https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by >prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >demographics.
It's not complicated.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing demographics.
It's not complicated.
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by >>>> prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a
few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were
something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by >>>>> prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a
few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were
something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl
that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason
to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat--
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think
about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who
wants to think about that?
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US. >>>
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by >>>>>> prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a
few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were
something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl
that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason
to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
--we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
#god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think
about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who
wants to think about that?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US. >>>>
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by >>>>>>> prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a
few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were
something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl
that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason
to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be--
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think
about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who
wants to think about that?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by >>>>> prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a
few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were
something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl
that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason
to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think
about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who
wants to think about that?
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US. >>>>>
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a
few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were
something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason
to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an >affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.--
you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
#god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who
wants to think about that?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US. >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
many houses you build.--
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>> wants to think about that?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US. >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have anaffordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>>>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>>>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>> farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >>> back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud >>> was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >>> vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressure on >existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you
try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money
to take advantage of it.
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a commie >noah???
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
music to my ears ??
--many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't >>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really >>>>>> cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences. >>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>>> wants to think about that?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:01:39 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>>>>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>>>>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>>>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>> farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we >>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >>>> back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before >>>> the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud >>>> was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >>>> vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
That might have been true before the real estate market maxed out.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressure on
existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you
try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money
to take advantage of it.
They are busy putting billions into iso's these days.
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a commie
noah???
My credulity ends when somebody starts thinking that taxing rich
people will significantly reduce their wealth.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
music to my ears ??
For you. For people who want to get reelected, it will sound somewhat discordant.
--
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't >>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>>>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>>>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really >>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>>>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something >>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing crises in Canada?
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in >>>>>>>> the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe,
decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, >>>>>>>>>> caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it was >>>>>>> that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>> few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we >>>>>>> are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they were >>>>>>> something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called urban
sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>> farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>>> to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact statements. >>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing
were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >>> back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud >>> was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >>> vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages, but
the red tape is too steep for most builders.
See: Facebook - NorCal Tiny Home Initiative
Here's why Canada's housing supply crisis is far worse than the US. A
new report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has
put a hard number on what two decades of regulatory inertia and
geographic constraints have cost Canadians, and the comparison with the United States is damning.
https://tinyurl.com/3978b7tu
Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada
Habitat for Humanity Commentary
https://tinyurl.com/sdysytyj
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have anaffordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a >
-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it doesn't >>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things
down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. >>>>>> And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We really >>>>>> cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants to >>>>>> think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the consequences. >>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem.-a Who >>>>>> wants to think about that?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US. >>>>>>
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long >>>>>>>>> under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a >>>>>> requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no >>>>>> longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby
farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we
started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing
were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for notbuilding low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really
cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in >>>>>>>> the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe,
decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, >>>>>>>>>> caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it was >>>>>>> that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>> few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we >>>>>>> are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences.
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they were >>>>>>> something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called urban
sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>> farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>>> to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact statements. >>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see
people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly
present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing
were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >>> back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud >>> was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >>> vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressure on existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you
try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money
to take advantage of it.
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a commie noah???
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how
music to my ears EfnuEfOA
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a >
-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it doesn't >>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things
down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. >>>>>> And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We really >>>>>> cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants to >>>>>> think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the consequences. >>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something
maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem.-a Who >>>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/2026 11:01 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:That's the problem - not enough affordable housing being built.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, DudeBureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in >>>>>>>>> the US.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, >>>>>>>>>>> decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, >>>>>>>>>>> caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it was >>>>>>>> that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>>> few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under control, >>>>>>>> but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we >>>>>>>> are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they were >>>>>>>> something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called urban >>>>>>> sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>> farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good >>>>>>> reason
to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact statements. >>>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see >>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly >>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing
were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price
right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before >>>> the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like
dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we
15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressureYour theory is not supported by Habitat For Humanity. The problem is
on existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if
you try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most
money to take advantage of it.
getting a bank loan - too much red tape.
You idiot! High property taxes are one of the reasons for a lack of affordable housing. Are you dumb, or what?more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a
commie noah???
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how
music to my ears EfnuEfOA
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a >
-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it doesn't >>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things >>>>>>> down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. >>>>>>> And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We really >>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants to >>>>>>> think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something >>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem.-a Who >>>>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 12:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:01:39 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was >>>>>>>>> instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl >>>>>>>> that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>>> farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we >>>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see >>>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly >>>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing >>>>>> were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly >>>>> more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing >>>>> stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >>>>> back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before >>>>> the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud >>>>> was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >>>>> vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
That might have been true before the real estate market maxed out.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressure on
existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you
try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money
to take advantage of it.
They are busy putting billions into iso's these days.
they are also aggressively buying up land noah
bill gates, for example, is (thru his investment firm) the largest
private owner of farmland in the united states
(that's farmland, not total land)
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a commie
noah???
My credulity ends when somebody starts thinking that taxing rich
people will significantly reduce their wealth.
u can literally tax their wealth noah: it's a called a wealth tax
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
music to my ears ??
For you. For people who want to get reelected, it will sound somewhat
discordant.
the thing is noah: build build build ain't gunna solve anything. people
of ur position are far more likely to get elected, but they won't
actually solve the problem so the situation won't change
as time goes on it will only get easier to wake people up
--
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't >>>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down. >>>>>>>> And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And >>>>>>>> everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really >>>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think >>>>>>>> about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something >>>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>>>>> wants to think about that?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:48:01 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:01:39 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was >>>>>>>>>> instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but >>>>>>>>>> it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl
that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>>>> farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason >>>>>>>>> to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we >>>>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see >>>>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly >>>>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing >>>>>>> were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market. >>>>>>>
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly >>>>>> more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing >>>>>> stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them >>>>>> cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right >>>>>> back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before >>>>>> the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average >>>>>> persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud >>>>>> was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M >>>>>> vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>> get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>> not wasting money.
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
That might have been true before the real estate market maxed out.
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressure on >>>> existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and >>>>
try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money >>>> to take advantage of it.
They are busy putting billions into iso's these days.
they are also aggressively buying up land noah
bill gates, for example, is (thru his investment firm) the largest
private owner of farmland in the united states
I suspect bill is smart enough to know that now is the time to start
getting out of tech. Farmland is nothing like cheap low cost housing.
Cheap anything is the worst investment there is because the sales
price can't go anywhere. Like cars or anything else, the cost of
production of luxury is not that much more, but the sales price is far
far higher. Anything that can be used to generate income (like
farmland) counts as luxury.
(that's farmland, not total land)
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more. >>>>it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a commie >>>> noah???
My credulity ends when somebody starts thinking that taxing rich
people will significantly reduce their wealth.
u can literally tax their wealth noah: it's a called a wealth tax
Yeh, but still you are not going to be able to significant reduce
wealth that way. Wealth is power, and power says, I don't want to buy
a house for a street person. Leave me along or I will kick you in the
nuts (politically).
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how
music to my ears ??
For you. For people who want to get reelected, it will sound somewhat
discordant.
the thing is noah: build build build ain't gunna solve anything. people
of ur position are far more likely to get elected, but they won't
actually solve the problem so the situation won't change
Shut up and build that first million houses. See what that does.
Wanna bet?
--as time goes on it will only get easier to wake people up
So far the easier thing seems to be to put them to sleep.
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be >>>>>>> done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't >>>>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really >>>>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think
about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something >>>>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>>>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 2:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:48:01 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:01:39 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>>> get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>>> not wasting money.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, DudeBureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage >>>>>>>>>>>> in the US.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million >>>>>>>>>>>>>> homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was >>>>>>>>>>> instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if >>>>>>>>>>> undoing
regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that >>>>>>>>>>> thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it >>>>>>>>>>> was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was
instituted in a
few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under >>>>>>>>>>> control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so >>>>>>>>>>> we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they >>>>>>>>>>> were
something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now >>>>>>>>>>> clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called >>>>>>>>>> urban sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over >>>>>>>>>> nearby
farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good >>>>>>>>>> reason
to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact >>>>>>>>>> statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see >>>>>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in >>>>>>>> parks.
At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly >>>>>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing >>>>>>>> were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market. >>>>>>>>
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't >>>>>>>> find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of >>>>>>>> their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have
vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing >>>>>>> stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them >>>>>>> cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the
price right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity >>>>>>> before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average >>>>>>> persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... >>>>>>> like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause >>>>>>> we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses. >>>>>>
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
That might have been true before the real estate market maxed out.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not >>>>>> building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier >>>>>> and
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases
pressure on
existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you >>>>> try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money >>>>> to take advantage of it.
They are busy putting billions into iso's these days.
they are also aggressively buying up land noah
bill gates, for example, is (thru his investment firm) the largest
private owner of farmland in the united states
I suspect bill is smart enough to know that now is the time to start
getting out of tech.-a Farmland is nothing like cheap low cost housing.
he's been doing it for decades noah
Cheap anything is the worst investment there is because the sales
price can't go anywhere.-a Like cars or anything else, the cost of
production of luxury is not that much more, but the sales price is far
far higher.-a Anything that can be used to generate income (like
farmland) counts as luxury.
(that's farmland, not total land)
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any
more.
it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a
commie
noah???
My credulity ends when somebody starts thinking that taxing rich
people will significantly reduce their wealth.
u can literally tax their wealth noah: it's a called a wealth tax
Yeh, but still you are not going to be able to significant reduce
wealth that way.-a Wealth is power, and power says, I don't want to buy
a house for a street person.-a Leave me along or I will kick you in the
nuts (politically).
well then we can't do anything about asset affordability crisis
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how >>>>>music to my ears ??
For you.-a For people who want to get reelected, it will sound somewhat >>>> discordant.
the thing is noah: build build build ain't gunna solve anything. people
of ur position are far more likely to get elected, but they won't
actually solve the problem so the situation won't change
Shut up and build that first million houses.-a See what that does.
Wanna bet?
the us builds a million houses a year dud, and has been doing so for decades. the us housing stock has been growing along with the population since the 70s. the affordability crisis hasn't been from lack of building.
as time goes on it will only get easier to wake people up
So far the easier thing seems to be to put them to sleep.
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a-a-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be >>>>>>>> done.
-a-a-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_ >>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a >
-a-a-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, >>>>>>>>>> habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more >>>>>>>>>> cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it >>>>>>>>>> doesn't
stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering
consequences are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow >>>>>>>>>> things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was
bureaucracy.-a And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We >>>>>>>>>> really
cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants >>>>>>>>>> to think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the
consequences.
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something >>>>>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the
problem.-a Who
wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 2:25 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:48:01 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:01:39 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/28/26 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>>> get tired of buying them all. Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>>> not wasting money.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in the US.
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was >>>>>>>>>>> instituted. There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences. So it was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>>>>>> few situations. Not enough to bring the tendency under control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful. But they were >>>>>>>>>>> something. Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences. There used to be a thing called urban sprawl
that people became aware of. How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>>>>> farmland and forests. It was thought that there might be good reason
to stop doing that. Maybe we need farmland for something. So we >>>>>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences. Require impact statements. >>>>>>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high. I see >>>>>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif. But street people are mostly >>>>>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if housing >>>>>>>> were in short supply. Housing needs to become a buyer's market. >>>>>>>>
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly >>>>>>> more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing >>>>>>> stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them >>>>>>> cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before >>>>>>> the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average >>>>>>> persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses. >>>>>>
errr, as the video points out:
buying and holding assets is what rich people do with money. that's
there modus operandi they aren't about to "tire" of it
That might have been true before the real estate market maxed out.
like i said: even if u build low cost housing, it decreases pressure on >>>>> existing housing stock which rich people can then buy more of. if you >>>>> try to drive the price down, the rich are the ones with the most money >>>>> to take advantage of it.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not >>>>>> building low cost housing. I bet, building houses would be easier and >>>>>
They are busy putting billions into iso's these days.
they are also aggressively buying up land noah
bill gates, for example, is (thru his investment firm) the largest
private owner of farmland in the united states
I suspect bill is smart enough to know that now is the time to start
getting out of tech. Farmland is nothing like cheap low cost housing.
he's been doing it for decades noah
Cheap anything is the worst investment there is because the sales
price can't go anywhere. Like cars or anything else, the cost of
production of luxury is not that much more, but the sales price is far
far higher. Anything that can be used to generate income (like
farmland) counts as luxury.
(that's farmland, not total land)
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more. >>>>>it's called taxing them, it's not a new thing. i thot you were a commie >>>>> noah???
My credulity ends when somebody starts thinking that taxing rich
people will significantly reduce their wealth.
u can literally tax their wealth noah: it's a called a wealth tax
Yeh, but still you are not going to be able to significant reduce
wealth that way. Wealth is power, and power says, I don't want to buy
a house for a street person. Leave me along or I will kick you in the
nuts (politically).
well then we can't do anything about asset affordability crisis
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now. But he would not care how >>>>>music to my ears ??
For you. For people who want to get reelected, it will sound somewhat >>>> discordant.
the thing is noah: build build build ain't gunna solve anything. people
of ur position are far more likely to get elected, but they won't
actually solve the problem so the situation won't change
Shut up and build that first million houses. See what that does.
Wanna bet?
the us builds a million houses a year dud, and has been doing so for >decades. the us housing stock has been growing along with the population >since the 70s.
the affordability crisis hasn't been from lack of building.
--
as time goes on it will only get easier to wake people up
So far the easier thing seems to be to put them to sleep.
many houses you build.
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
> you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
>
> #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be >>>>>>>> done.
