PDA

View Full Version : Tell me if I'm in the right place




BAllen
11-13-2012, 09:00 PM
I'm new here, and I think this is the right forum for me, but I'm not sure.
I consider myself a conservative nationalist. I supported Pat Buchanan when he ran. I believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in protecting the U.S. Our interests come first. Tariffs are in the Constitution, so I don't see any problems there. The marxists have taken over the Democrat Party. They claim to be all inclusive, but their policies like affirmative action and hate speech/crime laws do otherwise. I believe smaller federal government would allow us to flourish on a personal level, and accomplish much more.

amonasro
11-13-2012, 09:05 PM
Absolutely! Stick around, it can get pretty crazy sometimes.

Origanalist
11-13-2012, 09:05 PM
Stick around for a while and decide for yourself. Welcome.

angelatc
11-13-2012, 09:11 PM
There's quite a few Buchanan fans here. There's also quite a few not-a-Buchanan-fans around here. Somehow it works.

So welcome home!

trey4sports
11-13-2012, 09:23 PM
Welcome. We are a diverse bunch with a common support of individual freedoms. We will probably clash heads on free-trade but that is ok :p

Cleaner44
11-13-2012, 09:26 PM
Fully anti-Marxist, regardless of party as they also exist as Republicans. Those BIG GOVT Republicans are no friends of Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.

BAllen
11-14-2012, 06:15 AM
Thanks! Glad to be here! There's only a couple of issues I don't agree with RP on.

phill4paul
11-14-2012, 06:31 AM
Thanks! Glad to be here! There's only a couple of issues I don't agree with RP on.

You'll never agree with anyone 100%. That said, these forums are pretty good about causing one question their current beliefs. I have. On several issues. Welcome aboard!

Occam's Banana
11-14-2012, 06:59 AM
I'm new here, and I think this is the right forum for me, but I'm not sure.
I consider myself a conservative nationalist. I supported Pat Buchanan when he ran. I believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in protecting the U.S. Our interests come first. Tariffs are in the Constitution, so I don't see any problems there. The marxists have taken over the Democrat Party. They claim to be all inclusive, but their policies like affirmative action and hate speech/crime laws do otherwise. I believe smaller federal government would allow us to flourish on a personal level, and accomplish much more.

Well, if you can tolerate rubbing virtual shoulders with paleo-cons, trad. cons, soft- and hard-core libertarians (of both the left and right varieties). minarchists and outright anarchists (I'm one of those), I don't think you'll have any problems at all ... although you'll *very* likely have quite a few arguments. ;)

If that's not a problem, then welcome to RPFs!

Todd
11-14-2012, 07:17 AM
Buchanan fan here.

presence
11-14-2012, 07:31 AM
I'm new...
I think this...
I'm not...
I consider...
I supported...
I believe...
I also believe...
I don't see any...
I believe...

I like this guy.

thoughtomator
11-14-2012, 08:26 AM
As long as you sincerely believe in human liberty, we'll get along just fine.

fisharmor
11-14-2012, 09:27 AM
Thanks! Glad to be here! There's only a couple of issues I don't agree with RP on.

As long as you line up 100% with him on immigration, then you'll probably get along with everyone.

Origanalist
11-14-2012, 09:35 AM
As long as you line up 100% with him on immigration, then you'll probably get along with everyone.

Dat's funny.......

Uriah
11-14-2012, 09:40 AM
I was riding my big wheel tri-cycle when Pat Buchanan ran for president. Ah, the good life...

angelatc
11-14-2012, 09:57 AM
Dat's funny.......

LOL - that's trolling...:)

BAllen
11-14-2012, 08:39 PM
Uh, yea right........okay
Hate to break it to you, but that was one of the issues. We need a hardline stand against immigration as Pat Buchanan said on the Sean Hannity show the other day. Congress has cut down on immigration in the past. It is time again. It certainly won't help the unemployment numbers allowing more people here, will it? And, they aren't required to know the constitution anymore. The marxists will line up with their trinkets to get their votes.

BAllen
11-14-2012, 08:43 PM
As long as you line up 100% with him on immigration, then you'll probably get along with everyone.

Actually, that's one of the issues I don't agree with him on. We need a moratorium on all immigration as Pat Buchanan said on the Sean Hannity show the other day. Congress has cut immigration before. It is time again. More people will not help the unemployment numbers will they? And the marxists are waiting with their trinkets to bribe them for votes when they cross the border. They aren't required to know anything about our government or the constitution anymore, so it reall won't do any good to have them here, will it?

Sorry for the double post. Didn't know there was a choice for quotes. Can I delete the first one?

