Ha! Here’s the thing: I just made a a small correction when you used a word in an odd way—which you did. That might have been the end of it, but, no you had to defend it. And when you did you misrepresented its correctness, implying that it was just about as correct as “flout” and not sharing any usage notes. When I then pointed out to you that of the multiple sources on Dictionary.com, only two even include the definition, and that both of those include usage notes pointing out that it is probably a mistake that had gained acceptance at one time, and that using it the way you did should be avoided, your choice is to come back yet again with bullshit—namely, that it is “widely entrenched in common use”. Never mind that both notes advise against using it the way you did. And you were worried about ME attacking your character!!! As I (and 5-4-Fighting) guessed, your actions would do an adequate job of revealing your character on their own by championing stubborn idiocy. Well done!
But that’s off-topic, right? It is for what is being debated, but it reveals the type of debater you are. So, the exchange is helpful. But if you don’t want to discuss that, I suggest stop trying to defend what really isn’t worthy of being defended and…drumroll…answer the questions that have been asked of you. You know the stuff that is ON topic.
The point of in-state tuition is not to reward and punish people for where they live. It’s not about justice or truth or anything. It’s a wholly practical system. In-state tuition is an attempt to resolve public universities’ two conflicting goals:
[ol]
[li]Create more educated people who will be better prepared to contribute to your state’s economy. [/li][li]Make money.[/li][/ol]
The idea is that you want as many people from your state as possible going to your school since their education will ultimately make your state richer. And you don’t want to waste your resources on people are just going to go back to their home state (though you will accept their money as long as they make it worth it to you.)
Immigrants and the children of immigrants are likely to stay in the place they spent so much trouble getting to. It makes your state richer in the long run to give them access to the tools they need to contribute to your economy. We all win from a more educated populace.
One of the problems with this is that the illegal immigrants (whether they came here as adults or children) won’t be able to use the education in a legal job. They will simply be taking up a subsidized slot that a citizen/legal resident could use to get an education and a legal job. Another problem is that whether or not the subsidy is intended to reward a behavior, in practice, it DOES reward whatever behavior leads to getting that subsidy.
. . . but your ramblings about hippies and communism and people NOT working towards red-blooded Mericans’ best interests made perfect sense :rolleyes:.
Let’s assume that all this is correct. That would than explain why states offer its residents a special deal. But it doesn’t explain why the taxpayers’ money should go to those who are here illegally. Let’s say their is $X in revenues allocated to subsidize in-state tuition, why shouldn’t all of that go to in-state residents who are legal? Why should money be taken from them, giving each one less of a subsidy, and given to people who shouldn’t even be here?
Additionally, people who are here illegally are supposed to be deported. Why should people pay to educate them when they might be sent back to their home country tomorrow or the next day?
:rolleyes: The fact that you offer this as an analogy means that any further explanation will be a waste of hamster power. Unbelievable. Of course, if you disagree, go right ahead and champion this idiocy, as well.
No problem. This part of the discussion has already served its purpose. But if you’d like to argue why you’re right about being wrong more vociferously, go right ahead. It’s quite entertaining. And enlightening as to that character of yours you seem so afraid to have revealed.
You know, not only is your thinking sophmoric, you’re full of shit. You say “ask”, but then when questions are posed to you, you ignore them. Even when another poster indicated that she’d be interested to hear your answers, as well. In a discussion, the questions that would be of value to have answered is determined by the person asking them, nitwit, not the person who it is incumbent upon to answer them. People are putting forth effort to understand your position. Questions have been posed to you to aid in that. So answer them. Until you do, you leave people to conclude, as I surmised, that you haven’t thought through your position beyond the way an eighth grader would.
:rolleyes: You’re such a dickhole, magellan. But just to prove that I’m not who you think I am, and hopefully illustrate to those with a brain that you’re what you claim to hate (sophmoric, idiotic, waste of hamster power, etc.), I’ll answer your stupid, specious questions.
NUMBER ONE:
Do you leave your front door open?
Yes. Have never locked up the houses I’ve lived in. There’s a great breeze this time of year.
NUMBER TWO:
What are your views on ownership, particularly of land?
I own land. I don’t want people tampering with it, obviously, but I’m not going to shoot someone who walks across it.