> we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
>
> #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs. What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do? Except it doesn't >>>>>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs. We really >>>>>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long. Well, fuck that. Who wants to think
about that? Forget that and build houses. Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs? Something >>>>>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. Who >>>>>>>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing crises
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, DudeBureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage in >>>>>>>>> the US.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, >>>>>>>>>>> decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million homes, >>>>>>>>>>> caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was
instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that thoughtless >>>>>>>> action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it was >>>>>>>> that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted in a >>>>>>>> few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under control, >>>>>>>> but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we >>>>>>>> are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they were >>>>>>>> something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now clamoring >>>>>>>> for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called urban >>>>>>> sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>> farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good >>>>>>> reason
to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact statements. >>>>>>>
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see >>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly >>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing
were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly
more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing
stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price
right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity before >>>> the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough... like
dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause we
15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how
many houses you build.
in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages, but
the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
so wealthy people can keep buying up more secondary/rental houses
peoplewe should all be making sacrifices so those well-deserved wealthy
with all the power stay happy
we wouldn't their heads falling off now, would we???
#god
See: Facebook - NorCal Tiny Home Initiative
Here's why Canada's housing supply crisis is far worse than the US. A
new report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has
put a hard number on what two decades of regulatory inertia and
geographic constraints have cost Canadians, and the comparison with
the United States is damning.
https://tinyurl.com/3978b7tu
Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada
Habitat for Humanity Commentary
https://tinyurl.com/sdysytyj
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an
affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a >
-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, habitat >>>>>>> for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more cig do, >>>>>>> what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it doesn't >>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things >>>>>>> down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was bureaucracy. >>>>>>> And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We really >>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants to >>>>>>> think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something >>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem.-a Who >>>>>>> wants to think about that?
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing crises
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, DudeBureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage >>>>>>>>>> in the US.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, >>>>>>>>>>>> decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million >>>>>>>>>>>> homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and changing >>>>>>>>>>>> demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was >>>>>>>>> instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that
thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it was >>>>>>>>> that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted >>>>>>>>> in a
few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under
control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so we >>>>>>>>> are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they were >>>>>>>>> something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now
clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called urban >>>>>>>> sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over nearby >>>>>>>> farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good >>>>>>>> reason
to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact
statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see >>>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly >>>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing >>>>>> were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market.
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't find >>>>>> a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of their >>>>>> income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly >>>>> more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing >>>>> stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them
cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price
right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity
before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average
persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough...
like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause
we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>> not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and >>>> more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more. >>>> I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how
many houses you build.
in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages,
but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat pump
and a personal bidet.
Everyone is different.
so wealthy people can keep buying up more secondary/rental housesThat's none of your business what other people do with their money.
peoplewe should all be making sacrifices so those well-deserved wealthy
with all the power stay happyYou are a very wealthy person, Nick. Let's not be hypocritical.
-a-a> we wouldn't their heads falling off now, would we???People have a right to their own property. Your ideas are regressive and extreme, Nick
-a -a>
-a-a> #god
See: Facebook - NorCal Tiny Home Initiative
Here's why Canada's housing supply crisis is far worse than the US. A
new report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
has put a hard number on what two decades of regulatory inertia and
geographic constraints have cost Canadians, and the comparison with
the United States is damning.
https://tinyurl.com/3978b7tu
Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada
Habitat for Humanity Commentary
https://tinyurl.com/sdysytyj
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an >>>>> affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a >
-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be
done.
-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests,
habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more cig >>>>>>>> do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it doesn't >>>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences are >>>>>>>> never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow things >>>>>>>> down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was
bureaucracy. And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We really >>>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants to >>>>>>>> think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something >>>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. >>>>>>>> Who
wants to think about that?
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing crises
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>> get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>> not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and >>>>> more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more. >>>>> I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how >>>>> many houses you build.
in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages,
but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat pump
and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing crises >>>>> in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>>> get tired of buying them all.a Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>>> not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not >>>>>> building low cost housing.a I bet, building houses would be easier and >>>>>> more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more. >>>>>> I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.a But he would not care how >>>>>> many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages,
but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat pump
and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty or >thirty years does not define all of existence.
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>>> get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>>> not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not >>>>>> building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier >>>>>> and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any
more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how >>>>>> many houses you build.
crises in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages,
but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat
pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people >>>>>>> will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get
rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not >>>>>>> building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be
easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any >>>>>>> more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how >>>>>>> many houses you build.
crises in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages, >>>>>> but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat
pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty
or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that isn't working
as it should, is fucking insane wilson
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people >>>>>>>> will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get >>>>>>>> rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not >>>>>>>> building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be
easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any >>>>>>>> more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care >>>>>>>> how
many houses you build.
crises in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home
villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat >>>>> pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty
or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose the
justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it stops
working today. continuing to use an economic system that isn't working
as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside >>>>>> a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing >>>>>>>> crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich
people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get >>>>>>>>> rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for >>>>>>>>> not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich >>>>>>>>> any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not >>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home
villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
heat pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards >>>>
or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose the
justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it stops
working today. continuing to use an economic system that isn't
working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u illiterate dud?
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty >>>>> or thirty years does not define all of existence.
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside >>>>>>> a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing >>>>>>>>> crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.a Rich people, first of all, get >>>>>>>>>> rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for >>>>>>>>>> not
building low cost housing.a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich >>>>>>>>>> any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.a But he would not >>>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home
villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>
heat pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards >>>>>
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose the
justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it stops >>>> working today. continuing to use an economic system that isn't
working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants.
Restrictions on new construction in
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:00:03 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last twenty >>>>>> or thirty years does not define all of existence.
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside >>>>>>>> a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a >>>>>>>> heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing >>>>>>>>>> crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get >>>>>>>>>>> rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for >>>>>>>>>>> not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich >>>>>>>>>>> any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not >>>>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home
villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards >>>>>>
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose the >>>>> justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it stops >>>>> working today. continuing to use an economic system that isn't
working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants.
Isn't that cute? It all comes down to those nasty immigrants.
Restrictions on new construction in
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
And government debt.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
Oh, those wonderful simplistic answers. They are so handy.
Hurricane Katrina led to many house building
innovations blocked by cabalistic codes.
eg, steel stud construction, prebuilt plug-and-play walls
or even entire stackable apartments.
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing >>>>>>>>> crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get >>>>>>>>>> rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse >>>>>>>>>> for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich >>>>>>>>>> any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not >>>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home
villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>
inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more -
like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve
standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last
twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose the
justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that isn't
working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
Hurricane Katrina led to many house building
innovations blocked by cabalistic codes.
eg, steel stud construction, prebuilt plug-and-play walls
or even entire stackable apartments.
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose
the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme
wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable
to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
#god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
#god
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose
the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme
wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but
basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn
near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970aa 200Ma 68Maaaaa 2.9
1980aa 225Ma 85Maaaaa 2.6
1990aa 250Ma 100Maaaa 2.5
2000aa 280Ma 115Maaaa 2.4
2010aa 308Ma 131Maaaa 2.3
2020aa 330Ma 140Maaaa 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable
to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
#god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even
remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the
globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn
culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve
literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn
fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when
whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
#god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over
the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I
was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here
no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can
afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're
not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own
will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to
see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home
as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in
policy or eat all the rich.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme
wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but
basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn >>> near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because >>> you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable
to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a>
-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even
remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother >>> to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the
globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn
culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve >>> literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn
fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when
whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a>
-a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over
the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I
was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here
no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second
homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can
afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are
small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're
not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own
will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to
see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are
older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home
as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers. >>
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in
policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be
willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is
a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but >>>> basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn >>>> near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970aa 200Ma 68Maaaaa 2.9
1980aa 225Ma 85Maaaaa 2.6
1990aa 250Ma 100Maaaa 2.5
2000aa 280Ma 115Maaaa 2.4
2010aa 308Ma 131Maaaa 2.3
2020aa 330Ma 140Maaaa 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because >>>> you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
a>
a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother >>>> to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the >>>> globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn >>>> culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve >>>> literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
a>
a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over >>> the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I
was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here
no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second
homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can
afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >>> small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're
not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own
will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to >>> see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are
older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home
as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers. >>>
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in
policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be
willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is
a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but >>>>> basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn >>>>> near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because >>>>> you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a>
-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother >>>>> to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the >>>>> globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn >>>>> culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve >>>>> literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a>
-a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over >>>> the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >>>> homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can
afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >>>> small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own >>>> will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress. >>>>
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to >>>> see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >>>> older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home >>>> as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers. >>>>
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in
policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be
willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is
a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man. Those are my suggestions. But, no I did not expect you
would agree. So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
On 6/30/2026 4:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but >>>>>> basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn >>>>>> near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970aa 200Ma 68Maaaaa 2.9
1980aa 225Ma 85Maaaaa 2.6
1990aa 250Ma 100Maaaa 2.5
2000aa 280Ma 115Maaaa 2.4
2010aa 308Ma 131Maaaa 2.3
2020aa 330Ma 140Maaaa 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because >>>>>> you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
a>
a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you >>>>>> think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother >>>>>> to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the >>>>>> globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn >>>>>> culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve >>>>>> literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII >>>>>>
a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
a>
a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over >>>>> the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >>>>> homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can >>>>> afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >>>>> small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own >>>>> will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress. >>>>>
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to >>>>> see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >>>>> older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home >>>>> as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in >>>>> policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be
willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is
a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man. Those are my suggestions. But, no I did not expect you
would agree. So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
Did you know in the US right now newly constructed single family houses
cost less than existing homes? That's almost unheard of. It's usually
15% more for new homes.
There are some things that will happen no matter what we do.
Lower home prices is one of them. It's simple demographics.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:04:15 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 4:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>>>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but >>>>>>> basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn
near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>>>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a>
-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>>>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you >>>>>>> think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the >>>>>>> globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn >>>>>>> culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their >>>>>>> population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve
literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>>>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>>>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII >>>>>>>
-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a>
-a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over >>>>>> the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >>>>>> homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can >>>>>> afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >>>>>> small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But >>>>>> that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own >>>>>> will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress. >>>>>>
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to >>>>>> see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >>>>>> older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home >>>>>> as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in >>>>>> policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be >>>>> willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is >>>>> a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man. Those are my suggestions. But, no I did not expect you
would agree. So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
Did you know in the US right now newly constructed single family houses
cost less than existing homes? That's almost unheard of. It's usually
15% more for new homes.
So you assert.
There are some things that will happen no matter what we do.
Like get worse.
Lower home prices is one of them. It's simple demographics.
It is simple alright. Like always, for everything, your solution is
wait do nothing deny
deny wait do nothing
do nothing wait deny
No thanks.
On 6/29/26 1:02 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
Hurricane Katrina led to many house building
innovations blocked by cabalistic codes.
eg, steel stud construction, prebuilt plug-and-play walls
or even entire stackable apartments.
maybe u fucks should look outside the 1st world for second:
lack of red tape in the 3rd world ain't a fucking magic bullet for
housing u dingus
basically the only country without a housing crisis is japan ... cause
they can't even keep their population up
On 6/30/2026 4:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause?
25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration
rates ... but
basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s
was damn
near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable,
because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being
unable
to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a -a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a -a>
-a-a -a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't >>>>>> even
remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you >>>>>> think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking >>>>>> bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal
across the
globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so >>>>>> damn
culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to >>>>>> solve
literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn
fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust >>>>>> when
whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII >>>>>>
-a-a -a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a -a>
-a-a -a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita >>>>> over
the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of
second
homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can >>>>> afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned
homes are
small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can >>>>> own
will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by
congress.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're
going to
see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors >>>>> are
older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a
home
as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for
buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in >>>>> policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down.-a Simply stop
building for that market.-a People in that market will continue to be
willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population.-a If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is >>>> a problem.-a Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man.-a Those are my suggestions.-a But, no I did not expect you
would agree.-a So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
Did you know in the US right now newly constructed single family houses
cost less than existing homes? That's almost unheard of. It's usually
15% more for new homes.
There are some things that will happen no matter what we do. Lower home prices is one of them. It's simple demographics.
