PDA

View Full Version : Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government




jabowery
09-15-2013, 02:04 PM
One of the chief modes of activism in support of liberty is to dispatch the anti-liberty "libertarians" who are trying to flood the US with big government voters.

The one statistic that should shut them up -- at least if made publicly where their bullsh*t answers are going to make them look like the mendacious scum they are to the public they are trying to destroy -- is this statistic from Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project "When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/v-politics-values-and-religion/)" figure 4.2:

"Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?"

US General population smaller/bigger 48% smaller 41% bigger
All Hispanics 19% smaller 75% bigger
First Generation Immigrant Hispanics 12% smaller 81% bigger
Second Generation Immigrant Hispanics 22% smaller 72% bigger
Third generation and higher 36% smaller 58% bigger

Moreover, this ignores the higher total fertility rates of the Hispanics hence their higher contribution to the eligible voting population.

JCDenton0451
09-17-2013, 06:30 AM
And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...:rolleyes:

Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

tod evans
09-17-2013, 07:15 AM
Has PEW ran this type of study for Indonesian immigrants? Or Slavic, how about Irish....Maybe African?

WTF makes "Hispanics" special?

JCDenton0451
09-17-2013, 07:18 AM
Hispanics Mexicans is by far the biggest immigrant group.

erowe1
09-17-2013, 07:19 AM
When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

erowe1
09-17-2013, 07:21 AM
Also, let's see some more polls on other issues. There's no need to single out social services.

How do Hispanic immigrants compare with the rest of the population in their views on policing the world and the war on drugs?

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 07:28 AM
One of the chief modes of activism in support of liberty is to dispatch the anti-liberty "libertarians" who are trying to flood the US with big government voters.

http://www.fotoblography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/straw-man-740x550.jpg

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/strawman.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TC0thVs0DoI/AAAAAAAAC3w/AfRWy2zTqPo/s1600/StrawMan.jpg



So I gave you one pic for each strawman in that one sentence.
There are actually quite a few more pics online, so I'm sure we can produce them for as long as you refuse (or are unable?) to understand the only libertarian position on immigration.

JCDenton0451
09-17-2013, 07:47 AM
When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

Tell that to the anti-abortion activists.;)

JCDenton0451
09-17-2013, 07:54 AM
Also, let's see some more polls on other issues. There's no need to single out social services.

How do Hispanic immigrants compare with the rest of the population in their views on policing the world and the war on drugs?
Why are you arguing for more Mexican immigration? What's your angle erowe1? You hope to convert them to Evangelicalism or something?

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 07:59 AM
Hey thanks for the neg rep, JCD.
So since apparently I'm the buffoon here, why don't we prove it by starting at the beginning again:

Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.

Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.

JCDenton0451
09-17-2013, 08:24 AM
1. As far as I'm concerned Constitution is a useful tool/framework for libertarian politics, but my views aren't derived from the US Constitution.

2. I believe it's dumb to support a policy based on an abstract concept in philosophy, regardless of its real-world practical consequences.

3. The real life consequence of Mexican immigration is millions of poor people, dependent on the government services, who tend to elect socialists. Decidedly unlibertarian outcome. fisharmo (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?17673-fisharmor)r may or may not be a true libertarian, but he is unquestionably an idiot for supporting unresticted immigration importation of poverty from Latin America.

4. For most voters pocketbook issues always trump foreign policy. For Mexican immigrants pocketbook issues include the free stuff they receive from the government. To think that Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world is absurd. erowe1 is a dumb person for thinking that way.

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 08:47 AM
1. As far as I'm concerned Constitution is a useful tool/framework for libertarian politics, but my views aren't derived from the US Constitution.

Ok, good. So here's my apology: I'm sorry for assuming you held a position. I've run into crap constitutional arguments against immigration a hundred times here.
So tell me, where do your views against immigration come from? Do you appeal to a particular authority, or is it that you view it as pragmatic?
If you are appealing strictly to pragmatism, how do you intend to implement pragmatic ideas as pragmatically as possible?


2. I believe it's dumb to support a policy based on an abstract concept in philosophy, regardless of its real-world practical consequences.
It would appear that you do consider it pragmatic.