Origanalist
11-14-2012, 08:52 PM
Actually, that's one of the issues I don't agree with him on. We need a moratorium on all immigration as Pat Buchanan said on the Sean Hannity show the other day. Congress has cut immigration before. It is time again. More people will not help the unemployment numbers will they? And the marxists are waiting with their trinkets to bribe them for votes when they cross the border. They aren't required to know anything about our government or the constitution anymore, so it reall won't do any good to have them here, will it?

Sorry for the double post. Didn't know there was a choice for quotes. Can I delete the first one?

Just erase all of it and put in a couple// or whatever.

amy31416
11-14-2012, 08:53 PM
Uh, yea right........okay
Hate to break it to you, but that was one of the issues. We need a hardline stand against immigration as Pat Buchanan said on the Sean Hannity show the other day. Congress has cut down on immigration in the past. It is time again. It certainly won't help the unemployment numbers allowing more people here, will it? And, they aren't required to know the constitution anymore. The marxists will line up with their trinkets to get their votes.

Immigration isn't even close to the top of my list of priorities, but I'm with Buchanan about 85% of the way. I'd vote for him.

Welcome. :)

Origanalist
11-14-2012, 08:55 PM
Immigration was one of my disagreements with RP too. However I was willing to trade that against ending the welfare-warfare state.

Feeding the Abscess
11-15-2012, 03:08 PM
Actually, that's one of the issues I don't agree with him on. We need a moratorium on all immigration as Pat Buchanan said on the Sean Hannity show the other day. Congress has cut immigration before. It is time again. More people will not help the unemployment numbers will they? And the marxists are waiting with their trinkets to bribe them for votes when they cross the border. They aren't required to know anything about our government or the constitution anymore, so it reall won't do any good to have them here, will it?

Sorry for the double post. Didn't know there was a choice for quotes. Can I delete the first one?

How else to enforce immigration controls than to hand the federal government massive authority, regulatory power, tax dollars, and manpower, and how will you prevent those new tools from being used for things other than immigration? Or, more pointedly, strictly used to prevent people from coming in?

jllundqu
11-15-2012, 03:12 PM
Unlike the freaking GOP... Liberty actually is a big tent.

Welcome

Omphfullas Zamboni
11-15-2012, 03:18 PM
Welcome!

We have all sorts. This places is like the Island of Misfit Toys. Remember, when you bump up against people whom you feel are lowering the quality of discussion, the forum has a feature that lets you put folks on the your ignore list.

Origanalist
11-15-2012, 03:20 PM
Welcome!

We have all sorts. This places is like the Island of Misfit Toys. Remember, when you bump up against people whom you feel are lowering the quality of discussion, the forum has a feature that lets you put folks on the your ignore list.

Is that why nobody responds to me???? :eek:

Origanalist
11-15-2012, 03:21 PM
Hello? Hello???

Omphfullas Zamboni
11-15-2012, 03:34 PM
Hello there.

Origanalist
11-15-2012, 03:36 PM
Whew!

erowe1
11-15-2012, 03:36 PM
I'm new here, and I think this is the right forum for me, but I'm not sure.
I consider myself a conservative nationalist. I supported Pat Buchanan when he ran. I believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in protecting the U.S. Our interests come first. Tariffs are in the Constitution, so I don't see any problems there. The marxists have taken over the Democrat Party. They claim to be all inclusive, but their policies like affirmative action and hate speech/crime laws do otherwise. I believe smaller federal government would allow us to flourish on a personal level, and accomplish much more.

You're in the right place. A lot of us were a lot like what you described when we started here. The forum is probably a lot more libertarian now than it was at one point. But if you stick around, you might say a year from now that you will have become a lot more libertarian too.

Whatever you do, be very careful what you say in the forum called "Ron Paul Grassroots Central." In fact, I really don't recommend you post anything there until you get to know some of the little peccadilloes about how some moderators interpret the rules.

presence
11-15-2012, 05:31 PM
stir that shit, it helps it compost

Origanalist
11-15-2012, 05:54 PM
stir that shit, it helps it compost

Heh, heh

otherone
11-16-2012, 07:31 AM
It certainly won't help the unemployment numbers allowing more people here, will it? And, they aren't required to know the constitution anymore.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

If native born folk knew the Constitution, and held our government accountable to it, we wouldn't be in this mess. Blaming our economic woes on immigrants instead of our indigenous ignorant and apathetic populace is unproductive hate-mongering. Welcome, btw. Love Buchanan. :)

BAllen
11-16-2012, 08:49 AM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

If native born folk knew the Constitution, and held our government accountable to it, we wouldn't be in this mess. Blaming our economic woes on immigrants instead of our indigenous ignorant and apathetic populace is unproductive hate-mongering. Welcome, btw. Love Buchanan. :)

Unproductive hate-mongering? Marxist critical theory. You did not answer the question. You simply attacked. How will immigration help our unemployment?

erowe1
11-16-2012, 08:52 AM
How will immigration help our unemployment?