On 6/29/2026 11:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:02 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:This isn't the third world, Nick. These are real people that are
Hurricane Katrina led to many house building
innovations blocked by cabalistic codes.
eg, steel stud construction, prebuilt plug-and-play walls
or even entire stackable apartments.
maybe u fucks should look outside the 1st world for second:
lack of red tape in the 3rd world ain't a fucking magic bullet for
housing u dingus
homeless down the street from your cozy crib. Too much ed tape to get a home, or even a room. Get real, Nick.
basically the only country without a housing crisis is japan ... cause
they can't even keep their population up
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 4:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? >>>>>>>> 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration
rates ... but
basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s >>>>>>> was damn
near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government >>>>>>>> debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is >>>>>>> high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, >>>>>>> because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being >>>>>>> unable
to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a -a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a -a>
-a-a -a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are >>>>>>> you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't >>>>>>> even
remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you >>>>>>> think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking >>>>>>> bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal
across the
globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're >>>>>>> so damn
culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their >>>>>>> population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going >>>>>>> to solve
literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn
fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust >>>>>>> when
whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII >>>>>>>
-a-a -a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a -a>
-a-a -a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per
capita over
the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference >>>>>> as I
was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of
second
homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can >>>>>> afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned
homes are
small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working,
they're
not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But >>>>>> that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation
can own
will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by
congress.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're
going to
see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual
investors are
older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a >>>>>> home
as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for >>>>>> buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in >>>>>> policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down.-a Simply stop
building for that market.-a People in that market will continue to be >>>>> willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population.-a If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is >>>>> a problem.-a Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man.-a Those are my suggestions.-a But, no I did not expect you
would agree.-a So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
Did you know in the US right now newly constructed single family
houses cost less than existing homes? That's almost unheard of. It's
usually 15% more for new homes.
small plots, smaller houses, farther from where people want to live
There are some things that will happen no matter what we do. Lower
home prices is one of them. It's simple demographics.
the housing bill is a joke.
institutional investors weren't the problem, they only owned about 0.34%
of the single family housing stock anyways, that's just political theater.
marginally cutting red tape isn't going to anything about wealth
inequity cause u can't even build your way out of wealth inequality.
the housing problem is a _global_ asset issue wilson. except for like
japan which has a population decline issue instead, so they don't treat housing like assets.
i suppose once the global population caps and declines it might start getting better.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:04:15 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 4:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>>>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but >>>>>>> basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn
near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>>>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a>
-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>>>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you >>>>>>> think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the >>>>>>> globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn >>>>>>> culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their >>>>>>> population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve
literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>>>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>>>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII >>>>>>>
-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a>
-a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over >>>>>> the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >>>>>> homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can >>>>>> afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >>>>>> small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But >>>>>> that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own >>>>>> will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress. >>>>>>
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to >>>>>> see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >>>>>> older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home >>>>>> as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in >>>>>> policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be >>>>> willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is >>>>> a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man. Those are my suggestions. But, no I did not expect you
would agree. So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
Did you know in the US right now newly constructed single family houses
cost less than existing homes? That's almost unheard of. It's usually
15% more for new homes.
So you assert.
There are some things that will happen no matter what we do.
Like get worse.
Lower home prices is one of them. It's simple demographics.
It is simple alright. Like always, for everything, your solution is
wait do nothing deny
deny wait do nothing
do nothing wait deny
No thanks.
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
On 6/30/2026 5:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You are such a con headed con man.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:04:15 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 4:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>>>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>>>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>>>>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but
basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn
near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970aa 200Ma 68Maaaaa 2.9
1980aa 225Ma 85Maaaaa 2.6
1990aa 250Ma 100Maaaa 2.5
2000aa 280Ma 115Maaaa 2.4
2010aa 308Ma 131Maaaa 2.3
2020aa 330Ma 140Maaaa 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>>>>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
a>
a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>>>>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you >>>>>>>> think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the
globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn
culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their >>>>>>>> population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve
literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>>>>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>>>>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII >>>>>>>>
a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
a>
a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over
the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>>>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>>>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>>>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >>>>>>> homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can >>>>>>> afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are
small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>>>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But >>>>>>> that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own >>>>>>> will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress. >>>>>>>
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to
see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >>>>>>> older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home >>>>>>> as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in >>>>>>> policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it >>>>>> for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be >>>>>> willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is >>>>>> a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man. Those are my suggestions. But, no I did not expect you
would agree. So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
Did you know in the US right now newly constructed single family houses
cost less than existing homes? That's almost unheard of. It's usually
15% more for new homes.
So you assert.
There are some things that will happen no matter what we do.
Like get worse.
Lower home prices is one of them. It's simple demographics.
It is simple alright. Like always, for everything, your solution is
wait do nothing deny
deny wait do nothing
do nothing wait deny
No thanks.
You are such a fuzzy headed liberal.
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >citizenship to illegals.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >>>> visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling. Dare some more.
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:21:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
That much has been obvious.
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of >>>>> any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:--
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >>>>> visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling. Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:He thinks rolling around on guts on the floor is fun.
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the status
quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an invading
army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >>>>> visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling. Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 8:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
"As to definitive evidence, perhaps only overt madness and suicide
count. Everything else is conjecture." - Tang Huyen
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were >>>>>>>>>>> born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of
any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the status
quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an invading
army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here
of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
On 7/1/26 10:32 AM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>> of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in
your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there >>>>> and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born
workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of
law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
i get that u don't read things dud, because u are intellectually
negligent, but as i mentioned earlier in this thread:
us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era levels currently, and have generally been pretty low overall in the 21st century
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >>>>>> visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling. Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
New salad dressing. Wilson's opinions are now reality. It wasn't
enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very
real. The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:18:30 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:He thinks rolling around on guts on the floor is fun.
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the status
quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an invading
army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:34:03 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 8:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>"As to definitive evidence, perhaps only overt madness and suicide
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
count. Everything else is conjecture." - Tang Huyen
There you go, tang declares his opinions to be conjecture.
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine inside a
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 21:15:57 -0700, dart200Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing crises
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 9:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:55 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/27/26 6:02 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 20:28:44 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 15:32:26 -0700, Dude
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:05:29 -0700, DudeBureaucracy is the fundamental cause of the housing shortage >>>>>>>>>>> in the US.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 1:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlUyS-T-_4The housing crisis is fundamentally driven by a severe, >>>>>>>>>>>>> decades-long
under-supply of homes being built. Why?
The United States faces a shortage of nearly 5 million >>>>>>>>>>>>> homes, caused by
prolonged red tape, restrictive local zoning laws, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> changing
demographics.
It's not complicated.
In other words, your favorite whipping boys.
So simply fire everybody and undo all regulations.
Short memories make it possible to forget why "red tape" was >>>>>>>>>> instituted.-a There are other things to call it though, if undoing >>>>>>>>>> regulations were not your prime objective.
There was a time, decades ago when people realized that
thoughtless
action too often results in unintended consequences.-a So it >>>>>>>>>> was that a
requirement to think about things before acting was instituted >>>>>>>>>> in a
few situations.-a Not enough to bring the tendency under
control, but
it was a start, we thought.
Now, some of us call it red tape and try to get rid of it so >>>>>>>>>> we are no
longer hampered by attempting to avoid unintended consequences. >>>>>>>>>>
Not that such efforts ever were so very successful.-a But they >>>>>>>>>> were
something.-a Those who prefer nothing of the sort, are now >>>>>>>>>> clamoring
for the right to do whatever the fuck they please.
That would include you.
Unintended consequences.-a There used to be a thing called urban >>>>>>>>> sprawl
that people became aware of.-a How cities tend to expand over >>>>>>>>> nearby
farmland and forests.-a It was thought that there might be good >>>>>>>>> reason
to stop doing that.-a Maybe we need farmland for something.-a So we >>>>>>>>> started trying to consider consequences.-a Require impact
statements.
The thing we really face is
1) we need more housing
u should really watch the video noah
we don't face a housing crisis:
Hmm, I see rents and property values stratospherically high.-a I see >>>>>>> people who can't pay those prices living under bridges and in parks. >>>>>>> At least I did when I lived in Calif.-a But street people are mostly >>>>>>> present everywhere these days, even small towns in Ontario.
It seems to me that such prices would only be possible if-a housing >>>>>>> were in short supply.-a Housing needs to become a buyer's market. >>>>>>>
I don't see how calling it _asset crisis_ helps people who can't >>>>>>> find
a place to live, or people who are paying a substantial part of >>>>>>> their
income for housing.
building more assets doesn't really help when rich people have vastly >>>>>> more wealth to just keep buying assets. even if u build more housing >>>>>> stock ... this decreases pressure on the existing stock making them >>>>>> cheaper so that rich people can buy them up more driving the price >>>>>> right
back up.
the point of the video is we need to address the wealth inequity
before
the housing crisis will ease up.
the truth is america already has 150M houses, and with the average >>>>>> persons per household is 2.5 that should be more than enough...
like dud
was claiming there was a 5M housing shortage, when is crazy cause >>>>>> we 15M
vacant houses including like 5M that are purely secondary houses.
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich people will >>>>> get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get rich by >>>>> not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be easier and >>>>> more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich any more. >>>>> I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not care how >>>>> many houses you build.
in Canada?
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home villages,
but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down...
tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat pump
and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve standards
Everyone is different.
That's none of your business what other people do with their money.
so wealthy people can keep buying up more secondary/rental houses
it is when it drives the housing prices to the point that ur advocating
for the rest of everyone lower their standards dud
peoplewe should all be making sacrifices so those well-deserved wealthy
with all the power stay happyYou are a very wealthy person, Nick. Let's not be hypocritical.
i'm homeless dud. i have a house to stay in, but not a home no one can
take away.
People have a right to their own property. Your ideas are regressive
-a-a> we wouldn't their heads falling off now, would we???
and extreme, Nick
what a rank materialist
#god
ur such a discombobulated piece of shit dud
-a-a -a>
-a-a> #god
See: Facebook - NorCal Tiny Home Initiative
Here's why Canada's housing supply crisis is far worse than the US.
A new report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
has put a hard number on what two decades of regulatory inertia and
geographic constraints have cost Canadians, and the comparison with
the United States is damning.
https://tinyurl.com/3978b7tu
Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada
Habitat for Humanity Commentary
https://tinyurl.com/sdysytyj
we don't even really have a housing shortage. we _just_ have an >>>>>> affordability crisis, ultimately due to wealth inequity.
-a > you can't build your way out an affordability crisis
-a >
-a > #god
be nice if u watched the video actually
Let's not worry about what to call it and think about what can be >>>>>>> done.
-a-a > we face a more general (and global) _asset crisis_
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
2) we need farms to remain farms, forests to remain forests, >>>>>>>>> habitat
for wild creatures to remain habitat.
It is like being addicted to cigs.-a What harm could one more >>>>>>>>> cig do,
what harm could a few more acres of housing do?-a Except it doesn't >>>>>>>>> stop there does it?
The "red tape" crowd wants to say that considering consequences >>>>>>>>> are
never going to prevent what we want to do, they only slow
things down.
And so get rid of them, the only reason for them was
bureaucracy. And
everybody knows that is an evil thing, right?
The real situation is that these are conflicting needs.-a We really >>>>>>>>> cannot try to do both very long.-a Well, fuck that.-a Who wants >>>>>>>>> to think
about that?-a Forget that and build houses.-a Damn the consequences. >>>>>>>>>
Well, really, what can we do about conflicting needs?-a Something >>>>>>>>> maybe, if we really allow ourselves to think about the problem. >>>>>>>>> Who
wants to think about that?
On 7/1/2026 10:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want >>>>>>>>>>>> less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were >>>>>>>>>>>> born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of
any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an
invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
You didn't report any arguments in favor of denying birthright
citizenship. So, here I'll post the argument for you:
Arguments against granting automatic citizenship to children born on
U.S. soil to non-citizen parentsrCoa concept known as birthright citizenshiprCocenter national sovereignty, and border control.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship
Clause was never intended to apply to the children of foreign nationals.
They claim this phrase implies complete political allegiance to the
U.S., which babies of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders
do not possess.
Automatic birthright citizenship acts as a powerful magnet,
incentivizing individuals to cross borders illegally or overstay visas simply to secure U.S. citizenship for their children.
The U.S. is one of the few developed nations that grants automatic, unconditional citizenship to anyone born on its territory.
Hope this helps.
On 7/1/26 10:43 AM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want >>>>>>>>>>>>> less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of
any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an
invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
You didn't report any arguments in favor of denying birthright
citizenship. So, here I'll post the argument for you:
Arguments against granting automatic citizenship to children born on
U.S. soil to non-citizen parentsrCoa concept known as birthright
citizenshiprCocenter national sovereignty, and border control.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship
Clause was never intended to apply to the children of foreign nationals.
They claim this phrase implies complete political allegiance to the
U.S., which babies of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa
holders do not possess.
no it doesn't. jurisdiction comes from two roots: _juris_ meaning "law"
or "right", and _dictio_ meaning "to speak" or "declare". it literally
means "dictation of law", so subject to the jurisdiction of means
literally subject to the us's ability to dictate law, and it has meant
that since before the 14th amendment what written. there's nothing particularly controversial about that besides modern bigots being bigots>
Automatic birthright citizenship acts as a powerful magnet,
incentivizing individuals to cross borders illegally or overstay visas
simply to secure U.S. citizenship for their children.
The U.S. is one of the few developed nations that grants automatic,
unconditional citizenship to anyone born on its territory.
Hope this helps.
ur just a racist dud, and certainly no libertarian
if someone can't support basic freedom of movement, someone does not
stand for basic liberty u fucking loser
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here
of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >>>>>> visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling. Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
New salad dressing. Wilson's opinions are now reality. It wasn't
enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very
real. The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be
citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegalalien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dareand dare some more.
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>> of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.a It >>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>> citizens of where ever.a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported.a Kids stay?a This whole argument is so >>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.a Guts spread >>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born
workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law. >>
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>> of any
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in
your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there >>>>> and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't
enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very
real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of any >>>>>>> visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied. It >>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>> citizens of where ever. So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal
alien parents get deported. Kids stay? This whole argument is so >>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet. Guts spread >>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious? I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling. Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
New salad dressing. Wilson's opinions are now reality. It wasn't
enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very
real. The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were >>>>>>>>>>> born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of
any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the status
quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an invading
army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in >>>>>> your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live
there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't
enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very
real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws to
regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
On 7/1/2026 12:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:43 AM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of >>>>> any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of
an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
You didn't report any arguments in favor of denying birthright
citizenship. So, here I'll post the argument for you:
Arguments against granting automatic citizenship to children born on
U.S. soil to non-citizen parentsrCoa concept known as birthright
citizenshiprCocenter national sovereignty, and border control.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship
Clause was never intended to apply to the children of foreign nationals. >>>
They claim this phrase implies complete political allegiance to the
U.S., which babies of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa
holders do not possess.
no it doesn't. jurisdiction comes from two roots: _juris_ meaning
"law" or "right", and _dictio_ meaning "to speak" or "declare". it
literally means "dictation of law", so subject to the jurisdiction of
means literally subject to the us's ability to dictate law, and it has
meant that since before the 14th amendment what written. there's
nothing particularly controversial about that besides modern bigots
being bigots>
Babies do not have human consciousness, you said. How can a baby pledge
allegiance to any country? It just doesn't make any sense. Only Canada
and the US do this Nick.
