I just want to vent (spontaneously)

[Diamond7]

. So there's no reason to believe that they were five star hotels at the time they were occupied by these winos and drunks.

I am not an expert on NYC real estate. We know the city paid $174 million or something like that. We paid $40,000. It was across the street from Goodyears corp offices. They got upset looking at homeless people and bought the hotel for $60,000 and tore it down. There was actually two or three millon they put into fixing things up at the time. I had a friend that sold them some top soil from his 40 acres. The city would have taken over the building if we did not sell it to them.

My guess is that thny building is delict and scheduled for demolition and the city bought it for the price of the land. But I do not know that much about it and I do not care enough to do the research so I will just go with my assumption and you can disregard them if you want. Usually the city gets that sort of stuff when they are trying to collect the back taxes. They have to let people know they mean business when they collect their $3000 a year for the home we live in. Use to be they gave away property to anyone willing to pay the taxes on it. Even now you hear stories about homes selling for a dollar in Detroit or Baltimore that cost a million dollars in LA.

According to Bing

• The hotel underwent a $65 million renovation in the 1990s but faced challenges due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, affecting tourism and occupancy.

1. Market Value:
   • If we consider the average price for hotels, the Roosevelt—with its 1,015 rooms—would sell for approximately $636 million.
   • However, when comparing it to other hotels in Midtown Manhattan, its true comparables, the enterprise value could range between $1 billion and $1.4 billion2.

 

[expos4ever]

Your claim is you want to lock them out. Do not be surprised if you find yourself locked out because you want to treat others that way.

I never said I want to lock them out.

 

[expos4ever]

I do not remember anyone making that claim. Nice tap dance, I see you are trying to do the back stroke.

Discombobulated made that claim in post #1. However, having read your posts again, I apologize for suggesting that you were trying to dance away from that claim. On a second reading, I see no evidence that you were trying to do so.

The claim was never supported by the person who posted it.

 

[discombobulated1]

Code for "I made up the part about these being five-star hotels and was hoping no one would call me on it."

Right. Fox News just wanted once again to be accused by the left and RINOs of lying! Who doesn't love being accused of that???

so yeh, maybe if you watched Fox News instead of "lying cnn" as one commentator calls them

you'd know about illegals being put up in hotels... while just outside said hotels' doors, the homeless who didn't violate federal law to get here are (as always) neglected

 

[expos4ever]

Right. Fox News just wanted once again to be accused by the left and RINOs of lying! Who doesn't love being accused of that???

so yeh, maybe if you watched Fox News instead of "lying cnn" as one commentator calls them

you'd know about illegals being put up in hotels... while just outside said hotels' doors, the homeless who didn't violate federal law to get here are (as always) neglected

This is more obvious evasion.

You made a claim that illegals are were put up in 5 star hotels.

And now all you can do is tell me to "watch Fox".

If you have actual evidence, why are you not presenting it? All you need to do is post a link to a news source that claims that illegals were being up in 5 star hotels. The ball is now in your court.

 

[expos4ever]

you'd know about illegals being put up in hotels...

Your original claim was that they were put up in 5 star hotels.

We await evidence for this assertion which is hard to believe.

 

[Diamond7]

so yeh, maybe if you watched Fox News

I do not watch TV right now. Cable started off at $12 a month and when it got up to $100 I decided it was time to get rid of cable.

 

[Diamond7]

Don't need cable.

Yes, I do not much need TV. I can live without it.

 

[expos4ever]

It was on several news stations , broadcast tv, for weeks...

If it was on so many news stations, how come nobody can produce an actual link?

Very, very suspicious.

 

[expos4ever]

Color me shocked (/sarcasm). From Politifact about that allegedly honest news channel Fox:

In the video clip, Ingraham said, "You may not have stayed in a hotel in the past year, but illegals arriving since Biden’s inauguration, they get to stay free of charge."

Ingraham’s sweeping comment exaggerated the facts.

In San Diego, under an arrangement with local health authorities and a local nonprofit, migrants seeking asylum have been quarantining in a hotel before traveling elsewhere to await their court cases.

These migrants have been cleared by federal authorities to be in the country while they pursue their asylum claims, even if some entered unlawfully. Their hotel stays are part of public health measures to help contain the spread of COVID-19.

Ingraham’s claim contains an element of truth but gives a misleading impression by omitting important context about the circumstances of their hotel stays.

We rate this claim Mostly False

 

[expos4ever]

The grocery store has thousands of links, but I'm NOT going to go get one for you.

The grocery store? Are you making a joke?

People here often abdicate their clear responsibility to defend their claims with evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant - and in this instance, discombobulated1 is the claimant. If you agree with the claim about the 5 star hotels, you need to provide the evidence.

This sort of thing happens a lot here. Somebody comes up with a story that is highly suspicious and when challenged on it, they say "go look up the evidence yourself". Is it possible that discombobulated1 is right? Yes, but is deeply suspicious that he / she won't provide any evidence.

Let me try this tactic: There are unicorns in the woods here in Quebec

What? You want me to prove it? Go look up the evidence yourself.

Gee, that was easy.