3. The real life consequence of Mexican immigration is millions of poor people, dependent on the government services, who tend to elect socialists. Decidedly unlibertarian outcome.
This requires a belief that democratic process can result in libertarianism.
If you want to go pragmatic with this, fine. Admit that the democratic process universally results in socialism regardless of who is participating in it.
This is manifest and obvious.


fisharmo (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?17673-fisharmor)r may or may not be a true libertarian, but he is unquestionably an idiot for supporting unresticted immigration importation of poverty from Latin America.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U2kx9Gfisq4/Tf96N17xrNI/AAAAAAAADys/imDlh0yknqY/s400/Straw-man3.jpg

I particularly like the vest on this one.

You're making the argument that not using the state to crush a thing is the same as supporting that thing.


4. For most voters pocketbook issues always trump foreign policy. For Mexican immigrants pocketbook issues include the free stuff they receive from the government. To think that Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world is absurd. erowe1 is a dumb person for thinking that way.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/d/d3/Strawman.jpg

He asked what their positions are on other issues besides social services. At no point did he say "Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world".

erowe1
09-17-2013, 09:08 AM
Why are you arguing for more Mexican immigration? What's your angle erowe1? You hope to convert them to Evangelicalism or something?

I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it, yes, that's one very good reason.

But even apart from that, I wasn't arguing for more Mexican immigration. Whether more or fewer Mexicans want to move out of Mexico City's tax jurisdiction and into Washington DC's, is not really of any concern to me. I argue neither for nor against it. But I do argue against the policies that people who want to impede that immigration would put in place to do so. Notice how in this thread, there's no specification about what those policies ought to be. It's all in the abstract of whether immigration is good or bad. But once you get to the question, "What do you want to do about it?" then the anti-immigration folks really have nothing to offer that isn't clearly unethical. And my angle is looking at the ethics of these policies.

Christian Liberty
09-17-2013, 09:49 AM
I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it, yes, that's one very good reason.

But even apart from that, I wasn't arguing for more Mexican immigration. Whether more or fewer Mexicans want to move out of Mexico City's tax jurisdiction and into Washington DC's, is not really of any concern to me. I argue neither for nor against it. But I do argue against the policies that people who want to impede that immigration would put in place to do so. Notice how in this thread, there's no specification about what those policies ought to be. It's all in the abstract of whether immigration is good or bad. But once you get to the question, "What do you want to do about it?" then the anti-immigration folks really have nothing to offer that isn't clearly unethical. And my angle is looking at the ethics of these policies.

Its not complicated. Let them come, but forbid them from voting or getting welfare. Simple enough, IMO.

BamaAla
09-17-2013, 10:10 AM
Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 10:13 AM
Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.

That sounds.... pragmatic.

BamaAla
09-17-2013, 10:15 AM
That sounds.... pragmatic.

Aren't those fighting words 'round here?

JCDenton0451
09-17-2013, 10:16 AM
Undocumented LA County Parents on Pace to Receive $650M in Welfare Benefits (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/Undocumented-LA-County-Parents-On-Pace-to-Receive-650M-in-Welfare-Benefits)
Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has announced (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/09/16/undocumented-la-county-parents-projected-to-receive-650m-in-welfare-benefits/) that illegal alien parents in the county will collect a projected $650 million in welfare benefits in 2013. The data was collected from the Department of Public Social Services, which also stated that more than $376 million in CalWORKs benefits and food stamps combined were given to illegal alien parents for their native-born children.

Every month roughly $54 million is forthcoming in welfare payments, nearly $20 million in CalWORKs and $34 million in food stamps. The assistance is given to an estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents in the county.


Antonovich said that the $54 million issued in July 2013, as compared to the $53 million in July 2012, was further evidence of how much illegal immigration is costing the U.S. He said:



When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year. These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.

jabowery
09-17-2013, 01:52 PM
Hey thanks for the neg rep, JCD.
So since apparently I'm the buffoon here, why don't we prove it by starting at the beginning again:

Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.

Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".

puppetmaster
09-17-2013, 01:59 PM
The bell curve strikes again.

qh4dotcom
09-17-2013, 02:06 PM
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.

Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.