All the other countries know better. It's like a magnet.
That should be a wrap then.Automatic birthright citizenship acts as a powerful magnet,
incentivizing individuals to cross borders illegally or overstay
visas simply to secure U.S. citizenship for their children.
The U.S. is one of the few developed nations that grants automatic,
unconditional citizenship to anyone born on its territory.
Hope this helps.
ur just a racist dud, and certainly no libertarian
if someone can't support basic freedom of movement, someone does notNo country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
stand for basic liberty u fucking loser
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed a
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing >>>>>>>>>> crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, get >>>>>>>>>>> rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse >>>>>>>>>>> for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich >>>>>>>>>>> any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not >>>>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home
villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>>
inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - >>>>>>>> like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve
standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last
twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose
the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme
wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because
you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable
to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
#god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother
to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments; altered the
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want >>>>>>>>>>>> less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were >>>>>>>>>>>> born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of
any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an
invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief!
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a resident.
And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant visitors who stop by
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member in
the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for
President. How in any world does that make any sense?
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your way.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born
workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law. >>>
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed a
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine >>>>>>>>> inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - >>>>>>>>> like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>>>
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable housing >>>>>>>>>>> crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, >>>>>>>>>>>> get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse >>>>>>>>>>>> for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be rich >>>>>>>>>>>> any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not >>>>>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home >>>>>>>>>>> villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders. >>>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve
standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last
twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose
the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme
wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ...
but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s
was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable,
because you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages
being unable to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even
remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking
bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across
the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so
damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to
solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn
fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when
whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments; altered the
query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and really dumb.
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case. Nobody can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in:
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog. You've got
to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some paper
work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union and fill out
some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some papers
to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection report, and fill
out some papers. Then you have fill out some more papers to register the house of your choice and fill out some papers to get a copy of the title
and the receipt for paying the property tax.
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you can
take off."
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose
the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme
wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it
stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of
the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest.
1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ...
but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s
was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable,
because you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages
being unable to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even
remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking
bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across
the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so
damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to
solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn
fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when
whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over
the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I
was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here
no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can
afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're
not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own
will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress.
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to
see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home
as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers.
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in
policy or eat all the rich.
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want >>>>>>>>>>>>> less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of
any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of an
invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant visitors
who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member
in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for
President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the right
to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if
what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born
workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law. >>>
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here of >>>>> any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of
an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant visitors
who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member
in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for
President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your way. >>>
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now, you
fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal
overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if
what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world
because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a colder version of Rio's Favelas.
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live
there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't
enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very
real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for all
individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws to
regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
#god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
On 7/1/2026 8:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:Me and Rita were just in Canada! She is from the Motor City and that's
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
where her evil twin sister lives. On a recent visit she (shall remain nameless) took us all over sightseeing. It was weird - Canada is south
of Detroit. Go figure.
We got some really fine whiskey!
Apparently, Canada limits the number of immigrants it admits each year.
It sets specific targets for permanent residents and places caps on--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
temporary residents. The plan outlines the following targets:Permanent Residents: The 2026rCo2028 Immigration Levels Plan caps permanent resident admissions at 380,000 per year.
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here
of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of
an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ... >>>
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member
in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for
President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your
way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal
overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if
what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world
because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of cherry-picked stupidity
On 7/1/26 1:55 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and really dumb.
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine >>>>>>>>>> inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - >>>>>>>>>> like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>>>>
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable >>>>>>>>>>>> housing crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an excuse >>>>>>>>>>>>> for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>> rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would not >>>>>>>>>>>>> care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home >>>>>>>>>>>> villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders. >>>>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve >>>>>>>>> standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last >>>>>>>> twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that
isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u
illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25%
of the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest. 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration
rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during
the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand.
Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt
driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high
(so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable,
because you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages
being unable to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you
economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't
even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck
you think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking
bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across
the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're
so damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep
their population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going
to solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear
holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump
starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments; altered the >> Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed a
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case. Nobody
can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in:
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog. You've got
to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some paper
work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union and fill out
some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some papers
to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection report, and
fill out some papers. Then you have fill out some more papers to
register the house of your choice and fill out some papers to get a
copy of the title and the receipt for paying the property tax.
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you can
take off."
dud you are a total waste of oxygen
On 7/1/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:32 AM, Dude wrote:You idiot! The above is current US policy on immigration. Can't you
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in >>>>>> your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live
there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-
born workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule
of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
i get that u don't read things dud, because u are intellectually
negligent, but as i mentioned earlier in this thread:
us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era levels
currently, and have generally been pretty low overall in the 21st century
read? The border is closed to illegal immigration, Nick!
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here
would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we >>>>>>>>> dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>> real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for
all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws
to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people moving
freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent (including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an act--
of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
There. I've said it.
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject >>>>>> to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>>>>> of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision >>>>>> excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the >>>>>> status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of >>>>>> an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a
member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to
run for President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your >>>>> way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive
federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as
if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the
world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
On 7/1/2026 2:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:55 PM, Dude wrote:What about the homeless people living down your street?
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and really dumb.
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine >>>>>>>>>>> inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more >>>>>>>>>>> - like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>>>>>
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable >>>>>>>>>>>>> housing crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home >>>>>>>>>>>>> villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders. >>>>>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve >>>>>>>>>> standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last >>>>>>>>> twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25%
of the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest. 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration
rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during
the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government
debt driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had
record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more
housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is
high (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still
unaffordable, because you think govt debt is somehow the problem
with mortgages being unable to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS
DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are
you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who
can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments.
the fuck you think you know anything about economics if you can't
even fucking bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across
the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're
so damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep
their population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is
going to solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear
holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump
starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments; altered the >>> Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed a
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case. Nobody
can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in:
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog. You've
got to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some paper
work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union and fill out
some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some
papers to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection report,
and fill out some papers. Then you have fill out some more papers to
register the house of your choice and fill out some papers to get a
copy of the title and the receipt for paying the property tax.
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you can
take off."
dud you are a total waste of oxygen
You going to give them an affordable housing with no red tape?
Are you serious? And, you want to bring in more homeless from all over
the world? Are you nuts?
You don't even care about your own people.
On Jul 1, 2026 at 4:25:24rC>PM EDT, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 8:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:Me and Rita were just in Canada! She is from the Motor City and that's
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less >>>>>>>>>>> white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born >>>>>>>>>>> here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada: "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
where her evil twin sister lives. On a recent visit she (shall remain
nameless) took us all over sightseeing. It was weird - Canada is south
of Detroit. Go figure.
A bit of it, yeah. Today is Canada Day. Happy Canada Day.
We got some really fine whiskey!
Great! We don't have American spirits on the shelves you know. ;)
Apparently, Canada limits the number of immigrants it admits each year.
Yup.
It sets specific targets for permanent residents and places caps on
temporary residents. The plan outlines the following targets:Permanent
Residents: The 2026rCo2028 Immigration Levels Plan caps permanent resident >> admissions at 380,000 per year.
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the >>>>>>> citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this
has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>>
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you >>>>> posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before
the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a
member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to >>>>>> run for President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get
your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you??? >>>>>
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to >>>>> "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive
federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually
centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the
world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
yeah that's kind of a problem dud
#god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple like you
On 7/1/26 2:58 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 2:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:55 PM, Dude wrote:What about the homeless people living down your street?
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed a
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine >>>>>>>>>>>> inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more >>>>>>>>>>>> - like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person down... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home >>>>>>>>>>>>>> villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve >>>>>>>>>>> standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last >>>>>>>>>> twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence.
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you >>>>>>>>> lose the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard >>>>>>>>> extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that >>>>>>> u illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% >>>>>> of the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest. 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom
immigration rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop
growth during the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below
demand. Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of
government debt driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we
had record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit >>>>> more housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is
high (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still
unaffordable, because you think govt debt is somehow the problem
with mortgages being unable to keep up with the rising house costs??? >>>>>
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK
IS DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are
you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who
can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments.
the fuck you think you know anything about economics if you can't
even fucking bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across >>>>> the globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're >>>>> so damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep >>>>> their population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is
going to solve literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear
holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after
trump starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments; altered >>>>> the
query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and really dumb. >>>>
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case. Nobody
can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in:
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog. You've
got to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some paper
work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union and fill
out some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some
papers to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection
report, and fill out some papers. Then you have fill out some more
papers to register the house of your choice and fill out some papers
to get a copy of the title and the receipt for paying the property tax. >>>>
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you
can take off."
dud you are a total waste of oxygen
You going to give them an affordable housing with no red tape?
Are you serious? And, you want to bring in more homeless from all over
the world? Are you nuts?
You don't even care about your own people.
we already built enough housing for them dud
What's needed is boots on the ground: you working for Habitat For Humanity.we have a distribution problem, not a building problem
On 7/1/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:32 AM, Dude wrote:You idiot! The above is current US policy on immigration. Can't you
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live
there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-
born workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule
of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
i get that u don't read things dud, because u are intellectually
negligent, but as i mentioned earlier in this thread:
us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era levels
currently, and have generally been pretty low overall in the 21st
century
read? The border is closed to illegal immigration, Nick!
again dud: us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era levels currently, and has generally been pretty low overall in the 21st century
it's also worth noting that japan has lower wages than the us, and is generally low for a developed country ... and they actually have a population decline issue. apparently a decreasing supply of workers does
not drive wages up dud ...
because like all the econobabble ur doing to try to justify ur bigotry,
it really is just myopic brainrot from people too intellectually
negligent to think critically about what they are saying.
now because u are too much a narcissist to ever admit being wrong you'll reply with some comment marginally related at best, to avoid having to
admit ur actually total fucking retard dud
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born
workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law. >>>
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
On 7/1/2026 2:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:32 AM, Dude wrote:You idiot! The above is current US policy on immigration. Can't you
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here
would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we >>>>>>>>> dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-
born workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule >>>>> of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the >>>>> environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
i get that u don't read things dud, because u are intellectually
negligent, but as i mentioned earlier in this thread:
us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era levels
currently, and have generally been pretty low overall in the 21st
century
read? The border is closed to illegal immigration, Nick!
again dud: us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era
levels currently, and has generally been pretty low overall in the
21st century
it's also worth noting that japan has lower wages than the us, and is
generally low for a developed country ... and they actually have a
population decline issue. apparently a decreasing supply of workers
does not drive wages up dud ...
because like all the econobabble ur doing to try to justify ur
bigotry, it really is just myopic brainrot from people too
intellectually negligent to think critically about what they are saying.
now because u are too much a narcissist to ever admit being wrong
you'll reply with some comment marginally related at best, to avoid
having to admit ur actually total fucking retard dud
The availability of abortion has historically contributed to a lower national birth rate.
Research indicates that abortion access enables individuals to control family size and timing, directly resulting in fewer live births and a
lower overall fertility rate.
Conversely, when abortion access is restricted, birth rates rise.
On 7/1/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live
there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule
of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
The fallacy is Nick and Noah debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth, while at the same time
arguing in favor of immigration - at a time with an affordable housing crises.
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>
citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the >>>>>>>> citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a
relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a >>>>>> simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead
you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before
the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a
member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get
your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now, >>>>>> you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you??? >>>>>>
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the >>>>>> right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power
to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is
not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive >>>>>> federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually
centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the
world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't >>>>>> believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow
of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the welfare state.
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are necessary
to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
On 7/1/2026 3:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:58 PM, Dude wrote:So, I'm going to go with my first comment. Most homeless people do not
On 7/1/2026 2:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:55 PM, Dude wrote:What about the homeless people living down your street?
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do fine >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need >>>>>>>>>>>>> more - like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person >>>>>>>>>>>>>> down...
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to improve >>>>>>>>>>>> standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the last >>>>>>>>>>> twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence. >>>>>>>>>>>
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you >>>>>>>>>> lose the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard >>>>>>>>>> extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if >>>>>>>>>> it stops working today. continuing to use an economic system >>>>>>>>>> that isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that >>>>>>>> u illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause?
25% of the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest. 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom
immigration rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop >>>>>> growth during the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below
demand. Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of
government debt driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we
had record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a
bit more housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is
high (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still
unaffordable, because you think govt debt is somehow the problem
with mortgages being unable to keep up with the rising house costs??? >>>>>>
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK >>>>>> IS DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are >>>>>> you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who
can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. >>>>>> the fuck you think you know anything about economics if you can't >>>>>> even fucking bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal
across the globe at this point, except for basically japan because >>>>>> they're so damn culturally depressed they can't even figure out
how to keep their population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt >>>>>> policy is going to solve literally a global problem at this point??? >>>>>>
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear
holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after
trump starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments;
altered the
a query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and really
dumb.
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case.
Nobody can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in:
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog. You've
got to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some
paper work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union and
fill out some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some
papers to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection
report, and fill out some papers. Then you have fill out some more
papers to register the house of your choice and fill out some
papers to get a copy of the title and the receipt for paying the
property tax.
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you
can take off."
dud you are a total waste of oxygen
You going to give them an affordable housing with no red tape?
Are you serious? And, you want to bring in more homeless from all
over the world? Are you nuts?
You don't even care about your own people.
we already built enough housing for them dud
have the documentation to own even a shelter, much less an affordable
home, Nick.
Why?
Most homeless people have zero documentation to even apply for
assistance. Just face recognition at a soup line.
Red tape. Who needs it?
-a-a> we have a distribution problem, not a building problemWhat's needed is boots on the ground: you working for Habitat For Humanity.
Make a difference!
On 7/1/2026 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.a It >>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>>> citizens of where ever.a So, best idea is don't get occupied.
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.a Kids stay?a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.a Guts spread >>>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your >>>>>>> living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and >>>>>>> is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright >>>>>>> citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.a Dare some more.
Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would >support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would
support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here
would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we >>>>>>>>> dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>> real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for
all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws
to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people moving
freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent (including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an act
of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here
of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision
excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the
status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of
an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ... >>>
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member
in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for
President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your
way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal
overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if
what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world
because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of cherry-picked stupidity
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead >>>>>>> you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by
now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the >>>>>>> right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power >>>>>>> to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is >>>>>>> not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive >>>>>>> federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually
centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't >>>>>>> believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the >>>>> planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow
of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
#god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt bullcrap,
and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and
occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we >>>>>>>>>> dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>>> real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for
all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws
to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent
(including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an
act of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and >>>>>>>>>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. >>>>>>>>>> so no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but
instead you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant >>>>>>>>> visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly >>>>>>>> established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>>
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by >>>>>>>> now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds >>>>>>>> the right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific >>>>>>>> power to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving >>>>>>>> here is not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is >>>>>>>> a massive federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually >>>>>>>> centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of >>>>>>>> america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still
can't believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a >>>>>>> colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of
the planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject
shitshow of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
-a-a> because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt
bullcrap, and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to
actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment of
the current citizens.
On 6/30/26 4:07 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/29/2026 11:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:02 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:This isn't the third world, Nick. These are real people that are
Hurricane Katrina led to many house building
innovations blocked by cabalistic codes.
eg, steel stud construction, prebuilt plug-and-play walls
or even entire stackable apartments.
maybe u fucks should look outside the 1st world for second:
lack of red tape in the 3rd world ain't a fucking magic bullet for
housing u dingus
homeless down the street from your cozy crib. Too much ed tape to get
a home, or even a room. Get real, Nick.
u didn't understand the argument so u provided an incoherent response.
basically the only country without a housing crisis is japan ...
cause they can't even keep their population up
On 7/1/26 3:27 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:58 PM, Dude wrote:So, I'm going to go with my first comment. Most homeless people do not
On 7/1/2026 2:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:55 PM, Dude wrote:What about the homeless people living down your street?
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and posed >>>>>> a query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and really >>>>>> dumb.
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need more - like a heat pump and a personal bidet.
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down...
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villages, but the red tape is too steep for most builders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> improve standards
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the >>>>>>>>>>>> last twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you >>>>>>>>>>> lose the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard >>>>>>>>>>> extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if >>>>>>>>>>> it stops working today. continuing to use an economic system >>>>>>>>>>> that isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson >>>>>>>>>>>
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer >>>>>>>>> that u illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? >>>>>>>> 25% of the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new
construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest. 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom
immigration rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our pop >>>>>>> growth during the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below
demand. Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of
government debt driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we >>>>>>> had record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a >>>>>>> bit more housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is >>>>>>> high (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still
unaffordable, because you think govt debt is somehow the problem >>>>>>> with mortgages being unable to keep up with the rising house
costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK >>>>>>> IS DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are >>>>>>> you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who >>>>>>> can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. >>>>>>> the fuck you think you know anything about economics if you can't >>>>>>> even fucking bother to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal
across the globe at this point, except for basically japan
because they're so damn culturally depressed they can't even
figure out how to keep their population numbers up. the fuck u
think us govt policy is going to solve literally a global problem >>>>>>> at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking
goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear >>>>>>> holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after
trump starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments;
altered the
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case.
Nobody can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in: >>>>>>
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog. You've >>>>>> got to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some
paper work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union and >>>>>> fill out some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some
papers to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection
report, and fill out some papers. Then you have fill out some more >>>>>> papers to register the house of your choice and fill out some
papers to get a copy of the title and the receipt for paying the
property tax.
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you >>>>>> can take off."
dud you are a total waste of oxygen
You going to give them an affordable housing with no red tape?
Are you serious? And, you want to bring in more homeless from all
over the world? Are you nuts?
You don't even care about your own people.
we already built enough housing for them dud
have the documentation to own even a shelter, much less an affordable
home, Nick.
Why?
Most homeless people have zero documentation to even apply for
assistance. Just face recognition at a soup line.
Red tape. Who needs it?
imagine having a public id service that allowed anyone to id anyone...
but oh no muh privacy???!?!?!
well yeah capitlalists are basically scared fucking pathetic children
when it comes to being honest or truthful about anything as basic as
their identity.
god u fucks are pathetic
What's needed is boots on the ground: you working for Habitat For
-a-a> we have a distribution problem, not a building problem
Humanity.
Make a difference!
u haven't accurately identified the problem yet dud, so u have no basis
for providing a useful recommendation on what's needed
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead >>>>>>> you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by
now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the >>>>>>> right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power >>>>>>> to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is >>>>>>> not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive >>>>>>> federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually
centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't >>>>>>> believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the >>>>> planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow
of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
#god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt bullcrap,
and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and >>>>>>>>>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. >>>>>>>>>> so no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but
instead you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant >>>>>>>>> visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly >>>>>>>> established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>>
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by >>>>>>>> now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds >>>>>>>> the right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific >>>>>>>> power to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving >>>>>>>> here is not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is >>>>>>>> a massive federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually >>>>>>>> centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of >>>>>>>> america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still
can't believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a >>>>>>> colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of
the planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject
shitshow of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
-a-a> because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt
bullcrap, and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to
actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment of
the current citizens.
On 7/1/2026 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject >>>>>> to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>>>>> of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision >>>>>> excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the >>>>>> status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of >>>>>> an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a
member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to
run for President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your >>>>> way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive
federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as
if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the
world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
Blaming everything that happens on free markets it such a commie move.
On 7/1/2026 11:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the >>>>>> environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would
support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to
undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
The portion of the third world that does want to come is a lot of
people. It is enough to completely overwhelm the current citizenship of
the country.
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and >>>>>>>>>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead >>>>>>>> you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant >>>>>>>>> visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly >>>>>>>> established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>>
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by >>>>>>>> now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the >>>>>>>> right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power >>>>>>>> to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is >>>>>>>> not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive >>>>>>>> federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually >>>>>>>> centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of >>>>>>>> america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't >>>>>>>> believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a >>>>>>> colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the >>>>>> planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow >>>>>> of cherry-picked stupidity
yeah that's kind of a problem dud
#god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
#god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt bullcrap,
and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to actually just
exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment of
the current citizens.
On 7/1/2026 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one."
Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the
citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject >>>>>> to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>>>>> of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision >>>>>> excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the >>>>>> status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of >>>>>> an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ... >>>>
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the
14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member >>>>> in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for >>>>> President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your >>>>> way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal >>>> overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain
about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if >>>> what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world >>>> because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
Blaming everything that happens on free markets it such a commie move.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:21:08 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:https://media3.locals.com/images/
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and >>>>>>>>>>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such >>>>>>>>>>> provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead >>>>>>>>> you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant >>>>>>>>>> visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly >>>>>>>>> established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>>>
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by >>>>>>>>> now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the >>>>>>>>> right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power >>>>>>>>> to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is >>>>>>>>> not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive >>>>>>>>> federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually >>>>>>>>> centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of >>>>>>>>> america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't >>>>>>>>> believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a >>>>>>>> colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the >>>>>>> planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow >>>>>>> of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
-a> because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
-a>
-a> #god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare. >>>>
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt bullcrap,
and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to actually just
exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment of
the current citizens.
Wilson is afraid he might be poor and it will all be the fault of
immigrants.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:19:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the >>>>>>> citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject >>>>>>> to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>>>>>> of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision >>>>>>> excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the >>>>>>> status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of >>>>>>> an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>>
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you
posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ... >>>>>
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the >>>>> 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member >>>>>> in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for >>>>>> President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your >>>>>> way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you??? >>>>>
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to
"naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal >>>>> overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain >>>>> about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if >>>>> what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world >>>>> because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
Blaming everything that happens on free markets it such a commie move.
Asserting that free markets exist is a con man move.
On 7/2/2026 11:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:19:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a >>>>>> simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you >>>>>> posted your total stupidity.
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the >>>>>>>> citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject >>>>>>>> to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>>>>>>> of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision >>>>>>>> excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the >>>>>>>> status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of >>>>>>>> an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>>>
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ... >>>>>>
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the >>>>>> 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member >>>>>>> in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for >>>>>>> President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your >>>>>>> way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now, >>>>>> you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you??? >>>>>>
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to >>>>>> "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal >>>>>> overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain >>>>>> about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if >>>>>> what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world >>>>>> because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
Blaming everything that happens on free markets it such a commie move.
Asserting that free markets exist is a con man move.
Almost every country on the planet has a free market capitalist economic >system. Are you confused or what?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 12:21:06 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/2026 11:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:19:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Almost every country on the planet has a free market capitalist economic
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a >>>>>>> simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you >>>>>>> posted your total stupidity.
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the >>>>>>>>> citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject >>>>>>>>> to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and >>>>>>>>> of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such provision >>>>>>>>> excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this has been the >>>>>>>>> status quo since longer that you've been alive. so no: children of >>>>>>>>> an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>>>>
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before the >>>>>>> 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a member >>>>>>>> in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to run for >>>>>>>> President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get your >>>>>>>> way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now, >>>>>>> you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you??? >>>>>>>
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the >>>>>>> right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to >>>>>>> "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not >>>>>>> "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive federal >>>>>>> overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and complain >>>>>>> about policy that's been legal precedent for actually centuries as if >>>>>>> what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the world >>>>>>> because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't >>>>>>> believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of >>>>> cherry-picked stupidity
Blaming everything that happens on free markets it such a commie move.
Asserting that free markets exist is a con man move.
system. Are you confused or what?
Except there are no free markets as wilson describes them.
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:https://media3.locals.com/images/
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and
occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when >>>>>>>>>>> illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, >>>>>>>>>>> we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a >>>>>>>>>> baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>>>> real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for
all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws >>>>> to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all >>>>
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent
(including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an
act of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
which is why they can redistribute the lands
On 7/1/26 4:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>The fallacy is Nick and Noah debating against mitigating the
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here
would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we >>>>>>>>> dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting
birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule >>>>> of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
environmental impact of population growth, while at the same time
arguing in favor of immigration - at a time with an affordable housing
crises.
the fuck up about the environment dud, u don't give a shit about nature
in the slightest
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:14:23 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>>>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the >>>>>>> environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would
support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to
undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
The portion of the third world that does want to come is a lot of
people. It is enough to completely overwhelm the current citizenship of
the country.
Scare tactic. I refuse to be so scared I resort to brutality. In
fact I refuse to be scared at all.
NY Times:
An American mosaic
All the clich|-s are true. America is a melting pot. ItrCOs a tapestry. ItrCOs a collage, a quilt of innumerable colors, as you can see in this amazing map. It shows how people describe their ancestry or family
origin to the Census Bureau: rCLBlend them rCo as 340 million Americans do rCo and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.rCY
The maprCOs worth exploring. YourCOll find a pocket of Greeks in Tarpon Springs, Florida. ThatrCOs because in the early 1900s, Greek divers came
from the Dodecanese islands and transformed the sponge industry along
the Gulf Coast. Those neighborhoods of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in
and around New Bedford, Massachusetts? TheyrCOre whaling heirs, the
offspring of people who first arrived on ships in the 1800s.
Look at the Basque in Boise, Idaho. They left the mountains of France
and northern Spain to seek gold in the American West. Their families
are still here. Vietnamese refugees settled near New Orleans and
Houston to do as they had done back home, netting shrimp for the
market. All those Scandinavians in Minnesota and North Dakota? Cold
winters didnrCOt bother them. They put down roots and started to farm.
I found a sizable population of Dominicans on the west side of the
island of Nantucket. And a big hub of Ecuadoreans in East Hampton.
Those are people who came seeking work, serving the wealthy.
Larry Buchanan, one of the visual journalists who worked on the
project, told me to zoom in on Springdale, Arkansas. ThererCOs a
neighborhood there thatrCOs 41 percent Marshallese. They call it rCLSpringdale Atoll.rCY (The islanders came to work in the cityrCOs poultry plants.)
Albert Sun, a data reporter and graphics editor who was also on the
team, grew up in the Detroit suburbs alongside a lot of Chaldeans rCo
Iraqi Christians who came to the area to work on the assembly lines at
Ford. HerCOd always assumed Chaldeans were everywhere. Look at the map
he built. ThatrCOs a nope.
Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people.
