Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:18 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Yes they can. By not directing funds to help with the resettlement, nor helping the federal government in any way, which is totally legal. Without the help of the state, the federal government can do nothing but drop them off, which they won't do.

There is federal land in every State. A State cannot prevent the federal government from building an immigration center on any federal land anywhere.

Of course. But will they? Doubtful. They need state run programs to make this work. Transportation, housing, welfare, are all run at the state level. As we talked about yesterday, it might be federal funds but the state distributes it.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:04 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Help the refugees, shoot the jihadists in the face. Whether it happens here or over there is irrelevant to me. I did spend some time in a refugee camp ~15 years back, and my memory of it still doesn't sit well with me. That plays a part in my own decision making process. As for everyone else, my suggestion is if you feel that strongly about a cause, act on it. Most of you are more concerned about backing up your liberal/conservative affiliation than you are about finding a way to actually affect some kind of change.

"...actually EFFECT some kind of change."

Not trying to be a dick, the affect/effect thing bugs the shit out of me.

I try to be good with grammar, so if I used it incorrectly I sincerely apologize. My understanding is that affect is a verb, right now change is not happening and I want to change that, therefore I affect change. The only college I went to was in China so, if I am mistaken, then oops.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 10:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  States can't refuse to accept them. It is not in their legal authority.

Yes they can. By not directing funds to help with the resettlement, nor helping the federal government in any way, which is totally legal. Without the help of the state, the federal government can do nothing but drop them off, which they won't do.

Actually, the Federal government has a couple of options available:

1) they can coerce state co-operation by withholding other funds to states which refuse to do as the Feds wish (this is how the drinking age was raised to 21 nationwide, and how 55mph limits were gotten in 1974: by witholding highway funding to states which didn't do as the Feds wished). Never forget, the Feds have not only the power of the purse, but the power of the money press. If the Feds pull funding, states cannot simply print money to pay their way.

2) They can settle them on Federal land using Federal assets.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
18-11-2015, 11:28 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:27 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Yes they can. By not directing funds to help with the resettlement, nor helping the federal government in any way, which is totally legal. Without the help of the state, the federal government can do nothing but drop them off, which they won't do.

Actually, the Federal government has a couple of options available:

1) they can coerce state co-operation by withholding other funds to states which refuse to do as the Feds wish (this is how the drinking age was raised to 21 nationwide, and how 55mph limits were gotten in 1974: by witholding highway funding to states which didn't do as the Feds wished). Never forget, the Feds have not only the power of the purse, but the power of the money press. If the Feds pull funding, states cannot simply print money to pay their way.

2) They can settle them on Federal land using Federal assets.

They'd need the power of the Republican controlled Congress to do #1. They control the budget.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 11:28 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:24 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "...actually EFFECT some kind of change."

Not trying to be a dick, the affect/effect thing bugs the shit out of me.

I try to be good with grammar, so if I used it incorrectly I sincerely apologize. My understanding is that affect is a verb, right now change is not happening and I want to change that, therefore I affect change. The only college I went to was in China so, if I am mistaken, then oops.

You can effect change but you can't affect change.

Or to put it another way, you can make change happen, but you can't change change.

You should use effect as a noun as it is something you are saying should be done (change should be done).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think you will find that the majority are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

Most of them were also legally purchased somewhere along the way before crossing that arbitrary line between legal and illegal when they are already out in public

That is a red herring. Every firearm starts out 'legal'.

It is the legality of possession that is the important point.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Most of them were also legally purchased somewhere along the way before crossing that arbitrary line between legal and illegal when they are already out in public

That is a red herring. Every firearm starts out 'legal'.

It is the legality of possession that is the important point.

It isn't a red herring, it is an observation that logically follows from the red herring you threw out there Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Most of them were also legally purchased somewhere along the way before crossing that arbitrary line between legal and illegal when they are already out in public

That is a red herring. Every firearm starts out 'legal'.

It is the legality of possession that is the important point.

[Image: tumblr_m8godpwUeg1qa8rxdo1_500.png]

Speaking of red herrings, not all illegal use of firearms is done with illegally obtained weapons. Dylann Roof is a most recent example. Drinking Beverage

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
18-11-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
(18-11-2015 11:24 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(18-11-2015 11:08 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "...actually EFFECT some kind of change."

Not trying to be a dick, the affect/effect thing bugs the shit out of me.

I try to be good with grammar, so if I used it incorrectly I sincerely apologize. My understanding is that affect is a verb, right now change is not happening and I want to change that, therefore I affect change. The only college I went to was in China so, if I am mistaken, then oops.

I think both affect and effect could be used here but for the opposite of what HeWhoHerdsYaks says. If there is no change happening "effect" is correct to bring it about. If change is already occurring "affect" is correct to manipulate and alter the change already happening. ... Goddam it. Apparently I'm as pedantic as the BeardedClam.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-11-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: Over half of U.S. states rejecting refugees
"The effect upon my affect is due to my medications."

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: