It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jrflipjr
OK, so he doesn't offer his own land. I can respect that from any civil American.
What get's my goat is this asinine movement from the liberal camp suggesting that not helping the poor, downtrodden illegal aliens is hypocritical of Christians. Seriously? I thought following laws, policies and guidance is the Christian thing to do. Are they suggesting we break laws and invite all the world to habitate in our country to satisfy a percentage of the American population's moral convictions?
I love the hypocrisy of liberals. Stephen King exemplifies it...Do as I say, not as I do!
Report: Land Baron Stephen King Hasn't Offered Refuge to Border Kids
I may not agree with his political viewpoint, but I've always been a fan of his writing (I'm currently reading book 7 of his Dark Tower series for the first time).
originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.
Meh. If he's going on about how greedy I am with my own little house and he is not letting them use his huge mansions (plural), then he is a hypocrite.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Even the experts however are capable of unintelligent remarks
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: Ellie Sagan
He's not being a hypocrite. He's not a Christian. If he was a Christian and didn't open up his home to the children, then he would be a hypocrite. I see nothing wrong here.
Meh. If he's going on about how greedy I am with my own little house and he is not letting them use his huge mansions (plural), then he is a hypocrite.
Just curious. Is that because of what Breitbart told you?
originally posted by: generik
sure helping the poor is important, but the sad truth is you can only help so many at a time. and you can not help more than you can help, no matter how much you might want to. the most you end up achieving when you try to help more than you can is in the end to be no help at all to any of them.
a small group starting a feeding program ran into this very issue. they went around and found an area where people needed help. they got permission to use a public area for the feeding, and invited those needy people to attend. they asked about 100 people. the day arrived and there were almost 200 people that showed up expecting to be fed. that was fine because they had figured something like that would happen, they had enough food since they planned for 150, and were able to stretch that out a bit by giving people less and doing without themselves, it worked out ok. the problem happened at the next one they did in that area. they again invited the 100 people. this time they had enough to feed over 200 people. now this was at the limit of both the monies they had available, as well as the help they had to prepare it and transport it. over 1,000 people showed up expecting to be fed. it didn't work out so well. they of course did their best to insure those they had invited received food and tried to get the rest to people who needed it more. of course ALL the people figured they deserved to be fed, and there was almost a riot due to not having enough. now let me ask, would taking each portion of food meant to be a healthy meal for one and dividing it by ten have helped any of them? of course the local authorities did not like this and told those running it that they had to do something to ensure it didn't happen again or they would be forced to disallow the feeding to happen. so the next time the devised a ticket program. tickets were handed out with the instructions that only those that had tickets would receive food. sounds rather harsh doesn't it? you can't say that all of those that showed up didn't need help, they did. but there was only an certain amount that they could help. they would have loved to feed all of them, but didn't have the resources to do it. and so they had no choice but to be firm on the exact people they were helping, while leaving the others without. without this control they would even have not be allowed to help any of them, so they did what was necessary to help those they could.
in a lot of ways you can say the same thing applies to a country and immigration. a country only has so much resources to help people. this is reflected in things like immigration quotas. they figure out how many they can help, and only let in that many, as to not overburden the system. those people let in are what we call legal immigrants. those that just show up, are illegal immigrants and just like those who in the above situation who did not receive tickets, have no call to get the food. and just like those without tickets need to be firmly turned away. to not do so will just encourage others to do the same. no matter how much you might want to help everyone, nobody is helped if there is not enough and you just dole out smaller portions to more and more people.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And Stephen King is anything but unintelligent.
All celebrities shut up, when it comes to telling others what to do.
If you want to help someone, or something, great.
But don't preach to me about what I should be doing.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Even the experts however are capable of unintelligent remarks
We all are. But I fail to see how his remark was "unintelligent". I think it's quite witty. And Stephen King is anything but unintelligent.