We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here rCo and the policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out rCo
through the patterns in where their descendants live today.
Just peel back the layers. YourCOll find the descendants of Italians who started coming to New York at the end of the 19th century. Also the
African American descendants of enslaved people in the South who began
to move north in the 20th. Here are the families of Mexicans who lived
on our southwestern border long before it was a border at all.
Chinese are present on the map, largely in Chinatowns on the two
coasts, though newer arrivals are spreading beyond those historical boundaries. And the Native Americans who were already here when people
from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales showed up? The Iroquois,
Navajo, Inupiat, the Chickasaw and others? You can still see their
presence, too.
On 7/1/26 3:53 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 2:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 12:19 PM, Dude wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 11:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 10:32 AM, Dude wrote:You idiot! The above is current US policy on immigration. Can't you
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and
occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we >>>>>>>>>> dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby >>>>>>>>> in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>>
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native- >>>>>> born workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the
rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating
the environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
i get that u don't read things dud, because u are intellectually
negligent, but as i mentioned earlier in this thread:
us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression era levels
currently, and have generally been pretty low overall in the 21st
century
read? The border is closed to illegal immigration, Nick!
again dud: us pop growth is basically rock bottom great depression
era levels currently, and has generally been pretty low overall in
the 21st century
it's also worth noting that japan has lower wages than the us, and is
generally low for a developed country ... and they actually have a
population decline issue. apparently a decreasing supply of workers
does not drive wages up dud ...
because like all the econobabble ur doing to try to justify ur
bigotry, it really is just myopic brainrot from people too
intellectually negligent to think critically about what they are saying. >>>
now because u are too much a narcissist to ever admit being wrong
you'll reply with some comment marginally related at best, to avoid
having to admit ur actually total fucking retard dud
The availability of abortion has historically contributed to a lower
national birth rate.
Research indicates that abortion access enables individuals to control
family size and timing, directly resulting in fewer live births and a
lower overall fertility rate.
Conversely, when abortion access is restricted, birth rates rise.
u really have no idea how to craft coherent responses do you dud???
it doesn't matter _why_ pop isn't growing fast. the fact is that it's currently only growing at basically the slowest pace ever, and yet wages
are still depressed ... which complete contradicts your racist
econobabble bullcrap that immigrants are the reasons wages are depressed.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens.
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children >>>>>>>>>> born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.-a It >>>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>>>> citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts spread >>>>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the
environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would
support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to undertake the hardships of a journey like that. If you did you would
be a little less hasty to be spreading guts around.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:21 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:54:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 2:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you lose >>>>>>>>> the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard extreme >>>>>>>>> wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if it >>>>>>>>> stops working today. continuing to use an economic system that >>>>>>>>> isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer that u >>>>>>> illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? 25% of >>>>>> the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new construction in >>>>>
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the slightest. >>>>> 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom immigration rates ... but >>>>> basically the top of the 1900s. our pop growth during the 2010s was damn >>>>> near the great depression lows
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below demand. >>>>>> Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of government debt >>>>>> driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we had >>>>> record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a bit more >>>>> housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is high >>>>> (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still unaffordable, because >>>>> you think govt debt is somehow the problem with mortgages being unable >>>>> to keep up with the rising house costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE FUCK IS >>>>> DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a>
-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only are you >>>>> economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist who can't even >>>>> remotely manage basic fact checking on your arguments. the fuck you
think you know anything about economics if you can't even fucking bother >>>>> to count... stupid af banking dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal across the >>>>> globe at this point, except for basically japan because they're so damn >>>>> culturally depressed they can't even figure out how to keep their
population numbers up. the fuck u think us govt policy is going to solve >>>>> literally a global problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking goddamn >>>>> fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear holocaust when >>>>> whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after trump starts WWIII
-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a>
-a> #god
Whoa, Nick is right for a change. There /are/ more homes per capita over >>>> the past 50 years. So immigration hasn't made as big a difference as I >>>> was thinking.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I want less white >>>> immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who were born here >>>> no matter their race.
Since it's not population, I think a big driver is the number of second >>>> homes, investor owned homes, and unused empty houses. More people can
afford a vacation house today. And a lot of the investor owned homes are >>>> small time, just a few each. A lot of those folks are working, they're >>>> not all rich.
And yes, there's been an increase in corporate owned homes too. But
that's not going to continue. The number of homes a corporation can own >>>> will now be limited by the recent housing bill just passed by congress. >>>>
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years? I think we're going to >>>> see a big decrease in home prices. Most of the individual investors are >>>> older. There aren't as many young people entering the market for a home >>>> as are leaving it. That means more homes on the market looking for buyers. >>>>
And that's going to happen even if we don't make any major changes in
policy or eat all the rich.
A person who paid a mil for a house that ends up needing to sell it
for what normal people can afford is going to feel eaten.
I don't think that plan is going to work.
1) stop building houses for rich people
2) stop selling new houses as investment for rich people
3) stop selling houses to people who aren't going to live in them
Don't try to force high price houses prices down. Simply stop
building for that market. People in that market will continue to be
willing to pay for the luxury they think they deserve.
Everybody else can get out of the rain.
Not that I agree that sufficient houses are being built for the
population. If ordinary folks can't afford a place to live, there is
a problem. Stop trying to avoid thinking there is no problem.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Silly man. Those are my suggestions. But, no I did not expect you
would agree. So instead of hiding behind your fear that somebody
might actually tell you what to do, maybe you could come up with
something better than
So what's going to happen over the next 20 years?
Waiting 20 years.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:14:23 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would
support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to
undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
The portion of the third world that does want to come is a lot of
people. It is enough to completely overwhelm the current citizenship of
the country.
Scare tactic. I refuse to be so scared I resort to brutality. In
fact I refuse to be scared at all.
NY Times:
An American mosaic
All the clich|-s are true. America is a melting pot. ItrCOs a tapestry. ItrCOs a collage, a quilt of innumerable colors, as you can see in this amazing map. It shows how people describe their ancestry or family
origin to the Census Bureau: rCLBlend them rCo as 340 million Americans do rCo and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.rCY
The maprCOs worth exploring. YourCOll find a pocket of Greeks in Tarpon Springs, Florida. ThatrCOs because in the early 1900s, Greek divers came
from the Dodecanese islands and transformed the sponge industry along
the Gulf Coast. Those neighborhoods of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in
and around New Bedford, Massachusetts? TheyrCOre whaling heirs, the
offspring of people who first arrived on ships in the 1800s.
Look at the Basque in Boise, Idaho. They left the mountains of France
and northern Spain to seek gold in the American West. Their families
are still here. Vietnamese refugees settled near New Orleans and
Houston to do as they had done back home, netting shrimp for the
market. All those Scandinavians in Minnesota and North Dakota? Cold
winters didnrCOt bother them. They put down roots and started to farm.
I found a sizable population of Dominicans on the west side of the
island of Nantucket. And a big hub of Ecuadoreans in East Hampton.
Those are people who came seeking work, serving the wealthy.
Larry Buchanan, one of the visual journalists who worked on the
project, told me to zoom in on Springdale, Arkansas. ThererCOs a
neighborhood there thatrCOs 41 percent Marshallese. They call it rCLSpringdale Atoll.rCY (The islanders came to work in the cityrCOs poultry plants.)
Albert Sun, a data reporter and graphics editor who was also on the
team, grew up in the Detroit suburbs alongside a lot of Chaldeans rCo
Iraqi Christians who came to the area to work on the assembly lines at
Ford. HerCOd always assumed Chaldeans were everywhere. Look at the map
he built. ThatrCOs a nope.
Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people.
We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here rCo and the policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out rCo
through the patterns in where their descendants live today.
Just peel back the layers. YourCOll find the descendants of Italians who started coming to New York at the end of the 19th century. Also the
African American descendants of enslaved people in the South who began
to move north in the 20th. Here are the families of Mexicans who lived
on our southwestern border long before it was a border at all.
Chinese are present on the map, largely in Chinatowns on the two
coasts, though newer arrivals are spreading beyond those historical boundaries. And the Native Americans who were already here when people
from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales showed up? The Iroquois,
Navajo, Inupiat, the Chickasaw and others? You can still see their
presence, too.
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:https://media3.locals.com/images/
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and
occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when >>>>>>>>>>> illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, >>>>>>>>>>> we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a >>>>>>>>>> baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>>>> real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for
all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws >>>>> to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all >>>>
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent
(including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an
act of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
which is why they can redistribute the lands
On 7/2/26 6:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare. >>>>
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt
bullcrap, and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to
actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment
of the current citizens.
... and wilson doesn't care about the billions of people who already
ended up impoverished because of being born on the poor side nation-
state capitalism ...
see if capitalism worked to bring prosperity to all: then u'd support
open borders
but the fact u don't support open borders is admitting capitalism
doesn't actually work like u bleat on and on about how much it does
and what ... i'm supposed to care about the millions who lucked out on wealthier side of nation-state capitalism???
actually address the critique in full u damned bigot
#god
On 7/2/2026 12:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:https://media3.locals.com/images/
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and
occupied.a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when >>>>>>>>>>>> illegal
alien parents get deported.a Kids stay?a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.a Guts >>>>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?a I donno, but there is no doubt, >>>>>>>>>>>> we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a >>>>>>>>>>> baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.a Dare some more. >>>>>>>>>
New salad dressing.a Wilson's opinions are now reality.a It wasn't >>>>>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>>>>> real.a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for >>>>>> all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws >>>>>> to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
#god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all >>>>>
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent
(including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an
act of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
which is why they can redistribute the lands
Authoritarian collectivism? Again?
On 7/2/2026 2:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:14:23 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would >>>>> support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us.-a You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to >>>> undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
The portion of the third world that does want to come is a lot of
people. It is enough to completely overwhelm the current citizenship of
the country.
Scare tactic.-a I refuse to be so scared I resort to brutality.-a In
fact I refuse to be scared at all.
NY Times:
An American mosaic
All the clich|-s are true. America is a melting pot. ItrCOs a tapestry.
ItrCOs a collage, a quilt of innumerable colors, as you can see in this
amazing map. It shows how people describe their ancestry or family
origin to the Census Bureau: rCLBlend them rCo as 340 million Americans do >> rCo and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.rCY
The maprCOs worth exploring. YourCOll find a pocket of Greeks in Tarpon
Springs, Florida. ThatrCOs because in the early 1900s, Greek divers came
from the Dodecanese islands and transformed the sponge industry along
the Gulf Coast. Those neighborhoods of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in
and around New Bedford, Massachusetts? TheyrCOre whaling heirs, the
offspring of people who first arrived on ships in the 1800s.
Look at the Basque in Boise, Idaho. They left the mountains of France
and northern Spain to seek gold in the American West. Their families
are still here. Vietnamese refugees settled near New Orleans and
Houston to do as they had done back home, netting shrimp for the
market. All those Scandinavians in Minnesota and North Dakota? Cold
winters didnrCOt bother them. They put down roots and started to farm.
I found a sizable population of Dominicans on the west side of the
island of Nantucket. And a big hub of Ecuadoreans in East Hampton.
Those are people who came seeking work, serving the wealthy.
Larry Buchanan, one of the visual journalists who worked on the
project, told me to zoom in on Springdale, Arkansas. ThererCOs a
neighborhood there thatrCOs 41 percent Marshallese. They call it
rCLSpringdale Atoll.rCY (The islanders came to work in the cityrCOs poultry >> plants.)
Albert Sun, a data reporter and graphics editor who was also on the
team, grew up in the Detroit suburbs alongside a lot of Chaldeans rCo
Iraqi Christians who came to the area to work on the assembly lines at
Ford. HerCOd always assumed Chaldeans were everywhere. Look at the map
he built. ThatrCOs a nope.
Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people.
We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here rCo and the
policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out rCo
through the patterns in where their descendants live today.
Just peel back the layers. YourCOll find the descendants of Italians who
started coming to New York at the end of the 19th century. Also the
African American descendants of enslaved people in the South who began
to move north in the 20th. Here are the families of Mexicans who lived
on our southwestern border long before it was a border at all.
Chinese are present on the map, largely in Chinatowns on the two
coasts, though newer arrivals are spreading beyond those historical
boundaries. And the Native Americans who were already here when people
from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales showed up? The Iroquois,
Navajo, Inupiat, the Chickasaw and others? You can still see their
presence, too.
You might have missed, "the policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out" part.
If unlimited immigration is a benefit to current citizens, why would
keeping others out have been mentioned?
Maybe that matters?
Are there any limits on immigration that you would support?
On 7/2/2026 2:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:14:23 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would >>>>> support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to >>>> undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
The portion of the third world that does want to come is a lot of
people. It is enough to completely overwhelm the current citizenship of
the country.
Scare tactic. I refuse to be so scared I resort to brutality. In
fact I refuse to be scared at all.
NY Times:
An American mosaic
All the clichos are true. America is a melting pot. ItAs a tapestry.
ItAs a collage, a quilt of innumerable colors, as you can see in this
amazing map. It shows how people describe their ancestry or family
origin to the Census Bureau: oBlend them u as 340 million Americans do
u and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.o
The mapAs worth exploring. YouAll find a pocket of Greeks in Tarpon
Springs, Florida. ThatAs because in the early 1900s, Greek divers came
from the Dodecanese islands and transformed the sponge industry along
the Gulf Coast. Those neighborhoods of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in
and around New Bedford, Massachusetts? TheyAre whaling heirs, the
offspring of people who first arrived on ships in the 1800s.
