Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) suggested on the House floor that because the phrase "humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such aid is unconstitutional.
If a straw man would get you to home the homeless, instead of worrying about a woman in a burka halfway around the world, then yes. And before you say we can do both; then why don’t we?
I’m steel-manning the homeless. Trying to get you to understand that capitalism and colonialism caused the situation that made Afghanistan need aid. If they can get you to focus on the world’s problems, you’ll forget that there’s problems at home.
You don’t have any ways to handle the problem, your previous comments don’t even show you care about the problem. You just don’t want your taxpayer money spent on it.
And I will add: I would bet everything to say that the money wouldn’t go to anything helpful to you, let alone back into your pocket.
Jordan Peterson says to “clean your room.” America needs to clean its room before cleaning the world. I want to be taxed more, but I want that money to go to Americans, preferably the homeless
Has nothing to do with this. Removing aid for one group does not mean it will go another. The fact is that any aid you want for the homeless is either not being brought up, not being voted for, not passing, or more than likely being repealed.
But that has pretty much nothing to do with the aid. Any representative that told you we can’t help homeless because we help other people is lying to your face.
And keep in mind as well: The person this news is about is not arguing for the homeless, they are arguing to help nobody
So instead of thinking “Oh we should do this since every other nation is doing it. It’s not abnormal”
You think “Let’s let some other chump take the loss”
Says a lot about you.
He says as he steps over the homeless guy outside his door.
So no denial, just a strawman
Got it.
If a straw man would get you to home the homeless, instead of worrying about a woman in a burka halfway around the world, then yes. And before you say we can do both; then why don’t we?
Great, you’re arguing philosophy without knowing what a Strawman Argument is.
Or you think I’m dumb enough to go down a conversation in bad faith. But no I won’t go into this discussion.
I’m steel-manning the homeless. Trying to get you to understand that capitalism and colonialism caused the situation that made Afghanistan need aid. If they can get you to focus on the world’s problems, you’ll forget that there’s problems at home.
Just because every nation is doing something, doesn’t mean it’s the best way to tackle a problem.
You don’t have any ways to handle the problem, your previous comments don’t even show you care about the problem. You just don’t want your taxpayer money spent on it.
And I will add: I would bet everything to say that the money wouldn’t go to anything helpful to you, let alone back into your pocket.
Jordan Peterson says to “clean your room.” America needs to clean its room before cleaning the world. I want to be taxed more, but I want that money to go to Americans, preferably the homeless
Has nothing to do with this. Removing aid for one group does not mean it will go another. The fact is that any aid you want for the homeless is either not being brought up, not being voted for, not passing, or more than likely being repealed.
But that has pretty much nothing to do with the aid. Any representative that told you we can’t help homeless because we help other people is lying to your face.
And keep in mind as well: The person this news is about is not arguing for the homeless, they are arguing to help nobody