OT: Property tax relief coming for those over 65
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
- Status
"The Founding Fathers and their ancestors" did not come without permission.
The United States accepted *many* Cubans fleeing communism after Castro came to power -- that is why there is such a large Cuban-American community in Miami.
His position begins with the founding fathers
He has a hard time understanding that as the situation has changed in the United States, so should the handling of the situation
To think we have to continue as things were done 200 years ago is not much of an argument, makes no sense
Does anyone feel a serious personal impact by immigration one way or another?
It seems yet another issue the political puppet masters want the populace to argue about circularly and endlessly.
It seems yet another issue the political puppet masters want the populace to argue about circularly and endlessly.
Ironically, it affects (in a good way) folks like DT who like to hire illegals for low wages to work on their golf courses and such.
Equally ironically is that most politicians on both sides seem to actually want to do something about illegal immigration, and tried to pass legislation on it, 'cause it's a not insignificant thing. But DT didn't want congress to pass a bill to help to keep it alive as an election issue (and maybe 'cause cheap labor).
DT's problem is a bunch of R congresspeople gave interviews on camera saying they wanted to vote for it, that it would help, but they couldn't 'cause of DT. Now those vids are being used to bash DT. Proving that what goes around comes around in politics, always and forever.
I find the whole thing hilariously and typically ridiculous.
All true. But the ironic thing was the Dems sat on it for years and only moved when it was obviously going to be a major '24 election issue. There are no innocents here.
You've never once heard me say or insinuate otherwise. I am consistent in saying both parties suck.
Pretty sure 99.999999% of the forum goers here would agree. It's the longest running argument that nobody really has much disagreement about. Politicians do what they do to make it a wedge issue, but behind closed doors, they mostly agree about it too.
Problem is all the politically obsessed sheep among the electorate are easily incited to argue, so they argue despite being pretty much in agreement. Hilarious and sad all at the same time.
The Democratic proposal would not have decreased the flow of immigration
The added agents would have been put to the task of processing illegals more than anything
We really have to go back to the remain in Mexico policy that was successful under Trump
Funny, but perhaps not true. When my father's parents came just after the start of the 20th century, the husband went first and later went back to accompany his wife and children here. (My father's parents continued to have more children -- including my father -- once in this country. )
Yes. My new roof, windows, and fences over the past 10 years were installed masterfully by immigrants with suspect status that took great pride in their work while often working in brutal heat. (Their bosses told me candidly they tried to employ locals at times but they couldn’t ever be counted on.)
None of them tried to remain in my home as squatters, something my 70-something female neighbor told me I should worry about. (She saw it on Fox.)
Some people in the landscaping industry may be upset that the Central Américan’s and Mexicans do it better and for a better price.
I had the interior of my house painted and I don’t know if they were illegals, maybe at one time, they spoke Spanish a lot but I got the best price and a professional job with them. Same things with the new carpet and roof on the house. I did get quotes and they always gave competitive bids. I forgot my lawn service is done by a Hispanics owned company. They sure keep inflation down.
My brother, who lived in LA, complained about illegals since he felt the rent was outrageous because of them. He was all for the previous president. He had the opportunity to buy when the prices were lower but didn’t since he found a low rent deal for a few years before the owner told him he wanted to sell the home. He moved to Atlanta due to the cost of living. He tends to blame others for his problems, never accepts responsibility.
Last edited:
Glad you agree the SCOTUS never said Presidents can't forgive loans.
Thankfully President Biden is forgiving loans when he isn't busy freeing Americans left trapped in Russia by the felon rapist.
OK. The founders ancestors had visas? Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743. To whom to did his ancestors apply for residency when they arrived from England and Wales?
Yes, the US accepted Cubans and let in the overwhelming majority of people who showed up at Ellis Island (who didn't need a visa to get there). The question is...what's the difference now? Unemployment is near record lows. Businesses are desperate for workers. What gives?
LOL
Just so I understand this correctly
The Second Amendment- it should apply to weapons that didn't exist in the 1700s
Immigration- it was totally fine when people showed up in the 1700s and massacred the native population, but today if a Venezuelan comes here fleeing a far left dictatorship and delivers DoorDash- invasion?
Yeah...if only there were less crossings now than in 2020, right?
OOPS
Unlawful border crossings drop for 5th straight month, reaching lowest level since September 2020
U.S. Border Patrol agents made 56,000 migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border in July, the lowest number since September 2020.
www.cbsnews.com
It effects weird landscapers and valets, who, due to their lack of education, ethics, morals, intelligence, or ability to do anything but ingest fake news and burp it out on a football message board, have nothing better to do but to blame their life's faults on others.
Not that many other liberals will actually say it, but I am happy to point it out. The whole divide in our society today is based around the fact that yes, most Americans would rather live next door to a drag queen or Venezuelan refugee than a landscaper who thinks the DOJ starts impeachment. Sorry, not sorry.
If someone has a job they can lose to someone who speaks no English and arrives with minimal education, that's a them problem and they ought to bust out those bootstraps and get it together.
Legal, processed refugees
Not people showing up at the border, saying a few magic words, let into the country, where
they don’t show up for a court date 5 years from now
Enough of that
Oh, I guess you think coming when there was no need to get permission is the same as being an illegal -- coming without permission when permission is needed. You're displaying your usual practice of undercutting your own position through overstated arguments.