Look at the Basque in Boise, Idaho. They left the mountains of France
and northern Spain to seek gold in the American West. Their families
are still here. Vietnamese refugees settled near New Orleans and
Houston to do as they had done back home, netting shrimp for the
market. All those Scandinavians in Minnesota and North Dakota? Cold
winters didnAt bother them. They put down roots and started to farm.
I found a sizable population of Dominicans on the west side of the
island of Nantucket. And a big hub of Ecuadoreans in East Hampton.
Those are people who came seeking work, serving the wealthy.
Larry Buchanan, one of the visual journalists who worked on the
project, told me to zoom in on Springdale, Arkansas. ThereAs a
neighborhood there thatAs 41 percent Marshallese. They call it
oSpringdale Atoll.o (The islanders came to work in the cityAs poultry
plants.)
Albert Sun, a data reporter and graphics editor who was also on the
team, grew up in the Detroit suburbs alongside a lot of Chaldeans u
Iraqi Christians who came to the area to work on the assembly lines at
Ford. HeAd always assumed Chaldeans were everywhere. Look at the map
he built. ThatAs a nope.
Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people.
We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here u and the
policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out u
through the patterns in where their descendants live today.
Just peel back the layers. YouAll find the descendants of Italians who
started coming to New York at the end of the 19th century. Also the
African American descendants of enslaved people in the South who began
to move north in the 20th. Here are the families of Mexicans who lived
on our southwestern border long before it was a border at all.
Chinese are present on the map, largely in Chinatowns on the two
coasts, though newer arrivals are spreading beyond those historical
boundaries. And the Native Americans who were already here when people
from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales showed up? The Iroquois,
Navajo, Inupiat, the Chickasaw and others? You can still see their
presence, too.
You might have missed, "the policies that welcomed certain groups while >keeping others out" part.
If unlimited immigration is a benefit to current citizens, why would
keeping others out have been mentioned?
Maybe that matters?--
Are there any limits on immigration that you would support?
On 7/1/2026 8:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>That's kind of moot point-Tara already welcomed everyone to move to Canada.
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 16:29:10 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:05 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:There seems to be some confusion here:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>>>>> of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:aa "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and occupied.a It >>>>>>>>>> would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here would be >>>>>>>>>> citizens of where ever.a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when illegal >>>>>>>>>> alien parents get deported.a Kids stay?a This whole argument is so >>>>>>>>>> very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.a Guts spread >>>>>>>>>> everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?a I donno, but there is no doubt, we dare >>>>>>>>>> and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.a Dare some more. >>>>>>>
Arguments for limiting US immigration center on protecting native-born >>>>>> workers' wages.
Also, preventing strain on public service.
Not to mention, preserving national security and enforcing the rule of law.
Seriously? Nick and Noah seem to be debating against mitigating the >>>>>> environmental impact of population growth.
Are they confused or what?
No confusion. The want the entire third world to move here.
The fallacy is called ad absurdum.
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would
support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no
matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to
undertake the hardships of a journey like that. If you did you would
be a little less hasty to be spreading guts around.
On 7/2/2026 12:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, WilsonReality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:https://media3.locals.com/images/
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and
occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when >>>>>>>>>>>> illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, >>>>>>>>>>>> we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a >>>>>>>>>>> baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be >>>>>>>> very
real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it.
Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for >>>>>> all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains
laws to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at >>>>> all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent
(including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an
act of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
which is why they can redistribute the lands
Authoritarian collectivism? Again?
On 7/2/2026 12:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare. >>>>>
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous >>>>> welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt
bullcrap, and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to
actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment
of the current citizens.
... and wilson doesn't care about the billions of people who already
ended up impoverished because of being born on the poor side nation-
state capitalism ...
see if capitalism worked to bring prosperity to all: then u'd support
open borders
but the fact u don't support open borders is admitting capitalism
doesn't actually work like u bleat on and on about how much it does
and what ... i'm supposed to care about the millions who lucked out on
wealthier side of nation-state capitalism???
actually address the critique in full u damned bigot
#god
The billions of people currently living in impoverished circumstances
need to do what our equally impoverished forefathers did. Protect
property, incentivize creativity, don't restrict speech, and protect the >individual from centralized authoritarianism and collectivist tyranny.
protect the
individual from centralized authoritarianism and collectivist tyranny.
That's what will lead them to prosperity. Moving them all here and
putting them on the doll will only impoverish this country as well.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:15:02 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/2/2026 2:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:14:23 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:49 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:03:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
You've identified absolutely no limits on immigration that you would >>>>>> support.
Everyone's welcome! All come in! We're rich and will be forever no >>>>>> matter what!
Regardless by far the majority of the third world does not want to
come to the us. You have no concept of what it takes to be willing to >>>>> undertake the hardships of a journey like that.
The portion of the third world that does want to come is a lot of
people. It is enough to completely overwhelm the current citizenship of >>>> the country.
Scare tactic. I refuse to be so scared I resort to brutality. In
fact I refuse to be scared at all.
NY Times:
An American mosaic
All the clich|-s are true. America is a melting pot. ItrCOs a tapestry.
ItrCOs a collage, a quilt of innumerable colors, as you can see in this
amazing map. It shows how people describe their ancestry or family
origin to the Census Bureau: rCLBlend them rCo as 340 million Americans do >>> rCo and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.rCY
The maprCOs worth exploring. YourCOll find a pocket of Greeks in Tarpon
Springs, Florida. ThatrCOs because in the early 1900s, Greek divers came >>> from the Dodecanese islands and transformed the sponge industry along
the Gulf Coast. Those neighborhoods of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in
and around New Bedford, Massachusetts? TheyrCOre whaling heirs, the
offspring of people who first arrived on ships in the 1800s.
Look at the Basque in Boise, Idaho. They left the mountains of France
and northern Spain to seek gold in the American West. Their families
are still here. Vietnamese refugees settled near New Orleans and
Houston to do as they had done back home, netting shrimp for the
market. All those Scandinavians in Minnesota and North Dakota? Cold
winters didnrCOt bother them. They put down roots and started to farm.
I found a sizable population of Dominicans on the west side of the
island of Nantucket. And a big hub of Ecuadoreans in East Hampton.
Those are people who came seeking work, serving the wealthy.
Larry Buchanan, one of the visual journalists who worked on the
project, told me to zoom in on Springdale, Arkansas. ThererCOs a
neighborhood there thatrCOs 41 percent Marshallese. They call it
rCLSpringdale Atoll.rCY (The islanders came to work in the cityrCOs poultry >>> plants.)
Albert Sun, a data reporter and graphics editor who was also on the
team, grew up in the Detroit suburbs alongside a lot of Chaldeans rCo
Iraqi Christians who came to the area to work on the assembly lines at
Ford. HerCOd always assumed Chaldeans were everywhere. Look at the map
he built. ThatrCOs a nope.
Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people.
We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here rCo and the
policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out rCo
through the patterns in where their descendants live today.
Just peel back the layers. YourCOll find the descendants of Italians who >>> started coming to New York at the end of the 19th century. Also the
African American descendants of enslaved people in the South who began
to move north in the 20th. Here are the families of Mexicans who lived
on our southwestern border long before it was a border at all.
Chinese are present on the map, largely in Chinatowns on the two
coasts, though newer arrivals are spreading beyond those historical
boundaries. And the Native Americans who were already here when people
from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales showed up? The Iroquois,
Navajo, Inupiat, the Chickasaw and others? You can still see their
presence, too.
You might have missed, "the policies that welcomed certain groups while
keeping others out" part.
If unlimited immigration is a benefit to current citizens, why would
keeping others out have been mentioned?
Thanks for missing the point.
Maybe that matters?
Are there any limits on immigration that you would support?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:16:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/2/2026 12:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 1:30 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 13:05:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Meanwhile, "No Borders!"
On 7/1/2026 12:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:33:58 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Reality is hard to deal with for fuzzy headed liberals.
On 7/1/2026 12:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 11:53:02 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52?AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here of any
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:https://media3.locals.com/images/
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> racist. I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> children
born here be American citizens?
1) america would no longer be america if invaded and >>>>>>>>>>>>> occupied.-a It
would we owned by who ever invaded it, so people born here >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
citizens of where ever.-a So, best idea is don't get occupied. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The unresolved issue now is what happens to the kids when >>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal
alien parents get deported.-a Kids stay?-a This whole argument >>>>>>>>>>>>> is so
very grisly, ugly, dripping blood all over the carpet.-a Guts >>>>>>>>>>>>> spread
everywhere.
How dare we be so vicious?-a I donno, but there is no doubt, >>>>>>>>>>>>> we dare
and dare some more.
Imagine if a pregnant lady broke into your house and had a >>>>>>>>>>>> baby in your
living room, and then says that kid has a legal right to live >>>>>>>>>>>> there and
is now part of your family. That's how insane it is granting >>>>>>>>>>>> birthright
citizenship to illegals.
Guts all over the walls and now on the ceiling.-a Dare some more. >>>>>>>>>>
New salad dressing.-a Wilson's opinions are now reality.-a It wasn't >>>>>>>>> enough to call them natural laws.
It is true though that grisly, ugly, dripping with blood can be very >>>>>>>>> real.-a The difference is whether that is the way you like it. >>>>>>>>
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders for >>>>>>> all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state maintains laws >>>>>>> to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom at all >>>>>>
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute
"freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without consent >>>>> (including the private property of citizens or neighborhoods) is an
act of trespass and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). >>>>
which is why they can redistribute the lands
Authoritarian collectivism? Again?
It is scary when people work together for the common good instead of
the good of the meanest rich guy. We can't allow that. The least we
can do is call it something else. I know, how about authoritarian
instead of common? That should knock the bejesus out of the whole
idea.
The problem with systems like communism and commercialism or even some
third something if you could dream it up, is that the same kind of
assholes always rise up to run them. That is the real problem we face
and we constantly avoid doing anything real about it.
On 7/2/2026 2:16 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/2/2026 12:49 PM, dart200 wrote:You're cutting out. Private landowners can't redistribute state owned
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders?
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders
for all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state
maintains laws to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom
at all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people
moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that absolute >>>>> "freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public
property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without
consent (including the private property of citizens or
neighborhoods) is an act of trespass and a violation of the Non-
Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
which is why they can redistribute the lands
Authoritarian collectivism? Again?
land, can they?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:24:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/2/2026 12:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment
of the current citizens.
... and wilson doesn't care about the billions of people who already
ended up impoverished because of being born on the poor side nation-
state capitalism ...
see if capitalism worked to bring prosperity to all: then u'd support
open borders
but the fact u don't support open borders is admitting capitalism
doesn't actually work like u bleat on and on about how much it does
and what ... i'm supposed to care about the millions who lucked out on
wealthier side of nation-state capitalism???
-a> actually address the critique in full u damned bigot
-a>
-a> #god
The billions of people currently living in impoverished circumstances
need to do what our equally impoverished forefathers did. Protect
property, incentivize creativity, don't restrict speech, and protect the
individual from centralized authoritarianism and collectivist tyranny.
I am sure that nobody in the 19th century had any such ideas as they
wandered around trapping beavers, panning for gold, planting wheat and otherwise simply hoping to stay alive.
But this is really the core of what you had to say, right:
protect the
individual from centralized authoritarianism and collectivist tyranny.
This is the monster under your bed and in your closet at the same
time. Be afraid, be very afraid. Wooo!
That's what will lead them to prosperity. Moving them all here and
putting them on the doll will only impoverish this country as well.
Not one word about putting them on the dole has been spoken, except by
you. Let them have the shit jobs they traveled so far to have,
fercrisake.
On 7/1/2026 5:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:Certainly not until you get employed, Nick.
On 7/1/2026 3:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:53 PM, Dude wrote:So, why does every country on the planet have borders? Maybe you have
On 7/1/2026 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:No country on the entire planet has open borders, Nick. Seriously?
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born >>>>>>>>>>> here of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg >>>>>>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their >>>>>>>>>>> children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate" >>>>>>>>>> surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? >>>>>>>>>> the citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and >>>>>>>>>> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this >>>>>>>>>> has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. >>>>>>>>>> so no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship. >>>>>>>>>>
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a >>>>>>>>> relief!
it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. >>>>>>>> a simple google search would have told you otherwise, but
instead you posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a >>>>>>>>> resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant >>>>>>>>> visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before >>>>>>>> the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen....it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly >>>>>>>> established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american... >>>>>>>>
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a >>>>>>>>> member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible >>>>>>>>> to run for President. How in any world does that make any sense? >>>>>>>>
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get >>>>>>>>> your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by >>>>>>>> now, you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate >>>>>>>> are you???
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds >>>>>>>> the right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific >>>>>>>> power to "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving >>>>>>>> here is not "naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is >>>>>>>> a massive federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually >>>>>>>> centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of >>>>>>>> america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the >>>>>>>> world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still
can't believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a >>>>>>> colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of
the planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject
shitshow of cherry-picked stupidity
-a-a> yeah that's kind of a problem dud
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
basic freedom of movement has be completely obliterated by sheeple
like you
not thought this through.
A major nuance in the libertarian debate on borders involves the
welfare state.
-a-a> because wealthy people want to keep the world's masses divided
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare.
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous
welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corruptDeep down you know your situation is unsustainable, long term.
bullcrap, and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to
actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dudSays the white, privileged, thirty-something living on welfare while Dad pays the bills. Trailer trash.
On 7/2/2026 6:19 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:Nick is a typical materialist. It's all about the money. Or, lack of it.
