Thread: Obama and the Illegals

Originally Posted by Blueneck

FFA thinks public transportation is socialism.

Isn't it?

Aren't the people who choose to abstain from it robbed to subsidize it, when they could be doing something better for their families with that money instead?

We already know that with the dems in congress and Omama at the helm that the grand amnesty will be law of the land. What I look forward to is the reaction from the so-called libertarians who railed against the bill, and their new found love for it. Here is the absolute kicker, I remember who they are.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Isn't it?

Aren't the people who choose to abstain from it robbed to subsidize it, when they could be doing something better for their families with that money instead?

When you live in a condo or rent someplace, a certain amount of the money goes to upkeep and improvement of the property for the benefit of all residents.

Think of taxes as renting public facilities and services. Maybe it wouldn't bother you as much if you looked at it like that. Besides, how do you expect the illegal aliens to get to work if they don't have the bus to ride?

I don't like my money going to pay the military to blow up people I don't even know, but I don't get a choice either. I'd rather see the money get used to improve this place. What's so wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Blueneck

When you live in a condo or rent someplace, a certain amount of the money goes to upkeep and improvement of the property for the benefit of all residents.

Think of taxes as renting public facilities and services. Maybe it wouldn't bother you as much if you looked at it like that. Besides, how do you expect the illegal aliens to get to work if they don't have the bus to ride?

I don't like my money going to pay the military to blow up people I don't even know, but I don't get a choice either. I'd rather see the money get used to improve this place. What's so wrong with that?

Sorry.

The nation has a strict law about what the government can and cannot do.

Running ponzi scheme retirement scams, and running retirement programs period, is strictly forbidden by that law.

Most of the other things the government does are equally banned by law.

The law is being broken.

It's very much like a someone's homeowner's association dues being raised continually to finance the charity projects of the committee members in complete violation of the home ower association's charter.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Sorry.

The nation has a strict law about what the government can and cannot do.

Sorry, seems the majority look at that law a little differently than you do.

Running ponzi scheme retirement scams, and running retirement programs period, is strictly forbidden by that law.

Good thing SS and medicare and Obamas Universal health care don't fall into those categories, huh?

Most of the other things the government does are equally banned by law.

The law is being broken.

Na, you just don't know how to interpret it.

It's very much like a someone's homeowner's association dues being raised continually to finance the charity projects of the committee members in complete violation of the home ower association's charter

Nope, not like a private homeowners assoc at all, it's the federal gov't.

Low hanging fruit! Man, I've been lookin' for something like this ALL DAY.... :whistling:

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Sorry, seems the majority look at that law a little differently than you do.

Yes. That is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Good thing SS and medicare and Obamas Universal health care don't fall into those categories, huh?

FFA has a point. Those things are technically un-Constitutional. They require the approval of the People, which was never sought nor granted.

I don't think a "de-facto" approval was what the Founders had in mind.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Na, you just don't know how to interpret it.

The words are in plain English. What part is difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Nope, not like a private homeowners assoc at all, it's the federal gov't.

The federal government IS a private homeowners' association. It has a charter to which it must adhere. It elects representatives to conduct the company's business. Its members contribute to its collective operations. Members pay ALL costs, including maintenance. Even those things they're supposedly getting "for free" are actually being paid for out of the owners' pockets. Representatives are expected to adhere to the company charter, else they are removed by the membership, and possibly even prosecuted if circumstances warrant. The HA can coerce the members in MANY ways, including, tenancy restrictions, pets, even personal conduct. And, when an owner gets in trouble, MAYBE the association will provide assistance, depending on who's in charge that day and how much money there's left in the kitty.

Yep. Very much like the government.

I don't know if you know this, but you *don't* pay for enjoying social services/goods directly. Just thought I'd drop this note.