I hope that gives you the cosmic insight into why I don’t hate Mexicans that you were looking for.
I was giving a history lesson. Let me repeat myself, using different words, since you didn’t understand me.
Communism has been tried, many times, by many different groups. It will work in SMALL groups, of like-minded people. It will work with a household of people, up to a small community. “Small”, in this case, is a couple of dozen adults. Even then, as the upper limit is reached, the system starts falling apart. I grew up watching people form communes, and watching those communes come crashing down. These communes had as their philosphy that everyone was welcome, everyone could take whatever they wanted, and give back what they could. They were small scale versions of what you’re advocating. For a commune to work, it has to put limits on its growth (even if it wants to take over the nation, it has to look at how many people it can support RIGHT NOW) and limits on behavior.* A nation has to do the same thing. We cannot take in an infinite number of immigrants, and especially not all at once. We have to determine who we let in, and in what numbers. You list your location as Arizona. Right now, your state is having problems finding enough water for its growing population. Other regions will have other scarce resources. Any geographical area will be able to sustain only a given number of people before its population has to go thirsty or hungry or poor.
*See The Greening of America and other books like it. Even the most fervent advocates of the system had to acknowledge that there wasn’t room for everyone in a particular community, and that a community had to set limits on how many people could stay in one tribe.
I believe you’ve misunderstood your source. When it says it’s a one time benefit it doesn’t mean that you can get it for one time in the course of a lifetime. It means that each season you file one application and get one payment amount. Next year you apply again. All they’re saying is that it’s not like a lot of other programs where you apply once and get a monthly benefit thereafter.
I wish you’d tell both of these things (or your friends anecdotes) to the entities through which I just participated in these things. Also, the average payment by HEAP in New York City is around $50 – somebody is sure gonna buy a lotta cadillacs and filets mignon with that.
Do you have any cites for what you claim you’ve heard? It even says right in my cite that public assistance is considered.
This does not appear to be correct. See here - it would appear that the $50 is if heat is included in your rent - if you actually pay it, it’s $120 - $540.
Cheap shot - at the outset I wrote
I looked around a bit, and it seems like it varies. From the HUD Guidelines it would seem that some forms of social programs are counted and some are not - see Exhibit 5-2 (begins on page 15 of the PDF file).
Here’s a discussion of Medicaid income eligiblity from the Department of HHS, which discusses the variability of standards, including the following:
This thread has contained discussion on when immigrants “assimilate” into “American culture” or are “indistinguishable” from “Americans” (paraphrasing). Unless we, or you lalenin, are willing to agree on what constitutes “an American” or “American culture” then any discussion on how fast immigrants become “indistinguishable” is impossible. So to start moving in that direction…
lalenin, what is your definition of “the average American”? C’mon, have the courage to state something you actually believe in. What is your definition of “the average American”?
Then we can have the discussion about immigrants assimilating into it.
Yeah, loving your fellow man, resenting unnatural borders and elitism by birth - fuckin’ WHACK, man! Completely loony! Absotively stuperating whackanackalicious! :rolleyes: All I’m doing is having the balls to openly state and defend ideas that will be commonplace in a few years, and trust me I’m not the only one around here who thinks like this. I’m just not afraid of what assholes like you have to say about it. You, among others in this thread, appear terrified of original thought, and perfectly content to only ask leading questions and attack other peoples’ positions.
Cisco, you’re wrong on so many levels, and I’m confident the rational people around here can see them all by themselves. And like the saying goes, I’m not going to bother arguing with you because then all I’ll accomplish is winning an argument against… a blathering idiot.
But trust me, you’re nuts. I suspect your delusion prevents you from understanding that, so I hold compassion rather than dislike for you, but you’re still gone. Solid gone. You’ve executed a flawless triple lindy into the deep end. You’ve orbited Saturn and are heading for Uranus. You sued Ann’s House of Nuts for trademark infringement and won.
Yeah, whatever you say, Freud. See, I’m convinced that any rational people can see all by themselves that I’m right and you’re nuts, so maybe the objective truth is that it’s a complex issue whose resolution depends on opinion, attitude, and zeitgeist. Probably too mature a thought for Jimmy Joe Poopypants to consider, though.