The media will frame it as a barely contained pot about to boil over.
The media has already been framing US cities like this for quite some time. Do not let that stop you. If they do not have enough civil unrest to justify oppression, they will manufacture it. If they can't manufacture it, they will fabricate evidence of it. Do not discourage protests for the sake of appearing civil and moderate.
Historically, forcing a country into unreasonably high debt immediately following a war... is a pretty bad idea for literally all parties involved.
Man, lotta vague libertarian energy here, but to answer your question:
Why nickel and dime everyone that is probably never going to even see the fountain instead of letting the people that want/need pay for it?
In general, the answer to this usually boils down to one of two answers:
choosing instead to directly nickel and dime people at the point of service comes with overhead and is wildly inefficient. You want to add an internet connection to every public water fountain? Or at the very least wire them with electricity to power some kind of vending machine system? Or perhaps have a person standing there to charge people? Someone will have to pay extra for any additional steps in what could otherwise just be, well, a simple faucet.
More often than not, the people that need things the most are not the people who can pay for them. These people still need to survive, because letting the poor suffer and die will still cost you and everyone else money.
And study after study shows that when we all pay a little to help people in general, we can all save a lot in, say, street sanitization, law enforcement, healthcare services, etc. Things that you have to provide especially if people can't afford it.
Thanks. I'm glad you can discuss these issues that involve the rapid and violent upheaval of people's lives with apathetic disinterest. Boy do I feel stupid for caring more than you, eh?
... Then you're for immigration, but also oppose immigration to the United States right now? Presumably because of economic reasons? That's just being against immigration with extra qualifiers.
The whole point is that neither immigration nor deportation - more immigrants coming in or more immigrants leaving - neither will result in any material change to the problems you have with the nation's current state. Wave a magic wand and deport them all, healthcare won't be cheaper the next day. Wave a magic wand and lock the southern border from coast to coast and your food won't be cheaper either.
Immigration is not causing any of the significant and systemic problems that the United States is currently facing, and so there's no sense in... what, exactly?
Waiting for the problems to get better before you would accept more immigrants? Some utopian moment in time when you would actually be for immigration in the United States? What would that time look like to you, and why would current or future immigration stand in the way of reaching that point?
I'm saying that the US has so many issues that mass immigration will never help when you can’t even take care of the people who are already there.
That's the thing, though. You can take care of the people already here. There is more than enough wealth, natural resources, land, food, energy... you name it, we have more than enough of it and can make more than enough of it. The point is the people in power choose not to. One or one million, immigrants will not take away anything from the lives of citizens that hasn't already been taken away.
If you could wave a magic wand and deport every last immigrant, how would that take care of the citizens here? Crime would go down? No, statistically they commit less crimes per capita. Taxes would go down? No, as a group they pay far more in taxes than they could possibly take back in government spending.
The immense amount of wealth being hoarded by the powerful is already not being spent on improving people's lives, and every last dime of it will continue not being spent on improving people's lives.
You won't get another slice of the pie just because someone leaves. You won't end up with more value to be shared among less people... you will just end up with less people. People whose absence will actually make everything cost more, meaning the slice of the pie you do already hold will be worth less than before.
What is false, I stated their is no mechanism to bring fluoride topically back to the teeth where it is effective. You did nothing to refute this.
Besides the fact that flouride is metabolized and delivered to your calcified tissues, where it plays a role in the mineralization of your teeth? And that the mineralization of your teeth is the main mechanism in flouride reducing cavities? It's false because topical application isn't the only way flouride reduces cavities.
And we are not talking like anything could be a poison because even relatively small amount of fluoride introduced to the body can be harmful
... The majority of the time natural occuring levels or the levels introduced artificially are not harmful but that is not my point.
Even relatively small amounts can be harmful, so it's poison? But the majority of time it's not harmful. So how exactly is it poison?
I don't care if you claim to visit a wastewater plant or a fertilizer production site. I don't see the research you've done here. I care that you don't back up your claims with a single shred of evidence. If you want to make a point about how flouridation can be unnecessary, then you have provided some evidence there. Good work. If you want to claim that it's poison, then provide the evidence for that too.
Go ahead and block me, if you can't or won't do that.
I understand illegal immigration benefits the immigrants, thats a ridiculous point to feel the need to make.
Really?
Im concerned that illegal immigrant labor is akin to H1b or prison labor, where the worker has diminished rights and is abused more than other groups.
Are you concerned about them or not? If you're concerned about their quality of life, we should talk about how their quality of life here is better than it will be if they are deported. If you're not concerned about their quality of life, then don't pretend to be concerned and then change the subject when challenged on that concern.
And when you have one of the largest land masses on the planet, and some of the most valuable natural resources, and a declining birth rate and increasing childhood mortality, and the cost of your health care is entirely caused by artificial scarcity... hm. Maybe the problem isn't immigrants.
I'm concerned that illegal immigrant labor is akin to H1b or prison labor, where the worker has diminished rights and is abused more than other groups.
Did it occur to you that even with the diminished rights and abuse, they still chose to immigrate? And that they still wish to stay?
You're not protecting them by deporting them. If you want to protect them and help the economy, give them a path to citizenship so that they can continue to work essential jobs while receiving the labor protections of citizens that - oh, whoops. Those protections are being threatened too. Almost like the people doing the deportations have no interest in protecting people and are actively harming them.
There is no evidence ingesting Fluoride, which is a poison, is good for the body. There is no mechanism in the human body to return Fluoride to the teeth topically where it is proven effective once ingested.
This is false. Ingested flouride is distributed to calcified tissues throughout the body, including teeth. In fact, dental flourosis (the actual, clinical symptom of overabsorption of flouride during development) is only possible because of ingestion during early childhood (including before you even have exposed teeth) and even then the symptoms are usually limited to aesthetics.
Fluoride is an avid mineralized tissue seeker. Approximately 99% of all fluoride retained in the human body is found in mineralized tissues, mainly in bone but also in enamel and dentin.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21701189/
The only claim that you backed up with a source is "flouride less effective now that people also get flouride from toothpaste." Which is not surprising or controversial. You did not provide evidence that it's poison, or that metabolized flouride is somehow ineffective compared to localized flouride, which would be nonsense. Flouride plays a role in the mineralization of your teeth, and while it might have an antimicrobial effect in your oral bioflora, its primary mechanism is structural and not limited to topical application.
I have seen an unbelievably compelling body of evidence that cigarrettes are poison, and so chemically addictive that no, it's not a normal choice a person makes. People often "choose" to quit long before they actually manage to quit.
I have not seen a compelling body of evidence that flouride is poison, and you haven't changed that. And associating it with fertilizers isn't some gotcha - it's a byproduct of converting sulfuric acid to phosphoric acid via phosphate-containing minerals, it's not like we're extracting it from cow dung.
If heavy metals are being added to tap water as part of the process - which again citation needed - that has nothing to do with the safety of flouride itself and everything to do with the regulations and regulatory bodies that should be in place to prevent that and monitor tap water for concentrations of substances that have been proven to be poisonous when ingested.
Oh my god. They sealioned you about the concept of sealioning. Why did I make it this far? What is it about all this weaponized nonsense that draws me like a nature documentary?