Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[The Oracle]

lol

[froot loops]

Even if you could ban illegal immigrants from emergency rooms, if they have a life threatening injury do you let them die in the parking lot? Would that be a deterrent?

[Prime2]

Not sure how Trump's presidential aspirations can survive this?

Unless HC's criminal investigation results in charges, he is toast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/ny...ntic-city.htmlons

[hack]

Even if you could ban illegal immigrants from emergency rooms, if they have a life threatening injury do you let them die in the parking lot? Would that be a deterrent?

It's hard to imagine that policy could be implemented. What intake clerk wants to earn $15 an hour to send people out to die in parking lots? You couldn't pay most people enough to take that job. People are human.

[Da Geezer]

Thanks, SLF. I too have a problem with not allowing access to emergency health care. Before the ACA, emergency rooms provided care for everyone, but hospitals and health insurers (and the insured as well) knew that many illegals were not insured and were not going to pay for the services. These costs of "bad debts" worked themselves through the system and were paid by those of us who had insurance. That was simply a more efficient system than having the federal government and the exchanges involved in transactions.

But, as far as sanctuary cities, why does the President and the Justice Dept. threaten to withhold funding to Texas schools if they don't adopt the federal standards for transgendered bathrooms, and yet they are not willing to apply the same standard to cities that harbor criminals (illegals all having committed a crime in jumping the border).

Hannibal's basic statement that the Dems are intentionally and unlawfully altering the makeup of the electorate is true. The alteration actually has more impact on lower-down-ballot elections. Few mayors or representatives will take the chance to oppose sanctuary cities and the voting illegals that they harbor.

[hack]

If you're gonna have a law, you should enforce it. That's how you get into trouble spots like this in the first place.

Hannibal's basic statement that the Dems are intentionally and unlawfully altering the makeup of the electorate is true. - how is that a known fact? People can say things until they are blue in the face -- AND DO -- but that doesn't make it true. For example, that the CRA caused the financial crisis, or that Europe's leaders are trying to flood their own countries with immigrants. These things have been alleged in just the same way but are easily shown to be untrue.

[UMStan White]

Telling the "truth" has never been a criteria for posting in this thread.

[THE_WIZARD_]

hello

[WingsFan]

It's no secret that Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, considers Tom Brady a good friend. And Trump may look to cash in on that friendship at the Republican National Convention, where he could ask Brady and other sports stars to speak on his behalf.


"We're going to do it a little different, if it's OK," Trump said during a speech on Friday night in Richmond, Virginia, via the Times. "I'm thinking about getting some of the great sports people who like me a lot."


Trump considers these sports figures "winners," as opposed to the usual convention fare -- "these people, these politicians who are going to get up and speak and speak and speak."

Last September, Brady, who says Trump is "a good friend of mine," called the possibility of a Trump presidency "great."

[Da Geezer]

If you're gonna have a law, you should enforce it. That's how you get into trouble spots like this in the first place.

Maybe you can explain how this is done when the executive branch of government imposes policies that are directly contrary to law.

Hack, you said up-thread that the US is getting browner and we had better get used to it. Either every Mexican family is having 22 children, or immigration levels from Mexico have been tripled or illegal immigration is happening. The question is not whether it is happening but why. What is your theory of the cause of the large number of illegal immigrants? What is your theory of why the executive branch chooses not to enforce laws?

You get hung up on "all-ness". No one is claiming that all illegal immigration into the US is allowed in order to pack the electorate. No one claims that every migrant into Europe is done for political reasons. But when a proposal is generally true, that is good enough in a debate.

It would be simple to just allow net tax payers to vote. Then it wouldn't matter how many illegals came to collect welfare. Why is it unthinkable for immigrants to be given legal status, but not the right to vote until they begin to pay taxes. Then they could vote. Specifically, why is this so objectionable.

You know why. It is not the loss of hypothetical votes from hypothetical immigrants that concerns you. It is the loss of votes from the welfare recipients (and I mean welfare in its broad sense) that makes the proposal seem too stupid to even warrant a reply.

[SeattleLionsFan]

DaGeezer, do you care that undocumented immigrants pay billions into the system, and take out much less than that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/undocumented-own-u-s-homes-and-pay-billions-in-taxes/

[SeattleLionsFan]

Maybe you can explain how this is done when the executive branch of government imposes policies that are directly contrary to law.

Hack, you said up-thread that the US is getting browner and we had better get used to it. Either every Mexican family is having 22 children, or immigration levels from Mexico have been tripled or illegal immigration is happening. The question is not whether it is happening but why. What is your theory of the cause of the large number of illegal immigrants? What is your theory of why the executive branch chooses not to enforce laws?

You get hung up on "all-ness". No one is claiming that all illegal immigration into the US is allowed in order to pack the electorate. No one claims that every migrant into Europe is done for political reasons. But when a proposal is generally true, that is good enough in a debate.

It would be simple to just allow net tax payers to vote. Then it wouldn't matter how many illegals came to collect welfare. Why is it unthinkable for immigrants to be given legal status, but not the right to vote until they begin to pay taxes. Then they could vote. Specifically, why is this so objectionable.

You know why. It is not the loss of hypothetical votes from hypothetical immigrants that concerns you. It is the loss of votes from the welfare recipients (and I mean welfare in its broad sense) that makes the proposal seem too stupid to even warrant a reply.

If you have to ask why it is objectionable to limit voting based on a persons income, then no one will ever convince you otherwise.

[froot loops]

Every adult should be eligible to vote. Period.

[CGVT]

What the hell is a "net tax payer"?

[froot loops]

Apparently someone who is not a taker.