Do you support amnesty?

[Timshel]

they have no standing, as they should not be here.

Why shouldn't they be here? If your only argument is because they are not authorized to by law then that applies to tax cheats.

I don't believe in amnesty for either. In the latter case, to offer amnesty suggests that there is something that needs to be forgiven.

Exactly, why do we need to forgive someone for moving?

Not every situation or lawbreaking is equal. As tax payers we are slaves to the whims over government. Those rich enough to find it necessary to put their money off shore have been unfairly gutted, and morally I find their actions far more justifiable.

Yes, they are not all equal which is why we have different punishments. Irrelevant to the point that both break the law and if you are going to make a fuss about one you should make a fuss about the other.

Denying a person the right to move about makes them a captive. Ones actions to evade such restrictions are morally justifiable.

 

[Timshel]

I don't mind law breakers being punished. You act as if I have sway over this administration. Newsflash. Maobama isn't taking my calls. Take it up with Holder

But you failed to show any concern on this issue.

Further, why not make your intellectually bankrupt and cowardly argument that we should not cut taxes or spending until we deal with the problem of tax cheats. Aren't we just rewarding law breaking otherwise?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Why shouldn't they be here?

Because we said so. As citizens of our country we have every moral and civic justification to be able to deny entry to anyone. This is what pretty much every country in the world does.

If your only argument is because they are not authorized to by law then that applies to tax cheats.

It could apply to tax cheats. As I said, I don't support amnesty for either, though I guess you could say I sympathize more with the makers hiding from takers.

Exactly, why do we need to forgive someone for moving?

They didn't move, they illegally entered our country without our permission. We have the right to keep our personal homes from being entered by other people, and we have the right collectively as a nation to prevent our homeland from being entered, without our permission. The point is immigration happens on OUR terms. Now, if you want to make an argument that we should support immigration, and allow it by our own good graces, I probably would buy into that. But I do not support those that don't even have standing here making demands.

Irrelevant to the point that both break the law and if you are going to make a fuss about one you should make a fuss about the other.

Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to agree with one law and disagree with another. It's also entirely possible to think hiding money is ok but entering the country illegally isn't. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

 

[Timshel]

Because we said so. As citizens of our country we have every moral and civic justification to be able to deny entry to anyone. This is what pretty much every country in the world does.

And this does not at all differ from the argument for taxes.

It could apply to tax cheats. As I said, I don't support amnesty for either, though I guess you could say I sympathize more with the makers hiding from takers.

Yes, it is important that we show concern for wealthy tax cheats but not poor immigrants pursuing a better life. Your makers bullshit is nothing but a stupid argument for privilege. The tax cheat could be totally unproductive turning profits off of gaming the system.

They didn't move, they illegally entered our country without our permission. We have the right to keep our personal homes from being entered by other people, and we have the right collectively as a nation to prevent our homeland from being entered, without our permission. The point is immigration happens on OUR terms. Now, if you want to make an argument that we should support immigration, and allow it by our own good graces, I probably would buy into that. But I do not support those that don't even have standing here making demands.

So then if all property is controlled collectively then the state has the right to tax the shit out of anybody they like and your makers are actually takers. Congratulations, you're a communist.

Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to agree with one law and disagree with another. It's also entirely possible to think hiding money is ok but entering the country illegally isn't. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

No, I am not setting up a false dichotomy. I am taking away the dodge. The argument against immigration fails. It's an example of big government, expensive and a violation of basic human freedom. The cowards that have lost the argument on that turned to the law breaking argument, but they are not consistent in it.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Yes, it is important that we show concern for wealthy tax cheats but not poor immigrants pursuing a better life. Your makers bullshit is nothing but a stupid argument for privilege. The tax cheat could be totally unproductive turning profits off of gaming the system.

I gave my opinion, you disagree with it, but it's not inconsistent. You cried about a supposed double standard, I say I don't support amnesty for either, but I sympathize more with tax dodgers, which I do. What's your issue other than you simply don't agree with my opinion?

So then if all property is controlled collectively then the state has the right to tax the shit out of anybody they like and your makers are actually takers. Congratulations, you're a communist.

nice strawman. Should I even bother anymore?

No, I am not setting up a false dichotomy. I am taking away the dodge. The argument against immigration fails. It's an example of big government, expensive and a violation of basic human freedom.

there is no dodge. every nation has a right to protect it's borders. We are nation, we have built our roads, our schools, our communities. We have standing and we can decide if outsiders can come in or not. Are you asserting that we as american citizens don't have a say in who can enter our nation?

The cowards that have lost the argument on that turned to the law breaking argument, but they are not consistent in it.

Says who? You are just making shit up. How many people have stated they support amnesty for tax dodgers but not illegal immigrants? Your entire argument is a strawman. You are assigning a false position to some spectre of a board demographic on here but no one has even commentated on this situation other than myself.

 

[Timshel]

I gave my opinion, you disagree with it, but it's not inconsistent. You cried about a supposed double standard, I say I don't support amnesty for either, but I sympathize more with tax dodgers, which I do. What's your issue other than you simply don't agree with my opinion?

nice strawman. Should I even bother anymore?

There is no strawman. You made an analogy with our right to defend our property from a trespasser and then claimed we had a right to do that collectively. You argued for collective control of property.

there is no dodge. every nation has a right to protect it's borders. We are nation, we have built our roads, our schools, our communities. We have standing and we can decide if outsiders can come in or not. Are you asserting that we as american citizens don't have a say in who can enter our nation?

We we we. You are talking like a thorough collectivist. Your argument is no different than those who demand higher taxes and numerous restrictions on behavior.

It's a dodge. They are trying to obstruct any type of reform and impede immigration.

No, I am suggesting that we should move forward on reforming our policies and ignore the racist douchebags that are attempting to obstruct with their whining about amnesty. We are not deporting 10 million plus people and they are not going to self deport. Deal with it.

Says who? You are just making shit up. How many people have stated they support amnesty for tax dodgers but not illegal immigrants? Your entire argument is a strawman. You are assigning a false position to some spectre of a board demographic on here but no one has even commentated on this situation other than myself.

I am asking why they don't make a fuss about the amnesty on tax cheats. It's not a strawman at all.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

But you failed to show any concern on this issue.

Further, why not make your intellectually bankrupt and cowardly argument that we should not cut taxes or spending until we deal with the problem of tax cheats. Aren't we just rewarding law breaking otherwise?

Failed to show concern? You are serious aren't you.



I said they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. What else do you want? You need to learn to take yes for an answer son

 

[Timshel]

Also, I don't want our immigration or tax policy based on some collectivist claptrap about collective property.

 

[Timshel]

Failed to show concern? You are serious aren't you.



I said they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. What else do you want? You need to learn to take yes for an answer son

No, you did not. You said you did not mind if they were punished. So, then you are for aggressive enforcement of tax laws and are opposed to amnesty and any reforms of the tax code until we punish these criminals. Okay.