More immigration=more consumers.

But really, should the federal government even be concerned about unemployment at all? Since when is it their job to manipulate the economy?

BAllen
11-16-2012, 09:00 AM
More immigration=more consumers.

But really, should the federal government even be concerned about unemployment at all? Since when is it their job to manipulate the economy?

That is illogical. If there aren't enough jobs for the current population, bringing in more will make it worse. Where will they work?

brushfire
11-16-2012, 09:04 AM
Open boarder immigration cant work with the current welfare state, and only serves the big government/corporatist status quo.
Unless of course, the intention is to rush the collapse of the USA - then go ahead. Its the fastest means to an end.

As with all things government, I believe we do need to drastically cut back. Immigration law is no exception. Its pretty difficult to do things legally, because of all the red tape. Laws should be "contained", clear and concise. Those who will fall subject to the law should be able to understand them without needing legal counsel. Those who enforce the laws should also be able to easily understand them. 2000+ page laws are unacceptable.

There's a lot of house cleaning in order before we start "inviting guests"... Maybe when we're done spreading democracy abroad, we can take care of things at home...

Welcome to the forum.

erowe1
11-16-2012, 09:30 AM
That is illogical. If there aren't enough jobs for the current population, bringing in more will make it worse. Where will they work?

You say that as if there's some finite pool of jobs out there, and when one person has one that's one less for someone else to have.

BAllen
11-16-2012, 10:38 AM
You say that as if there's some finite pool of jobs out there, and when one person has one that's one less for someone else to have.

Your illogic is the same as quantitive easing theory. Print more money to stimulate the economy. Bring in more people to stimulate the unemployment.

erowe1
11-16-2012, 10:47 AM
Your illogic is the same as quantitive easing theory. Print more money to stimulate the economy. Bring in more people to stimulate the unemployment.

I don't think the quantity of currency in circulation should be up to the government. Nor do I think the quantity of people in some region of land should.

But again, since there's not some finite pool of jobs, how is it that more people equates to more unemployment? What's the limit of the number of people who can work in a given space of, say, the size of Manhattan?

BAllen
11-16-2012, 11:44 AM
I don't think the quantity of currency in circulation should be up to the government. Nor do I think the quantity of people in some region of land should.

But again, since there's not some finite pool of jobs, how is it that more people equates to more unemployment? What's the limit of the number of people who can work in a given space of, say, the size of Manhattan?

It is the same illogic. Printing more money does not stimulate the economy any more than more people will decrease the unemployment.

erowe1
11-16-2012, 11:50 AM
It is the same illogic. Printing more money does not stimulate the economy any more than more people will decrease the unemployment.

I think it might be you who's doing that.

A centrally managed money supply is one that allows the government to print more money. A centrally managed workforce is one that allows the government to decide how many people can work here.

A free market advocate wouldn't support the government doing either of those.

And even if more people doesn't decrease unemployment. It won't increase it either. Will it?

otherone
11-16-2012, 12:29 PM
I think it might be you who's doing that.

A centrally managed money supply is one that allows the government to print more money. A centrally managed workforce is one that allows the government to decide how many people can work here.



This is what self-proclaimed "nationalists" like the OP don't understand. "Nationalists" (read:Statists) believe societies problems are best resolved through a central authority. These are the same people who believe they are Americans first, and Free Men second.

BAllen
11-16-2012, 12:32 PM
This is what self-proclaimed "nationalists" like the OP don't understand. "Nationalists" (read:Statists) believe societies problems are best resolved through a central authority. These are the same people who believe they are Americans first, and Free Men second.

Some government is necessary, yes. Even the Constitution allows for tariffs, doesn't it?

erowe1
11-16-2012, 12:35 PM
Some government is necessary, yes. Even the Constitution allows for tariffs, doesn't it?

It allows for an income tax and conscription too. It used to allow for government protecting the rights of some people to own others. Do you think that all it takes to make something legitimate is writing it in the Constitution?

otherone
11-16-2012, 01:10 PM
Some government is necessary, yes. Even the Constitution allows for tariffs, doesn't it?


from wikipedia:

A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, 'covenant'), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the latter.

The Federal government has usurped power from the people in this country from the day the Constitution was ratified. This Federal government has done whatever the hell it wants by having the SCOTUS rubber-stamp whatever they needed from whomever they wanted. And yet you believe that 'somehow' the magical federal government should and must handle immigration? Only when monied special interests can profit from controlling undocumented immigration will congress be interested.

dannno
11-16-2012, 01:21 PM
I believe in individual freedoms, but I also believe in protecting the U.S. Our interests come first.