On 7/1/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:02 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:41 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:18 PM, dart200 wrote:it doesn't seem like that was really a genuine concern of yours. a
On 7/1/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 11:20 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 1, 2026 at 10:44:52rC>AM EDT, "Wilson"Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any children born here >>>>>>>> of any visitors, including illegal immigrants, are US citizens. >>>>>>>>
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/30/2026 9:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 2:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
Note to Nick: Wanting less immigration isn't racist. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want less
white
immigration too. I want to advantage all the people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were born
here
no matter their race.
nationalists are only slightly above pure racists
I genuinely don't care what you think about this.
https://media3.locals.com/images/
posts/2026-06-30/3749386/3749386_amja9jjgvs1q3jx_full.jpeg
Canada:-a-a "Hey neighbour come on over and have a cold one." >>>>>>>>
If a foreign army invaded and occupied America, would their
children born here be American citizens?
wilson, why are you so fucking stupid? after all the "debate"
surrounding this u still never actually read the damn thing? the >>>>>>> citizenship clause is only one sentence:
/All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United >>>>>>> States and of the State wherein they reside/
see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", such
provision excludes both foreign armies and diplomats, and this
has been the status quo since longer that you've been alive. so >>>>>>> no: children of an invading army would _not_ gain citizenship.
u really are _that_ intellectually negligent, eh?
sheesh
Okay then, no children of armies will be citizens. Wow what a relief! >>>>>
simple google search would have told you otherwise, but instead you >>>>> posted your total stupidity.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" should mean AT LEAST being a
resident. And not illegal aliens. Today we get very pregnant
visitors who stop by
... illegals aliens in us territory *are* subject to us
jurisdiction ...
for a week, pop out a kid and then move back home,
visitors having a us child has been precedence since even before
the 14th amendment, actually
to China or wherever. That kid is a US citizen.
You could get a guy who's lived his entire life in Beijing, a
member in the CCP, he moves back when he's 35 and he's eligible to >>>>>> run for President. How in any world does that make any sense?
...it's so incredibly ironic that the court case which firmly
established this for the 14th was involved a chinese american...
talk about being a fucking bigot dud
You fucking internationalists will ruin the country if you get
your way.
this has been set legal precedence for more than 200 years by now,
you fucking retard. like how fucking completely illiterate are you??? >>>>>
what's worse is the constitution does not even grant the feds the
right to regulate immigration. it only grants the specific power to >>>>> "naturalize" or regulate who becomes a voter. moving here is not
"naturalizing" so even just limiting immigration is a massive
federal overstep of the consitution as written.
but ofc, ur a fucking bigot, completely illiterate, and and
complain about policy that's been legal precedent for actually
centuries as if what now it's going to ruin the country???
fuck you u retarded dud, heavy immigration is literally one of
america's superpowers. we braindrain so much of the rest of the
world because of it
goddamn wilson ur such a fucking brainwashed loser. i still can't
believe i'm wasting my time responding to you.
Blah, blah, blah. Your ideas will turn the entire country into a
colder version of Rio's Favelas.
i love how much you hate what profiteering did with the rest of the
planet, it's such validation that capitalism is an abject shitshow of
cherry-picked stupidity
Blaming everything that happens on free markets it such a commie move.
On 7/1/2026 5:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:27 PM, Dude wrote:Get a grip, Nick!
On 7/1/2026 3:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 2:58 PM, Dude wrote:So, I'm going to go with my first comment. Most homeless people do
On 7/1/2026 2:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:55 PM, Dude wrote:What about the homeless people living down your street?
On 6/29/2026 11:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:00 PM, Wilson wrote:Subject; changed the topic; cross-posted to a death cult and
On 6/29/2026 2:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 10:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/29/2026 1:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 6:57 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/28/26 4:04 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/28/2026 12:51 PM, dart200 wrote:let's be realistic dud: capitalism is now failing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve standards
On 6/28/26 12:32 PM, Dude wrote:Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need more - like a heat pump and a personal bidet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/28/2026 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Why would Wilson scream in agony about the affordable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing crises in Canada?
I bet that, if you build enough new low cost houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich people will
get tired of buying them all.-a Rich people, first of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, get rich by
not wasting money.
Wealth inequality is certainly a problem, but not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excuse for not
building low cost housing.-a I bet, building houses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be easier and
more likely, than somehow forcing rich people to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be rich any more.
I can hear wilson screaming in agony now.-a But he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not care how
many houses you build.
The obvious solution is to build up affordable tiny >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> home villages, but the red tape is too steep for most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builders.
dud proposes we cut the square foot per average person >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down...
The world did not begin when you were born Nick. And the >>>>>>>>>>>>> last twenty or thirty years does not define all of existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
look u dumb as shit banking bro:
if capitalist stops bringing increased prosperity, then you >>>>>>>>>>>> lose the justification for letting wealthy continue to hoard >>>>>>>>>>>> extreme wealthy
it doesn't matter if capitalist worked half a century ago if >>>>>>>>>>>> it stops working today. continuing to use an economic system >>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't working as it should, is fucking insane wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>
How do you know it's not working today?
why don't you use the context of the conversation to answer >>>>>>>>>> that u illiterate dud?
What, housing prices? Pfft. Yes they are too expensive. Cause? >>>>>>>>> 25% of the US population are immigrants. Restrictions on new >>>>>>>>> construction in
this is just u being a fucking racist, wilson
immigration and population growth does not correlate in the
slightest. 1960s for example had pretty damn near bottom
immigration rates ... but basically the top of the 1900s. our >>>>>>>> pop growth during the 2010s was damn near the great depression lows >>>>>>>>
many of the places people want to live reduces supply below >>>>>>>>> demand. Interest rates for mortgages are too high because of >>>>>>>>> government debt driving up bond yields.
All caused by government policy. All fixable.
year | pop | houses | pop/house
1970-a-a 200M-a 68M-a-a-a-a-a 2.9
1980-a-a 225M-a 85M-a-a-a-a-a 2.6
1990-a-a 250M-a 100M-a-a-a-a 2.5
2000-a-a 280M-a 115M-a-a-a-a 2.4
2010-a-a 308M-a 131M-a-a-a-a 2.3
2020-a-a 330M-a 140M-a-a-a-a 2.3
the us "housing crisis" officially began in 2006, a time when we >>>>>>>> had record amounts of housing per person. we still have quite a >>>>>>>> bit more housing per capital than the 1900s.
pop growth is low (so it's not immigration). homes per capita is >>>>>>>> high (so it's not building rates). yet housing is still
unaffordable, because you think govt debt is somehow the problem >>>>>>>> with mortgages being unable to keep up with the rising house
costs???
well if mortgages are so unaffordable, wilson ... WHO IN THE
FUCK IS DRIVING UP COSTS THEN????
-a-a> u can't build ur way out of wealth inequality, retard
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
honestly wilson i don't know why i'm bothering here. not only >>>>>>>> are you economically retarded you are fucking delusional racist >>>>>>>> who can't even remotely manage basic fact checking on your
arguments. the fuck you think you know anything about economics >>>>>>>> if you can't even fucking bother to count... stupid af banking >>>>>>>> dipshit
nvm the fact that the housing problem is damn near universal
across the globe at this point, except for basically japan
because they're so damn culturally depressed they can't even
figure out how to keep their population numbers up. the fuck u >>>>>>>> think us govt policy is going to solve literally a global
problem at this point???
i'm really fucking tired of being stuck on a planet of fucking >>>>>>>> goddamn fucking retards. i hope u all die horribly in a nuclear >>>>>>>> holocaust when whoever the fuck total dumbass that comes after >>>>>>>> trump starts WWIII
-a-a> and shut the fuck up dud, u don't fucking care either
-a-a>Listen up, you dumb fucker. You snipped out my comments; >>>>>>>> altered the
posed a query about Wilson's literacy. That's being dishonest and >>>>>>> really dumb.
As far as I'm concerned you are a manipulator and a nut case.
Nobody can take you seriously - even with porn emojis. YMMV.
Here are some reasons homeless people can't get a house to live in: >>>>>>>
Too much red tape for the average street person with a dog.
You've got to have an ID and a passport and at least a mailing
address.
To purchase a home you need to get a realtor and fill out some
paper work. Then, you've got to go to a bank or a credit union
and fill out some paperwork.
Then, you have to get with an insurance agent and fill out some >>>>>>> papers to get an insurance quote; then you have an inspection
report, and fill out some papers. Then you have fill out some
more papers to register the house of your choice and fill out
some papers to get a copy of the title and the receipt for paying >>>>>>> the property tax.
Old Air Force saying:
"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plane, you >>>>>>> can take off."
dud you are a total waste of oxygen
You going to give them an affordable housing with no red tape?
Are you serious? And, you want to bring in more homeless from all
over the world? Are you nuts?
You don't even care about your own people.
we already built enough housing for them dud
not have the documentation to own even a shelter, much less an
affordable home, Nick.
Why?
Most homeless people have zero documentation to even apply for
assistance. Just face recognition at a soup line.
Red tape. Who needs it?
imagine having a public id service that allowed anyone to id anyone...
but oh no muh privacy???!?!?!
Homeless people starving on you street don't need more red tape to get
in a soup line.
Are you nuts or what? Many homeless don't even know who they are.
Everyone is different, Nick
well yeah capitlalists are basically scared fucking pathetic childrenLet me be clear, Nick: Let's be realistic, Nick. Most homeless people
when it comes to being honest or truthful about anything as basic as
their identity.
will do fine inside a tiny home of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need
more - like a heat pump and a personal bidet. YMMV.
You have a white, privileged, materialistic and racist attitude toward homeless people. That makes you trailer trash, Nick.god u fucks are pathetic
What's needed is boots on the ground: you working for Habitat For
-a-a> we have a distribution problem, not a building problem
Humanity.
Make a difference!
u haven't accurately identified the problem yet dud, so u have no
basis for providing a useful recommendation on what's needed
On 6/30/2026 6:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/30/26 4:07 PM, Dude wrote:Let me be clear: people are starving and homeless right down the street
On 6/29/2026 11:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/29/26 1:02 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:This isn't the third world, Nick. These are real people that are
Hurricane Katrina led to many house building
innovations blocked by cabalistic codes.
eg, steel stud construction, prebuilt plug-and-play walls
or even entire stackable apartments.
maybe u fucks should look outside the 1st world for second:
lack of red tape in the 3rd world ain't a fucking magic bullet for
housing u dingus
homeless down the street from your cozy crib. Too much ed tape to get
a home, or even a room. Get real, Nick.
u didn't understand the argument so u provided an incoherent response.
from where you live in a cozy crib.
Be realistic, Nick: Most homeless people will do fine inside a tiny home
of 560 sq ft. A materialist may need more - like a heat pump and a
personal bidet.
Everyone is different.
basically the only country without a housing crisis is japan ...
cause they can't even keep their population up
On 7/2/2026 5:46 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/2/2026 2:16 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/2/2026 12:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 5:45 PM, Dude wrote:
On 7/1/2026 1:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 1:38 PM, Dude wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, Nick.
Is there any country on the planet that ever had open borders? >>>>>>>>
No country on the planet currently has completely open borders >>>>>>>> for all individuals, as every recognized sovereign state
maintains laws to regulate entry, residency, and citizenship.
-a-a> the wealthy have shit all over basic freedom of movement
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
anyone who isn't for basic freedom of movement isn't for freedom >>>>>>> at all
the fact suppose lIbeRtArIaNs are endlessly crying about people >>>>>>> moving freely is just fucking joke u stupid bigot
A counter-perspective within libertarian views argues that
absolute "freedom of movement" can violate property rights.
While they favor unrestricted movement on un-owned or truly public >>>>>> property.
They believe that accessing someone else's property, without
consent (including the private property of citizens or
neighborhoods) is an act of trespass and a violation of the Non-
Aggression Principle (NAP).
In a republic the owners of a country are its citizens.
which is why they can redistribute the lands
Authoritarian collectivism? Again?
You're cutting out. Private landowners can't redistribute state owned
land, can they?
Private landowners certainly don't have that power. Though the State can
of course. Noah and Nick might not see any problem there if it gets done
by a nice smiling Democratic Socialist like Mamdani. That of course
would be after he seizes all of the "mismanaged" private property he can
get his hands on.
On 7/2/2026 12:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/2/26 6:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/1/2026 8:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/1/26 3:13 PM, Dude wrote:
Many libertarians argue that while open borders are the ideal in a
truly free market, they can be highly problematic in a system with
government- funded welfare, public schools, and subsidized healthcare. >>>>>
Some believe that open borders are unworkable as long as a generous >>>>> welfare state exists. They argue immigration restrictions are
necessary to prevent the bankruptcy of public services.
Hope this helps.
these "lIbErTaRiAnS" apparently don't believe the free market will
actually bring wealth and prosperity to everyone who participates...
deep down they all know the ideology is actually just corrupt
bullcrap, and the apparent prosperity of the america comes down to
actually just exploiting people across nation state borders
ur such human garbage dud
Nick doesn't care that open borders will result in the impoverishment
of the current citizens.
... and wilson doesn't care about the billions of people who already
ended up impoverished because of being born on the poor side nation-
state capitalism ...
see if capitalism worked to bring prosperity to all: then u'd support
open borders
but the fact u don't support open borders is admitting capitalism
doesn't actually work like u bleat on and on about how much it does
and what ... i'm supposed to care about the millions who lucked out on
wealthier side of nation-state capitalism???
-a-a> actually address the critique in full u damned bigot
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
The billions of people currently living in impoverished circumstances
need to do what our equally impoverished forefathers did. Protect
property, incentivize creativity, don't restrict speech, and protect the individual from centralized authoritarianism and collectivist tyranny.
That's what will lead them to prosperity. Moving them all here and
putting them on the doll will only impoverish this country as well.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:37:19 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |
