JD Vance and the USCCB

11,742 Views | 264 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by Quo Vadis?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



When in American history was discrimination and depravation at its greatest? When the government was more or less involved? Who, historically, has called for "states rights"?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



Counterpoint: You've forgotten that a reform Jew teaching history in the NE knows a lot about immigration here in Texas.


I've taught Texas history in Texas. I have a pretty good idea.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



Counterpoint: You've forgotten that a reform Jew teaching history in the NE knows a lot about immigration here in Texas.


I've taught Texas history in Texas. I have a pretty good idea.


Impressive CV
NonReg85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



When in American history was discrimination and depravation at its greatest? When the government was more or less involved? Who, historically, has called for "states rights"?
What does that have to do whether or not large, national bureaucracies or local agencies/charities are better at distributing services?
NonReg85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



Counterpoint: You've forgotten that a reform Jew teaching history in the NE knows a lot about immigration here in Texas.


I've taught Texas history in Texas. I have a pretty good idea.


Impressive CV
Honestly I'm not sure Sapper has ever learned anything, let alone taught it.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



When in American history was discrimination and depravation at its greatest? When the government was more or less involved? Who, historically, has called for "states rights"?
What does that have to do whether or not large, national bureaucracies or local agencies/charities are better at distributing services?


It speaks to the capacity for local agencies to operate based on need rather than based on existing prejudice of whatever nature.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quo Vadis? said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



Counterpoint: You've forgotten that a reform Jew teaching history in the NE knows a lot about immigration here in Texas.


I've taught Texas history in Texas. I have a pretty good idea.


Impressive CV


Thanks.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

What about people seeking asylum trying to do it the right way?
Unless you do it legally it is not the right way.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

What about people seeking asylum trying to do it the right way?
Unless you do it legally it is not the right way.
Number I've repeatedly heard is that 80% of asylum seekers are false claims of asylum.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



When in American history was discrimination and depravation at its greatest? When the government was more or less involved? Who, historically, has called for "states rights"?
What does that have to do whether or not large, national bureaucracies or local agencies/charities are better at distributing services?


It speaks to the capacity for local agencies to operate based on need rather than based on existing prejudice of whatever nature.
With all due respect, there is nobody on here who is as prejudiced or biased as you. You just do not understand that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
747Ag said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

What about people seeking asylum trying to do it the right way?
Unless you do it legally it is not the right way.
Number I've repeatedly heard is that 80% of asylum seekers are false claims of asylum.
Truth is truth.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
RAB91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
747Ag said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

What about people seeking asylum trying to do it the right way?
Unless you do it legally it is not the right way.
Number I've repeatedly heard is that 80% of asylum seekers are false claims of asylum.
And I'm guessing that's pretty generous. I'd guess it to be closer to 90-95%.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



When in American history was discrimination and depravation at its greatest? When the government was more or less involved? Who, historically, has called for "states rights"?
What does that have to do whether or not large, national bureaucracies or local agencies/charities are better at distributing services?


It speaks to the capacity for local agencies to operate based on need rather than based on existing prejudice of whatever nature.
With all due respect, there is nobody on here who is as prejudiced or biased as you. You just do not understand that.


"With all due respect."
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
747Ag said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

What about people seeking asylum trying to do it the right way?
Unless you do it legally it is not the right way.
Number I've repeatedly heard is that 80% of asylum seekers are false claims of asylum.


Genuinely curious what your source is.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

dermdoc said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

Sapper Redux said:

NonReg85 said:

PabloSerna said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

Let me get this straight- you are suggesting that the Catholic Charities were stealing money?
What do you think?


I think they are an easy target because of the work they do for the poor and marginalized.

The truth is probably not as nefarious as some might hope and they probably run close to a deficit most of the time, staff turnover from low pay, and neglected facilities from budget shortfalls. I don't know and I know many on here don't know. What we do know is that they provide a very needed service to help resettle documented migrants in our country as they move through the process of becoming US citizens.



Here's what I know. Large, bureaucratic organizations suck at delivering services. In my opinion we need to stop sucking all of the money into DC so that communities can provide care at local levels. That has the best chance of resources being distributed charitably.


Historically that provides more opportunities for fraud and results in an unequal distribution of services based on local biases.


That doesn't even make sense. Local bias is why it is more effective. People in DC don't understand local issues.



When in American history was discrimination and depravation at its greatest? When the government was more or less involved? Who, historically, has called for "states rights"?
What does that have to do whether or not large, national bureaucracies or local agencies/charities are better at distributing services?


It speaks to the capacity for local agencies to operate based on need rather than based on existing prejudice of whatever nature.
With all due respect, there is nobody on here who is as prejudiced or biased as you. You just do not understand that.


"With all due respect."
I seriously meant it. You have a chip on your shoulder bigger than a mountain. God loves you and so do I.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

747Ag said:

dermdoc said:

PabloSerna said:

What about people seeking asylum trying to do it the right way?
Unless you do it legally it is not the right way.
Number I've repeatedly heard is that 80% of asylum seekers are false claims of asylum.


Genuinely curious what your source is.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/factchecking-claims-about-asylum-grants-and-immigration-court-attendance/
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That doesn't back up the idea that 80% are false claims of asylum.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

That doesn't back up the idea that 80% are false claims of asylum.
So do you consider immigrants who come into the US illegally are illegal?

And do you realize how silly that question is? If you are illegal, you are illegal.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We were talking about claims of asylum. The source you provided didn't support the claim that there was an 80% false claim rate.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With regard to asylum, there are a dozen other countries that are in North/South/Central America to which I would direct asylum seekers.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.