Wait, which is it :confused:

Do you mean you believe in protecting YOUR individual freedoms and protecting YOUR interests comes first, or do you ACTUALLY believe that all individuals should be free as long as they don't hurt anybody, steal or damage their property?

otherone
11-16-2012, 01:58 PM
Wait, which is it :confused:

Do you mean you believe in protecting YOUR individual freedoms and protecting YOUR interests comes first,

Nice catch. The collectivist "our" has reared it's ugly head. Like I said, it's America FIRST, and Freedom second for them. The only difference between the John Birchers and their wily Emmanuel Goldstein opposition is in what direction to point this monolithic authoritarian government.

PauliticsPolitics
11-16-2012, 02:54 PM
Hey BAllen!
Welcome. I just wanted to jump in since some of the comments are already getting heated.
You are certainly in the right place.
What makes this forum great is that we do not all agree on everything. That is what fosters useful discussion. We do all tend to agree that liberty is key, and the federal government (both parties) is the main tool which has eroded such liberty.
Not everyone agrees as to what "liberty" means exactly. For instance, search the forum for pro-life / pro-choice threads, and you will see there is a liberty-minded argument on both sides of that issue.
Also, everyone certainly doesn't agree on the exact path back to liberty.
I think you will find that you will agree with 80% of the people 80% of the time here.
In my opinion, that is a great balance, as there is enough common ground to have theoretical discussion, but enough difference so that ideas are debated and hence improved.
If you were to find a (hypothetical) forum that just agreed with you 100% of the time, it wouldn't really achieve any true discussion. (And also, that forum might only have one person as a member so to achieve the true 100% consensus!) On the opposite end, if you are on a forum that has people who share no foundational theory, then you just end up talking into a wall.
So, I hope you stick around.
Issues like immigration are complex and merit discussion. So I am happy that this forum has differing views and I welcome the Buchanan-esque view.
I personally think that the real problem does not lie in immigration policy, but in welfare benefits like unemployment for citizens.
Illegal immigrants most often take jobs that are labor-intensive at low pay. Let's take "picking berries in rural New Mexico for $5/hr" as an example. The average american citizen, (let's say some dude in Akron, OH) does not particularly want to move to rural NM for this job, and he wants way more that $5/hr for any job because he has been living under unrealistic minimum wage laws. From his point of view, he would rather just file for welfare or unemployment than move to NM for the berry-picking job. However, if such welfare did not exist, then he might be motivated enough to move to NM and take the job. The employer would probably rather have a legal citizen who knows the language, someone who he doesn't have to hide from the books, etc. The only reason that the employer takes the illegal immigrant is because that dude in Akron has no motivation to even consider the job.
With this in mind, illegal immigrants are not taking jobs from Americans, but instead filling jobs vacated by Americans who have been trained to be lazy and dependent on the government welfare systems. If the government stopped giving people money for not working, then those people would be motivated to work, and illegal immigrants would not even be a concern.
So in my opinion, the root problem is this "paying american's not to work" thing that our government loves. I believe that until we address that, local governments will be happy to accept illegal immigrants since those people are actually motivated to work for the companies therein.

BAllen
11-16-2012, 07:40 PM
Welfare is part of the equation, yes. Enforcement through attrition is another path. Take away the incentives, and they would not want to come. But, the don't ask don't tell policy for welfare qualifications negates that. And, you could say that farmers take welfare from the government when they are paid to raise (or not raise) certain crops. Then there's Walmart that pays shit wages, but has government forms on hand to sign people up for welfare when they start work. So, that in essence, is the government subsidizing cheap labor for them, isn't it?
But, back to the point. Immigration is out of hand, and creates more problems than it solves. More people means more roads, schools, etc. which raises the tax burden. Since they also get welfare, they are taking more out of the system than they are putting into it. And, we haven't even covered the diseases they bring here, have we?

Occam's Banana
11-16-2012, 07:50 PM
And, you could say that farmers take welfare from the government when they are paid to raise (or not raise) certain crops.

Not only could I say that, I *do* say that. ;)

erowe1
11-16-2012, 09:39 PM
they are taking more out of the system than they are putting into it.

What do you base that on?

otherone
11-16-2012, 10:37 PM
And, we haven't even covered the diseases they bring here, have we?

lol. Now I know you're trolling. No one can be THAT xenophobic. "BAllen"...Barry Allen? The Flash's secret identity used by Frank Abagnale Jr as a nom du crime in "Catch Me if You Can"?

BAllen
11-17-2012, 09:30 AM
What do you base that on?

Mexifornia