Round Earthers and other progressions

[Gatefan1976]

Isn't that what many democrats are pushing for, an they'll provide the moped, oo.

America, the nation it is today was BUILT on immigrants.
You are an immigrant, so is Magi.
I'm an immigrant to a different country, but I am still an immigrant.
The modern west is BUILT on immigration.
Why should you deny the choice of people today based on the choices of our ancestors?
No one asked the Tribes of America if they could move in, you did it on superior power, and no one asked the Aboriginals if I could move in either.

Your question shows that you don't understand the "american left"

First, 'bout a decade & change ago, the Democrats actually wanted to tighten down the border. Even Obama said so.

Your "answer" shows you don't understand the question.

But low and behold, here we are years later, with a hard republican in office, and they're best bet to regain control of the White House and whatever other levers of power is to court the segments of the population which need free stuff; this group includes immigrants, as well as students, or anyone else who wants the govt. to pay for all their needs.

Now you show you don't understand economics.

So, why do you think the ascendant wing of the left, aka the Kindergartner and her ilk are promising these things, free college, free health care, free whatever-else-they-can think-of?

It's NOT FREE.
It's paid for via tax, which people pay into.
Call it wealth distribution if you want, at least that would be somewhat accurate.
EDIT:
Oh, BTW, spending so much on the military is wealth distribution as well.
It used to go to families who had people who "bought the farm", now it goes to military corporations who would not exist without government aid, err, contracts.

To buy the votes of these folks.

Instead of buying the votes of the cronies?
Isn't that what you hate and fear about your so called view of communism?

[Gatefan1976]

The US signed the Refugee convention. If a boat full of asylum seekers were to land on your shores it would be within your obligations to accept and process them accordingly.

Are you saying the US should go back on core international agreements?

Yeah, there are loopholes in that.
One Australia has exploited for decades, don't let them arrive, at least alive.

[magi877]

The US signed the Refugee convention. If a boat full of asylum seekers were to land on your shores it would be within your obligations to accept and process them accordingly.

Are you saying the US should go back on core international agreements?

you mean turn back pl on boats like so many EU nations on the Med are doing?

but "axeyuairy" this example in norway is not ppl showing up on boats in desperate need of asylum though, is it?

they are people who were already safe (which is relative of course, given they are coming from Russia) in a western nation and are of obviously of some means as they can buy bikes

they are a far cry from desperate people- long abused, stolen from and raped- onboard boats at sea

its relatively safety (russia) vs no safety

[magi877]

America, the nation it is today was BUILT on immigrants.
You are an immigrant, so is Magi.
I'm an immigrant to a different country, but I am still an immigrant.
The modern west is BUILT on immigration.
Why should you deny the choice of people today based on the choices of our ancestors?
No one asked the Tribes of America if they could move in, you did it on superior power, and no one asked the Aboriginals if I could move in either.

you are trying to re-define the meaning of words once again

we are all far removed from being immigrants; my wife is an immigrant-i a am not

by your definition than even america natives and australian aboriginals are immigrants as well

[magi877]

oh wait, this is not the poli discussion thread!!

again, how many of those do all of you need?

[Gatefan1976]

oh wait, this is not the poli discussion thread!!

again, how many of those do all of you need?

Three or four by my last count.
Why does it matter?

[Chaka-Z0]

I'm not in disagreement with any of you in regards to stopping them before they get here. Guess what, every nation does it it's just easier for us because they got a long way to get here.

Hence why I said if it was to land. Hence the actually meme.

[Gatefan1976]

you are trying to re-define the meaning of words once again

No, I am telling you what the words -actually- mean, reminding you that you are an immigrant.
What makes YOU not an immigrant?
Being born in the USA?
So, all people born in your borders are US citizens?
Think about it.

we are all far removed from being immigrants; my wife is an immigrant-i a am not

I am 200 years away from being an immigrant, but in history, that's nothing.

by your definition than even america natives and australian aboriginals are immigrants as well

That's an unsurprising low level of deflection.
It does lead to an interesting question however.
You are African.
Want to be treated like one?

[Chaka-Z0]

Well I won't add the ackthually meme once again but I'd like to point out that humanity as a whole is an immigrant, since we came from bacteria on an asteroid that impacted the Earth then evolution; therefore we are all extraterrestrials.

*Drops mic*

[Annoyed]

It's NOT FREE.
It's paid for via tax, which people pay into.
Call it wealth distribution if you want, at least that would be somewhat accurate.

It's buying votes with those tax dollars, plain and simple. Since I am a tax PAYER rather than a leech, is it any wonder I don't like that idea so much?

EDIT:
Oh, BTW, spending so much on the military is wealth distribution as well.
It used to go to families who had people who "bought the farm", now it goes to military corporations who would not exist without government aid, err, contracts.

Instead of buying the votes of the cronies?
Isn't that what you hate and fear about your so called view of communism?

1: The most expensive army in the world is the one that comes in 2nd place. We don't live in a world where people can stroll through the day smelling the roses. There are an awful lot of evil folks in the world. This requires a military.
2: A good deal of the expense of the military is weapons and defenses that make it somewhat safer for the servicemen on the front line. I don't have a problem spending money to make being a soldier a little less risky.

I don't support $800 hammers and such, waste like that ought to be rooted out and eliminated. But spending money to protect soldiers is a good thing. Particularly if you are a soldier.

[Gatefan1976]

It's buying votes with those tax dollars, plain and simple. Since I am a tax PAYER rather than a leech, is it any wonder I don't like that idea so much?

