Mosque = big story, Republicans block aid to 9-11 victims = non story

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/economy/30states.html?_r=1

I think California's debt is higher then you make it out to be

 

If somebody were to ask me who the most "hate-fueled" person on this board is I would answer SamFisher. And your not a Republican.

 

It would be nice if you actually read my posts.

 

Why is the United States paying for New York employees? Shouldn't New York be paying?

Amazing to me that 9 years later these people would have such expensive medical costs.

 

Yeah, I’m sure if you were one of those people in the towers that needed help the first question you would be asking is if the responder was an American.

 

Even if you think illegal first responders should get health care it still doesn't change the fact that the Democrats could of gotten health care for legal first responders. They just chose not to.

 

Because that's a stupid compromise and one that's insulting to any illegal immigrant that risked their life and consequently their health to help on 9/11. Illegal immigrants are still people and that too in this case they were people that served us on 9/11. That's a dumb politically motivated compromise that they should never take.

 

Hell, if they were in those buildings, trying to save lives, then grant them automatic citizenship.

Saving Americans > Citizenship test

 

I view it like the health care debate. Many Republicans and conservatives wanted many small bills so each issue could be voted on separately. The reason the Democrats combined these issues (for the health care and for this bill being discussed) is because they know some of the stuff won't pass on its own. They are trying to get around the majority vote need for the issue of illegal immigrants getting first responder health care by adding it to something that everyone wants (although the Republicans want it funded differently). It gives the Blue Dogs cover. They can go to their constituents and when asked why did you support health care funding for illegal immigrants they can respond "Well I didn't support that, but I supported giving health care to legal first responders so I voted yes", If these bills were separate they wouldn't have this cover. Even If you think Americans should be forced by the federal government to pay for illegal's health care, you should still recognize that most American's representatives in the House did not and this was a way around this.

Most of this stuff I am saying comes fomr this article

 

Sam remember at the start of this thread when you didn't know a majority vote was all that is needed for something to pass the house. How many people screamed and called you a liar and a moron?

 

What about things like enforcing mar1juana laws which I don't agree with? Is that force applied to me to use my money to enforce a law which I don't agree with and I think is a violation of my individual rights to smoke what I want? What about money spent on fighting in Iraq? That is framed as national security but I don't feel that is in my security interests.

The answer to the argument about force is one that is ameliorated by elected representatives. The use of your tax dollars for things you don't agree on isn't force per se since you are part of the social contract of a representative democracy.

The Federal government pays for firefighters through things like grants to communities, emergency funding and other things. You also have to consider that there are firefighters that are employed by the Federal government such as wildland firefighters.

The question is though what do you consider your individual rights? As I noted above many consider drug laws a violation of their individual rights in that case then drug enforcement is a violation of rights. At the same time sticking with the firefighter issue someone living in an isolated area might feel that they can handle if their house is on fire and paying for a fire dept. as not a protection of their right.

 

Lets not forget that CA's ability to budget and tax is hampered by several referendums effectively tying the state government's hands.

 

That is a great idea. My understanding is that immigrants who enlist in the US Armed forces qualify for citizenship so why shouldn't first responders who risk their lives too.

 

in the past few months, i really reached a point to where i thought i'd read/heard/seen it all. then i read where people don't think those heroes who risked their own lives and health responding to the tragedy on 9/11 don't deserve to be helped because they were not here legally. my goodness, what is wrong with some of these people? it takes someone with some truly effed up synapses to think that way. for the sake of what's left of our humanity, i hope these people don't breed.

 

I know I shouldn't derail the thread, but I just can't let this go. It's "would have" and "could have." Please learn English.

 

Rand would say that the use of force to push a moral opinion like a person should not put a certain drug in their body is an abuse of power. An Objectivist would argue for eliminating the FDA.

If you believe that it is being done to protect your right to life then Rand would say it is not an abuse of power, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.

An Objectivist (I don't consider myself an Objectivist) would argue that as a democracy we should vote on how to protect our individual rights and what those rights are, but not on which moral opinions to force on the whole and how to enforce them.

I guess I have no problem with the wildland firefighters. As far as the grants and emergency funding I disagree that this is one of the federal governments functions. I wish I knew some examples of when else this has been done specifically.

What drugs I am allowed to give myself is definitely a moral opinion, I don't see how it can be viewed else wise.

Effectiveness and purpose are two different things. The purpose is to protect your right to life so Rand would say its not an abuse of power. The Effectiveness may be argued though and Rand would say these are the type of things people should vote on in our democracy.

 

What the hell do you care if my English sucks?

 

I would give health care and citizenship to someone who risked their lives to save mine or others. I would not force others to adhere to my moral opinion on this though (aka use federal money).