[...] and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion

Article 4 Section 4 US constitution

erowe1
09-17-2013, 02:13 PM
See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".

As tempting as it is to nitpick at each line of this nonsense, it's probably better to step back and notice that you still haven't said what it is that you want to do that you think the anti-liberty libertarians oppose. Let's say immigration is so bad, what can you do to stop it that isn't also bad?

James Madison
09-17-2013, 02:21 PM
See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".

I agree with all of this.

jabowery
09-17-2013, 02:39 PM
As tempting as it is to nitpick at each line of this nonsense, it's probably better to step back and notice that you still haven't said what it is that you want to do that you think the anti-liberty libertarians oppose. Let's say immigration is so bad, what can you do to stop it that isn't also bad?

Obviously there is nothing one can do to stop immigration that isn't bad. I mean even if all it cost was a Bazooka Joe cartoon collectible that would be BAD.

On the other thing, some of us -- called "PATriots" -- have, throughout history, been willing to sacrifice our very lives to preserve the territory bequeathed us by our fore-PATers who, themselves, held it by their very blood gushing from their veins.

erowe1
09-17-2013, 02:45 PM
Obviously there is nothing one can do to stop immigration that isn't bad. I mean even if all it cost was a Bazooka Joe cartoon collectible that would be BAD.

On the other thing, some of us -- called "PATriots" -- have, throughout history, been willing to sacrifice our very lives to preserve the territory bequeathed us by our fore-PATers who, themselves, held it by their very blood gushing from their veins.

You're really trying hard to avoid saying what you're actually for.

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 02:55 PM
Oh goody, I get to be the anti-constitutionalist pointing out what the constitution says, after all.

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter.
Yeah, only my "bullshit" is called "the dictionary".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalization
nat·u·ral·ize [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-]

verb (used with object) 1. to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.

2. to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native.

3. to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use: to naturalize a French phrase.

4. to bring into conformity with nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature).

5. to regard or explain as natural (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural) rather than supernatural: to naturalize miracles.


What combination of those plain English words have you tortured into meaning "we get to kick out the guys cutting our grass for a substandard wage"?
Naturalization means exactly "make citizens". It doesn't mean what you think it means.


This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

Ok, so what are you getting at? Because it sounds to me like I'm saying I should stop being faithful to my wife. Because that's not the way males act in nature.


So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

So, you're saying that law and property, two things that every human being instinctively knows to exist, are artificial,
and attempting to beat up strangers that wander onto your yard, something that every human being instinctively knows to be sociopathic behavior, is natural?
I think you need to stop looking at the lower animals when trying to determine what is natural for humans, and start, you know, looking at humans.


Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.
You need to check your history. Then you need to provide me evidence of immigration barriers prior to the 19th century. (You might want to stick with Japan.)


The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.
So, wait.....

when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers
So, which is it? Were immigration barriers higher prior to sufferage or lower? Because you've said both.


Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.
Are these statements intended to be connected? Dueling existed in Europe and Asia for just as long as it did here.


So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual
Or maybe we just realize that we never signed any contracts.
What you define as "civilization" is not what I define as civilization.
I would really like Osan to show up and give us his Empire speech at this point. What you call "civilization" is code for the exploitation of the many by the few.
Your "civilization" has a track record.
I'll take common law, protected property right, and freedom of travel over your "civilization". Or I would if I could, and I can't, because your "civilization" has made it impossible, and would murder me if I seriously tried to achieve it.


They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature

Wow... and you even manage to finish it up with an assertion that without the state's "civilization" we'd be living in caves.
Bravo.

SilentBull
09-17-2013, 03:01 PM
Not surprised at all, especially since there is no conservative media for those who refuse to learn the language and watch English TV. I think Fox News just recently came out with a Spanish channel.

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 03:02 PM
[...] and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion

Article 4 Section 4 US constitution

So you contend that immigration is an invasion?
If that is the case (it's not, but let's pretend for your sake), how do you reconcile the fact that the federal government is tasked with explicitly allowing them in (naturalization) and at the same time keeping them out (protecting from invasion)?

