slamming on their perfectly legitimate travel documents - because entry into the USA is played like a game of musical chairs, in RWNJ talking points land.
Dude you like typing... Translate that Mexican reporter for me...
This thread will have three OPs, in a sense. The first will make the case against all public assistance except "poor houses." The second will make the case for private charity: why it is superior, and why I believe in it. The third will share a first person account of private charity at work, and will solicit the same from other posters.
The first reason I object to DC managing local charity is the same reason I would object to my power company routing the power it sells me first to DC and then back to my house. That is going to be some expensive power, right there. As the end user, I'm paying for the extra infrastructure and the attrition. Money is just another form of energy - it causes kinetic activity. And the farther it gets from home, the more badly it behaves. Get it far enough from home, and it goes to whoring, Buying some fat old ponce of a bureaucrat some hot man on boy action is not my idea of charity.
Another reason charity should not be managed from afar is that it's unresponsive, mallet handed - stupid. It's as blind as a bat. It cannot do good because it cannot see the good to be done. Charity managed by the state would be no different. And government charity managed locally would likely invite corruption, with the majority of the charity somehow going to a handful of nubile women and accomodating young lads.
In those two short paragraphs, without resorting to the philosophical issues of jurisdiction or right and wrong, addressing just the obvious LOGISITICAL issues, I believe I have made the case against government charity, while leaving still a great deal of that case unmade. And to those who fret that ending federal charity might put us right back into the terrible circumstances which federal charity was created to address, allow me to point out: We never left. Look around. The same squalor abounds. Federal charity didn't work - doesn't work - will never work. Your misgivings are misbegotten.
If anyone can say, "Oh, yeah? Your premise is flawed, because here are the great things that federal charity has accomplished," I invite them to do so. But the truth is, federal charity has not improved the plight of those in poverty, or lessened their number - NOR IS IT DESIGNED TO. Federal charity is designed to maintain the impoverished in a continual state of poverty - and not because I say so; because the facts on the ground testify. A thing is defined by what it DOES - not what it pretends it wants to do.