It doesn't appear to be a clear cut and dried violation of the Constitution. I'm sorry I can't remember the guy on Fox's name (I recognise him, he's on alot, and maybe he's an idiot). But he disagreed that it was against the law.
And maybe you're right, maybe this is just the beginning of the new Third Reich. I just don't see that. I see a small number of people who are probably going to hinder cleanup efforts, are going to expect someone to provide them with food, water and services at some point, in addition to possibly getting sick and needing help. And, how many of them are gangbangers unwilling to go as well? I'm sure we won't see them on the news channels, but why would we imagine they're not there?
And for that I'm told I'm urinating on the Constitution. It's sad that so often here at FR we cannot have an adult discussion about things we disagree on (and in fact, I may be convincable that you're right and I'm wrong since as I said, I can see both sides of this) without people resorting to calling others idiots etc.
I don't always think that people who disagree with me are stupid or uninformed or even worse, democrats! Altho I have to admit that FR is the only place I have EVER been accused of being liberal.
susie
"And maybe you're right, maybe this is just the beginning of the new Third Reich. I just don't see that."
See that's the fun part. You don't get to see it coming.
I don't really see how people living on their private property is going to hinder clean up efforts. Are they going to give each home a good scrubbing? More likely they are going to bulldoze the majority of them because of "blight" or to set up some sort of "useful" public structure. You don't want those pesky home owners getting uppity while that happens.
Same here.
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Just how conserative this site truly is.
I'm a member of several message boards and this is the only one where discussions must be kept one-sided.
I was only using logical reasoning and was call a dem. [shrug.]