What do you think corporate tax cuts are?
EVERY tax cut you get from the right is predicated on tax cuts for them FIRST.
The right bases their entire premise on "trickle down economics", or in other words "give it to me and I will share it"
Given your view of the essential selfishness of people, and what happened in the last tax cut, WHY the HELL do you still have that view?
You don't believe people will share, yet you think people with a track record of not sharing suddenly will??
Damn, that's stupid.

1: The most expensive army in the world is the one that comes in 2nd place. We don't live in a world where people can stroll through the day smelling the roses. There are an awful lot of evil folks in the world. This requires a military.

Did I, or have I ever said any country does not need a military?
Hint, I never have, but go chasing that load of crap.

2: A good deal of the expense of the military is weapons and defenses that make it somewhat safer for the servicemen on the front line. I don't have a problem spending money to make being a soldier a little less risky.

On this, we agree.
I have no issue at all with spending "my tax dollars" on the people who risk their lives to defend my way of life. THEY need body armour, THEY need weapons.
When the people they are defending NEED body armour and guns, something has gone wrong.

I don't support $800 hammers and such, waste like that ought to be rooted out and eliminated. But spending money to protect soldiers is a good thing. Particularly if you are a soldier.

Then look to the corporations who charge you 800 bucks for a hammer, because they are the ones making the money, and they just got a pass by your government to charge you a grand for the same hammer.

You and I are not that fiscally different in a governmental sense except for one.
You see defence as a "worthy cost", yet letting the nation fall apart is "not your problem".
What are you defending if the people all fall?
That's what Rome did.

[Annoyed]

What do you think corporate tax cuts are?
EVERY tax cut you get from the right is predicated on tax cuts for them FIRST.
The right bases their entire premise on "trickle down economics", or in other words "give it to me and I will share it"
Given your view of the essential selfishness of people, and what happened in the last tax cut, WHY the HELL do you still have that view?
You don't believe people will share, yet you think people with a track record of not sharing suddenly will??
Damn, that's stupid.

Sorry to let facts confuse you, but Trump's tax reform DID benefit me, in several ways.

First, by lowering the federal tax bite, it immediately left more money in my paycheck.
Second, look at the effects on the economy. Unemployment is way down, wages are up. So if/when I have to find another job (which I think I will have to do soon), I'll have an easier time doing so, and at a higher wage than I would have, say, 10 years ago, 2 years into the Obama presidency. You can't argue with results.

And it's clear you don't understand how a capitalist economy works. Your mindset is that wealth belongs first to the govt.

Government produces NOTHING. Businesses and people do that. Any wealth belongs first to the entity that creates it. The government then takes that wealth via taxes.

Lowering taxes is not the government giving something to business. It is simply taking less of what didn't belong to it in the first place.

The only "giving" the government can do is give money to those who don't earn their own, but only after first taking that money from those who do earn their money by creating wealth.

[Chaka-Z0]

Second, look at the effects on the economy. Unemployment is way down, wages are up.

You assume economic policies impacts in the immediate, which is categorically wrong.

I'll have an easier time doing so, and at a higher wage than I would have, say, 10 years ago, 2 years into the Obama presidency. You can't argue with results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power

Government produces NOTHING. Businesses and people do that. Any wealth belongs first to the entity that creates it. The government then takes that wealth via taxes.

Also wrong for many reasons. One, international companies are recruited with lenient fiscal policies and regulations. They nest in your country, generating jobs, taxes and else. That is of the Govt's doing alone.

Two, they offer services to their citizens, which in itself is wealth. Those services in turn require workers, generating jobs, wealth again. The administration, generally speaking, of cities - regions - states to country require a ton of administrative personnel, creating jobs and wealth.

Three, demographics generate wealth. Incentives for your citizens to have families, more kids, more kids = more taxes, etc.

Four, your favorite, immigration, which brings wealth directly into the country in form of an investment.

And five, I don't even know why I bother explaining this as you've never accepted the science of macro-economy thus far.

Lowering taxes is not the government giving something to business. It is simply taking less of what didn't belong to it in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(language)

The only "giving" the government can do is give money to those who don't earn their own, but only after first taking that money from those who do earn their money by creating wealth.

We call that wealth distribution, yes.

[SoulReaver]

Sorry to let facts confuse you, but Trump's tax reform DID benefit me, in several ways.

First, by lowering the federal tax bite, it immediately left more money in my paycheck.

ok so you got your crumbs

Second, look at the effects on the economy. Unemployment is way down, wages are up.

Govt. propaganda
look at the type of "jobs" used to gild the statistics: temporary underpaid dead end contracts lol

And it's clear you don't understand how a capitalist economy works. Your mindset is that wealth belongs first to the govt.

Government produces NOTHING. Businesses and people do that.

no it's the people (workers) alone who do that not the businesses that employ them

[Gatefan1976]

Sorry to let facts confuse you, but Trump's tax reform DID benefit me, in several ways.

First, by lowering the federal tax bite, it immediately left more money in my paycheck.
Second, look at the effects on the economy. Unemployment is way down, wages are up. So if/when I have to find another job (which I think I will have to do soon), I'll have an easier time doing so, and at a higher wage than I would have, say, 10 years ago, 2 years into the Obama presidency. You can't argue with results.

And it's clear you don't understand how a capitalist economy works. Your mindset is that wealth belongs first to the govt.

Government produces NOTHING. Businesses and people do that. Any wealth belongs first to the entity that creates it. The government then takes that wealth via taxes.

Lowering taxes is not the government giving something to business. It is simply taking less of what didn't belong to it in the first place.

The only "giving" the government can do is give money to those who don't earn their own, but only after first taking that money from those who do earn their money by creating wealth.

As usual, this addresses nothing of what I said.
I'm prepared to make a compromise with your views, you want nothing less than total surrender.
Totalitarian at it's core.