Keep 'em coming, there's equal destruction for all the living document arguments here.

jabowery
09-17-2013, 05:22 PM
Fisharmor, when I say the anti-liberty "libertarians" would last all of 3-picoseconds in the state of nature to which they are relegating us by corrupting the foundation of civilization, I mean that real libertarians -- people who understand in the blood, bone and marrow what it means to be a patriot, to have honor and to be an individual sovereign, would instantly challenge you to a natural duel and, being a coward to your very marrow, you would haughtily refuse with some bullsh*t justification from the Austrian school, whereupon you would be immediately killed for being the dishonorable coward that you are.

The remainder -- the honorable individual sovereigns -- would greatly enjoy each other's company in the absence of your despicable kind.

Who knows... we might even choose to rebuild civilization. However, given that it has produced vermin like yourself, it would probably be some time before the harsh lesson was forgotten.

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 05:48 PM
Fisharmor, when I say the anti-liberty "libertarians" would last all of 3-picoseconds in the state of nature to which they are relegating us by corrupting the foundation of civilization, I mean that real libertarians -- people who understand in the blood, bone and marrow what it means to be a patriot, to have honor and to be an individual sovereign, would instantly challenge you to a natural duel and, being a coward to your very marrow, you would haughtily refuse with some bullsh*t justification from the Austrian school, whereupon you would be immediately killed for being the dishonorable coward that you are.
Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.



The remainder -- the honorable individual sovereigns -- would greatly enjoy each other's company in the absence of your despicable kind.

Who knows... we might even choose to rebuild civilization. However, given that it has produced vermin like yourself, it would probably be some time before the harsh lesson was forgotten.

Get a load of this guy!
Count the green bars, genius.

jabowery
09-17-2013, 06:08 PM
Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.
Then you would have murdered President Andrew Jackson.

You must love central banking.

And green bars?

Check out these green bars (http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/testimny.htm), you piece of sh*t.

fisharmor
09-17-2013, 06:29 PM
Check out these green bars (http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/testimny.htm), you piece of sh*t.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what it was in the intervening 22 years that robbed you of the ability to commit coherent thought to words, but I've been insensitive.

erowe1
09-17-2013, 06:54 PM
Then you would have murdered President Andrew Jackson.

You must love central banking.

And green bars?

Check out these green bars (http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/testimny.htm), you piece of sh*t.

Hold on a sec. Have your references to Andrew Jackson really been made on the assumption that people here liked him? Seriously?

BlackTerrel
09-17-2013, 07:44 PM
It's pretty clear that as election season passes there's a certain "element" that comes to these forums trying to draw people over to the darkside.

Please post a poll showing white/black/Hispanic who supported Iraq war? Guarantee you it won't look very favorably to white people...

Southron
09-17-2013, 08:47 PM
Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.

Much easier said than done. I'll be convinced it can happen when blacks no longer vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Democrats have had a hold on the black vote since the 1930's.

Good luck with an even bigger language and cultural barrier when it comes to Hispanics.

puppetmaster
09-17-2013, 09:29 PM
Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.




Get a load of this guy!
Count the green bars, genius.
I am kinda amused ...I like him.but he is harsh and nasty

No one wants to hear whom I feel should not be allowed to vote....

jabowery
09-17-2013, 11:46 PM
I am kinda amused ...I like him.but he is harsh and nasty

The ninth circle of Dantes Inferno is reserved for those who betray the kind of trust that exists between individual sovereigns who voluntarily enter into mutual insurance company that holds territory against trespass -- which is the basis of all legitimate government.

These anti-liberty "libertarians" are going receive much harsher treatment than I'm giving them.

LibertyEagle
09-18-2013, 12:05 AM
And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...:rolleyes:

Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

No, it's not. He wants the border to be secured before there is any discussion about dealing with the illegals who are already here. You and I both know that they aren't going to secure the border, thus he won't vote for any sort of legalization.

LibertyEagle
09-18-2013, 12:09 AM
So you contend that immigration is an invasion?
Yes. Illegally crossing our border, absolutely.


If that is the case (it's not, but let's pretend for your sake), how do you reconcile the fact that the federal government is tasked with explicitly allowing them in (naturalization) and at the same time keeping them out (protecting from invasion)?

Keep 'em coming, there's equal destruction for all the living document arguments here.