You are talking to A liberal who figures he has to defend every liberal.position, even when it is not a good one
I can name several issues where I that go against the conservative view, he cannot
I often think his positions are wrong. But what bothers me much more is that he makes lousy arguments in favor of even plausible positions. This is an example. Maybe the country should be allowing more immigration: but equating people who came to this country when there was no need to get permission with people who are coming in violation of the law is fatuous for lack of a better word.
There are no good liberal or conservative positions. There are only good positions. The ideology thing is nothing more than a tool for controlling y'all. I recommend shedding it ASAP.
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on the percentage of people that actually show up for their hearing. And how long it would take to actually get such a hearing. I mean how long could it possibly take ?
That's an excellent argument against those who are supporters of the 2nd amendment.
Many years ago I hired a contractor who had been an architect in Mexico. Great guy wonderful family. His son graduated from Princeton and his 3 daughters all went to RU. One of the daughters married a Polish guy from Linden. Last I heard the son and one daughter started a business and it has been very successful.
Not really. There are no good arguments against the second amendment, in my opinion. The second amendment is all about individual freedom and self-reliance. It's a good amendment both then and now. It'll always be a good amendment.
OTOH, what he posted is a good argument for the various states that don't already have certain gun control laws to consider them. And a good argument for all the states to consider some changes to existing laws, or certain new laws.
But it's a lousy argument for federal gun laws (should be state by state) or any more gun bans. And those thing will never make it past the current SCOTUS anyway, which they shouldn't, IMO.
The devil is in the details. And the argument comes down to one's willingness to sacrifice freedom for perceived safety. People aren't likely to agree anytime soon.
There need to be some federal laws because only federal law can effectively regulate interstate transport of banned items. That's why the law against machine guns (which dates back to the 1930s) is a federal law.
Federal laws are no more likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court than state laws. All are subject to the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has already made clear that it is not going to invalidate all gun laws. But it is clear it will look with a skeptical eye at any law that infringes the right to have a weapon for self-defense. That doesn't mean all of those will be struck down: the Supreme Court just this term, by a vote of 8-1, upheld a federal law that bars firearm possession by someone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order. The Court said that such a prohibition is consistent with a longstanding tradition of barring gun ownership by persons who threaten others with violence.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...ns-with-domestic-violence-restraining-orders/
The current SCOTUS isn’t, IMO, unreasonable with respect to guns. Preventing criminals or people with mental health issues from possessing guns is a pragmatic thing that recognizes that people are the real problem. And there are many other societally beneficial pragmatic gun laws in some states that I don’t see SCOTUS ever striking down.
I disagree that there need to be federal gun laws. States can and do regulate what can be transported into and within their borders. Radar detectors, for instance. While the fully automatic weapons ban isn’t, IMO, unreasonable, it should be a state law only, and it is a state law in most states, even though it’s currently redundant given the federal law.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the current court overturn the federal fully automatic weapons ban at some point, leaving it up to the states. There is no federal speed limit on interstate highways, each state is free to regulate that as they see fit. I see that as an NRA funded outcome of any attempt to create a federal ban on semiautomatic rifles.
Nobody, including the NRA, has ever had the slightest objection to the longstanding federal ban on fully automatic weapons. There is no doubt that the federal government has the right to have such a ban; the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
There was for some years a federal speed limit for interstate highways. Congress got rid of it, but not because of any doubt over whether Congress had the constitutional power to have it.
Actually, lots of people have objections to the federal ban. But the point is that the NRA has very strong objections to a ban on semiautomatic weapons. So I think the NRA would bring a case against the federal fully automatic weapon ban only as a result of any serious attempt to ban semiautomatic rifles. The NRA sees slippery slopes everywhere.
BTW, I’m not a big fan of the NRA, since I feel they block too much gun legislation that is pragmatic. But I also understand that they have been in a protracted fight against the “just do something” mentality that produces a constant sentiment to ban all guns.
I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that, with the current composition of SCOTUS, they’ll win. Of course, it’s just speculation.
The Federal ban on automatic weapons has been in place for so long that I find it extremely difficult to conceive of the Supreme Court overturning it. It would be better for the NRA to continue to challenge restrictions on semiautomatic weapons. But those challenges may not always succeed; it will depend on the kind of restriction imposed.
Wow. I can't believe how wrong you are. No one needs semi-automatic weapons. Those kids and their teachers at Sandy Hook needed their lives. Your priorities are a little off.
Criminals regularly carry semiauto weapons, or even fully auto sometimes. So every police force in the country carries semiautomatic weapons as their regular sidearm. So, I guess the cops disagree with you, for starters.
May I ask for a definition here? My understanding is that a semiautomatic weapon is one in which the shooter doesn't have to do anything (like operate a slide) between shots, but that only one bullet comes out for each pull of the trigger. Is that right? Don't most firearms fit that definition? P.S. the rifle that Oswald used to kill Kennedy was one that required him to pull a bolt back between shots, so it doesn't fit the definition I gave above, correct?
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Women’s Soccer Eyes Another Winning Season
- Latest: rutgershoopsinsider