 

[expos4ever]

robbreport.com › travel › destinations › slideshow › five-luxury-hotels-where-notorious-political-scandals-went-down

Five Luxury Hotels Where Notorious Political Scandals Went Down​

Political shenanigans are so entrenched in luxury hotels that virtually every modern scandal is named after D.C.'s Watergate hotel.

Of what relevance is this?

Where does article ever claim that illegal immigrants are being housed in 5 star hotels?

 

[Hans Blaster]

robbreport.com › travel › destinations › slideshow › five-luxury-hotels-where-notorious-political-scandals-went-down

Five Luxury Hotels Where Notorious Political Scandals Went Down​

Political shenanigans are so entrenched in luxury hotels that virtually every modern scandal is named after D.C.'s Watergate hotel.

Actually...

The Watergate scandal is named for the Watergate Office Complex which is where Nixon's burglars broke into the offices of DNC.

 

[expos4ever]

Anyone who is wise, seeks the truth.

Ok, let me try this strategy: There are unicorns in the woods. Don't believe me? You need to be wise and seek the truth.

Again, there is universal agreement that the person who makes the claim has the responsibility to provide the evidence. Asking others to "look it up" is cheating.

 

[expos4ever]

It is just the tip of the iceberg. People who want to know will find out.
Those who don't want to know won't.

Again: Where is the evidence that illegals have been housed in 5 star hotels?

The more I have to ask this question, the more it seems like the claim is a falsehood.

 

[expos4ever]

This is a common ploy when someone does not want to know the truth.

No, just no.

From Wikipedia

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Another site that discusses debates says:

An individual or group generally has a burden of proof with regard to any claims that they make, which means that they have to provide sufficient evidence in order to support those claims, either as part of their original argument, or in response to the claim being questioned.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If someone has invested 17 hours, or 230 hours , in research to find the truth ,
and since Scripture says basically give the worker proper wages/reimbursment .....

Either find a way to cover the time and effort , or do it yourself.

Where does your scripture say anything about appropriate worker wages? (I do know it give the proper compensation when your virgin daughter is raped.)

 

[expos4ever]

I want to provide evidence to support my assertion that those on the right (on this forum) often dodge their responsibilities to support their own claims. Usually this takes the form of replying to a challenge with a statement like "you can look up the evidence yourself".

This is an obviously illegitimate tactic called "shifting the burden of proof" and it is happening in this very thread: in post 1 of this thread it was claimed that illegals are being put up in 5 star hotels. And there has been nothing but dancing and evasion when the challenge has been issued to support this claim. Here are other examples of this tactic

Example 1: Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Someone claimed that some scientist support intelligent design. That was the initial claim for which the claimant bears responsibility to provide evidence when challenged. And so I challenged, thusly:

What scientists are those? Let's have some names.

The evasive reply was this:

Well, here in the US we have lots of “scientists” in the CDC to name but a few (go to their website).

Example 2: The issue here was the war in Gaza.

Someone challenged an Israel supporter's claim about something with this:

And your quote is from what source?

This is an entirely legit request - the Israel supporter has provided a quote to support their argument and, as such, that supporter, as claimant, has the responsibility to provide an answer if they are asked where they got the quote. The evasive reply was this:

You can do an internet search to find your preferred source.

Example 3: The issue was whether socialism was compatible with Christianity.

Someone on the "socialism is incompatible with Christianity" side of this claimed certain things happened. Again, as claimant that person has the obligation to provide evidence that these things actually happened. Here is what we got when they were challenged:

You know very well the events I described happed. You have google and access to multiple news sources just like everyone else on the forum. I stated truth, it matters not to me if you believe it or not. Not interested in playing the show me proof game. If I send links to proof articles the next step in the game to to question or berate the news source.

----------------------------------------------

The pattern is clear: those on the right frequently make a dubious claim and then refuse to provide evidence to support it when challenged. Now then, to my friends on the right, can you furnish any examples of those on the left employing this same illegitimate strategy?

By the way, I am not saying that people on the left never play this game, I am saying I cannot recall an instance of anyone "on the left" doing it in this forum.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Roosevelt was closed in 2020. The city reopened it to use for illegal immigrants. I worked on a simular project here where we remodeled an old run down hotel to use for housing for winos and drunks that were sleeping under the bridge. It is difficult to do things like that now with the drugs and prostitution. The police often go in and shut them down. There is a few that ruin it for everyone.

List of NYC hotels housing migrants - Google Search

Where does it say that “illegal” immigrants are being housed here? The articles say migrants they don’t say anything about them being illegal.

 

[Diamond7]

Where does it say that “illegal” immigrants are being housed here? The articles say migrants they don’t say anything about them being illegal.I thought you understood immigration. The headline clearly says they are asylum-seekers. It could take two or three years to be accepted or denied an application for that. My wife was in Hong Kong when China was taking over so she got special status for that. They processed her paperwork in one month instead of the normal five months. The only delay was in her getting the right paperwork to them.

All you have to do is show up at the boarder and claim political prosecution and you want assylm and bingo you are in. Of course getting it approved may take a bit more of a song and dance. We have an agency here that helps people with all of that stuff. They well give you the forms for free or you can download them from the internet. If you want them to fill the forms out for you, then you have to pay them to do that.

Of course back then it cost hundreds for what they are wanting thousands for now a day.