There is nothing to square.

Occam's Banana
09-18-2013, 12:30 AM
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what it was in the intervening 22 years that robbed you of the ability to commit coherent thought to words, but I've been insensitive.

I theorize that "jabowery" is a corruption of "Jabberwocky" ...

fisharmor
09-18-2013, 08:23 AM
Yes. Illegally crossing our border, absolutely.



There is nothing to square.

An Appeal to the Reason of Those Still Reading

I'm writing to you because I know how this works. People argue all the time on the internet. Side A argues with side B, and, with very few exceptions, neither side A nor side B ends up with a modified position as a result of the opposite side's efforts.

I'm writing to you because you're on side C. The side that is casually checking out what other people's position on an issue is, keeping an open mind, and determining which side's position has greater merit.

At this point, it's apparent which side that is.

This is the way the immigration debate always goes down. I mentioned earlier that I knew exactly what they were going to say. I was taken aback initially by the fact that two anti-immigration proponents had nothing at all to say and chose to stick with base insults, but nevertheless, like clockwork, the anti-immigration "constitutionalists" showed up with their two best arguments.

I have already insinuated that these are "living document" arguments. There is zero functional difference between these arguments:
1) "I want Obamacare. It's not explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, and has historically not been considered a power of the federal government, but we're going to do it anyway. To appease the people who might want to follow the Constitution, we are going to twist the meaning of 'commerce among the states' into something quite obviously beyond the original intent, into an idea that is also much better described using more accurate words."

2) "I want immigration restrictions. It's not explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, and has historically not been considered a power of the federal government, but we're going to do it anyway. To appease the people who might want to follow the Constitution, we are going to twist the meaning of 'invasion' and 'naturalization' into something quite obviously beyond the original intent, into an idea that is also much better described using more accurate words."

Both are 100% "living document" arguments. That's an unanswerable fact.

Now notice the response from LibertyEagle at the top of this post.


There is nothing to square.

That is the official response by the anti-immigration element here. "I refuse to answer your concerns. There is nothing to do here. You are wrong."
Now, side C reader, I ask you: is this an appropriate justification for a gigantic arm of the US federal government? "Go away kid, you bother me"?

Side C reader, at this point it is forehead-smackingly obvious that the anti-immigration side simply has no argument. They want what they want and are unwilling to discuss why what they want is even justified.

I show up in these anti-immigration threads whenever possible and I make these arguments ad nauseum, and I have never been refuted in any fashion more meaningful than "I'm defining what invasion means, and it means washing your dishes".

So I leave it up to you, side C reader. Consider the arguments. Make your decision.
The side with a coherent position will accept you with open arms no matter what your previous position. Most of us were on the wrong side of this issue, before we actually thought about it.

erowe1
09-18-2013, 10:09 AM
individual sovereigns who voluntarily enter into mutual insurance company that holds territory against trespass

Is that really what you propose? Something people voluntarily enter?

And for those of us who don't voluntarily enter your company, and who don't mind having brown people around us, you would just let us go on welcoming Mexican immigrants here?

jabowery
09-18-2013, 10:55 AM
Even without the common sense argument regarding the nature of sovereignty's relationship to territory I previously outlined, Article 1, Section 8's very first sentence states:


The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year (1808) one thousand eight hundred and eight

The mendacious traitors who are trying to destroy the nation will now argue:


But that doesn't explicitly state that Congress, after 1808 shall prohibit any migration.

To which, my reply is simply this:

When do we convene a Grand Jury to indict these traitors, thence to try, convict and hang them?

Until then, we don't have a legitimate government.

Southron
09-18-2013, 03:40 PM
And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...:rolleyes:

Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

Unfortunately he seems much weaker on immigration than 2008ish Ron Paul. He's really not that far off from Rubio who really tanked in popularity on the right after the whole immigration bill debate. So far he has been able to say the right things but he has backed a path to citizenship and said he could see himself supporting the Senate bill-essentially the same bill that Rubio took a beating for supporting.

The fact is that working class Americans care about immigration.

ClydeCoulter
09-19-2013, 05:18 AM
Get a load of this guy!
Count the green bars, genius.

Not even taking into consideration any argument you might offer to the subject of the thread, I find that statement embarrassing and without any weight (other than in the club here at RPF).

jabowery
09-19-2013, 04:06 PM
Not even taking into consideration any argument you might offer to the subject of the thread, I find that statement embarrassing and without any weight (other than in the club here at RPF).

The herd mentality among the anti-liberty "libertarians" is, predictably, an overriding consideration in their thinking. Depart from the Austrian School catechism and you might be excommunicated from The Body of Ron Paul or something.

Get a load of this gem in response to my quite reasonable assertion that one of them would have murdered Andrew Jackson if Jackson had challenged them to a duel:

Hold on a sec. Have your references to Andrew Jackson really been made on the assumption that people here liked him? Seriously?
I mean, we can hear an argument that, perhaps, it would have been "justifiable homicide", but to bring up what "people here like.."? *retch*

Anti Federalist
09-21-2013, 08:13 PM
When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

We could stop it tomorrow, with a net loss of government.

But "we" don't have the stomach for that.

So we keep playing the system's game, which is rigged to always favor the house.

Meanwhile we've gambled away the mortgage and the kid's college fund, all to build a slave state.

LOL @ Democracy.

Christian Liberty
09-21-2013, 08:37 PM
This entire debate is stupid. We have an out of control government that has murdered millions, dictated that the murder of tens of millions could not be stopped by anyone, steals a third or more of what each person earns, declares war on its own people for the substances they put into their bodies and locks them in cages, police strip searching people on the side of the road without getting a bullet put into their brains, a population of sheep that waves their flags and "Supports the troops for fighting for their freedom" while all this crap goes on, a program of mass theft that is euphemistically called "Entitlement programs", our God-given right to bear arms are being threatened, and we're seriously sitting here debating whether Andrew Jackson was a good President (For the record, I don't believe he was) and who can or cannot cross the imaginary border? And here we are using no true scotsmen fallacies and strawmen to discredit each other... over immigration?

I want one good answer for why the heck I should care. If I hear "Because they're going to take their jobs" I'll tell you you're a statist central planner and that's that. If you want to tell me there's some kind of a "Right to immigration" I'll say "Fine, but there is no right to vote or collect welfare" and that's that.

erowe1
09-22-2013, 09:24 AM
We could stop it tomorrow, with a net loss of government.


I'm all for the net loss of government. But I don't think that would hamper immigration.

jabowery
09-28-2013, 12:12 AM
If you want to tell me there's some kind of a "Right to immigration" I'll say "Fine, but there is no right to vote or collect welfare" and that's that.

A sure-fire litmus test of an anti-liberty "libertarian" is they will not include, with every statement about the right to freely immigrate, that before that should be allowed the welfare state must first be eliminated. Oh, they'll occasionally fess up when confronted with their mendacity, as I have just done here, but then they'll go right back to preaching both "no welfare" and "open borders" without any priorities.

Sheer, unadulterated treason.

PaulConventionWV
10-08-2013, 01:12 PM
Viva la tyranny.

JCDenton0451
10-14-2013, 01:30 PM
Obama Knew This: Latinos Like Obamacare (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/13/obama-knew-this-latinos-like-obamacare/)



Jonathan Alter’s recent book The Center Holds (http://www.amazon.com/The-Center-Holds-Obama-Enemies/dp/1451646070) recounts President Obama’s attempt to mobilize Latino voters in 2012 after early focus groups were discouraging. They revealed that “Latinos liked the president personally but didn’t think he was effective. … They were largely unfamiliar with achievements like the auto bailout and the health care bill …” How to respond? Not, it turns out, by talking about immigration reform:

“The best way out of that hole was to educate Latino voters about Obamacare, which was immensely popular when Latinos learned the details. The pitch was much more direct than in Obama’s English-language media. Certain families, the Spanish-language ads said, “will receive economic help from the government to pay for quality [health] insurance. If the election was partly about the role of government in America life, Chicago was betting that Latinos favored a big role.“

The bet was hugely successful, of course, which raises the question: Are Latino voters “natural Republicans,” as we’re often told … or natural Californians? The answer is pretty obvious (as almost any Democratic campaign strategist will admit, at least after a few drinks).