Gallup: Five Million Latin Americans Coming to U.S. in Next 12 Months

[Swordsmyth]

Five million Latin Americans plan to migrate to the United States in the next 12 months, and an estimated 42 million more say they want to enter the country. Those statistics were in a report (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/246563/million-border.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=What%2520If%2520There%2520Were%252042%25 20Million%2520at%2520the%2520Border%3f) from Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO at Gallup:

Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.




The poll came as Democrats began using their new political clout to try to widen the catch-and-release loopholes in President Donald Trump’s border defenses.
Breitbart News reported (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/08/democrats-use-border-wall-talks-to-expand-catch-and-release-policies/):

Democrats say the DHS does not need so many detention beds but instead can release and track migrants or resident illegals by using “Alternatives to Detention,” such as monitors strapped to migrants’ ankles.
Democrats also argue that migrants who bring children should not be detained. If that rule is adopted by Congress, all migrants who bring children to the border would be quickly released into the U.S. jobs market.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman Katie Waldman rejected the Democrats’ proposals, saying in a statement:

Without the necessary detention authority and sufficient funding for family beds to enable ICE to detain family units when they are ordered removed, ICE will still only be able to remove a very small percentage of family units, thereby increasing the pull factors and further contributing to the border crisis. For example last year, only one percent of all removals were on ATD, at a cost of $72,000 per removal.
“Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan,” Clifton concluded. “What is the 10-year plan? How many, exactly whom and what skills will they bring? What do we want? Answer these questions, and the current discussion can be resolved.”

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/09/gallup-five-million-latin-americans-coming-u-s-next-12-months/


Is it an invasion yet?:facepalming:

[Warlord]

the president has the constitutional authority to repel invasions...

[invisible]

Is it an invasion yet?

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.

[phill4paul]

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.

I don't care what race they are, adding 5 million impoverished families of any nationality/race, is not a good idea in anyone's book. Except perhaps socialists and libertarians.

[Slave Mentality]

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.

Word.

[Schifference]

Would be better for rich liberal US people to go there and gentrify the area. Make it prosperous. Provide jobs and amenities so people would want to stay and live there.

[Stratovarious]

I don't care what race they are, adding 5 million impoverished families of any nationality/race, is not a good idea in anyone's book. Except perhaps socialists and libertarians.
What libertarians?

[acptulsa]

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/246563/million-border.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=What%2520If%2520There%2520Were%252042%25 20Million%2520at%2520the%2520Border%3f"


Gallup asked the whole population of Latin America. There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them...

Why is Gallup implying they asked all 450 million of them? Just getting a random sample in each and every remote Andean village would be a logistical nightmare that I sincerely doubt Gallup is capable of conquering.


"Would you like to move to another country permanently if you could?"

A whopping 27% said "yes."

I'll bet at least forty percent of U.S. residents would buy a Bentley if they could. Should Bentley gear up to produce eighty million cars next year?


So this means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.

The next question Gallup asked was, "Where would you like to move?"

Of those who want to leave their Latin American country permanently, 35% said they want to go to the United States.

And triggered Swordshyll's cardiac arrest. Hope you have good insurance!

Yo, Swordshyll. Slight detail of logic that breitbart the MSM Fakenews Outlet didn't mention: Would like to =/= will do.

[juleswin]

Why is Gallup implying they asked all 450 million of them? Just getting a random sample in each and every remote Andean village would be a logistical nightmare that I sincerely doubt Gallup is capable of conquering.



I'll bet at least forty percent of U.S. residents would buy a Bentley if they could. Should Bentley gear up to produce eighty million cars next year?



And triggered Swordshyll's cardiac arrest. Hope you have good insurance!

Yo, Swordshyll. Slight detail of logic that breitbart the MSM Fakenews Outlet didn't mention: Would like to =/= will do.

Dailycaller, dailymail, dailyxxx, infowars, breitbart all deal in red meat sensational news stories that get people all hot and bothered. This thread would have gone to 4 + pages iin no time without this post. Breitbart probably understood what the survey meant but they came out with the headline anyway.

Good job breaking down the poll data.

[CCTelander]

Why is Gallup implying they asked all 450 million of them? Just getting a random sample in each and every remote Andean village would be a logistical nightmare that I sincerely doubt Gallup is capable of conquering.



I'll bet at least forty percent of U.S. residents would buy a Bentley if they could. Should Bentley gear up to produce eighty million cars next year?



And triggered Swordshyll's cardiac arrest. Hope you have good insurance!

Yo, Swordshyll. Slight detail of logic that breitbart the MSM Fakenews Outlet didn't mention: Would like to =/= will do.


But you don't understand. It's an "INVASION!" (Gotta keep misusing those militaristic terms so as to keep the levels of agitation and fear high.) these "invaders" are launching an all out assault on "our," well, everything! Loathe and fear them or we're doomed!

The divisive wedge driving and flagrant fear mongering on this site has gotten WAY out of hand.

[Anti Federalist]

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.

Bullshit.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't care what race they are, adding 5 million impoverished families of any nationality/race, is not a good idea in anyone's book. Except perhaps socialists and libertarians.

Of course it isn't.

We get preached at constantly about "falling for what the powers that be want".

One has to wonder what the ulterior motives are of those who find nothing at all wrong with this.

[Anti Federalist]

So, this woman is in the vanguard of the invaders.

She says we are right to be afraid of her and her kind.

Why?

1093006356788011008

I'm being told I'm a racist, fascist, freedom hating, forum wrecking, scumbag because I don't want New England (or the rest of the country for that matter, although many places are too far gone) to become New Ghana or New Honduras.

So, change my mind.

Why is this Velazquez broad full of shit? (A member of Congress by the way. What do you supposes the reaction would be if a white congresscritter said that?)

Why is she lying?

Why do I have have nothing to fear from her and her kind that she claims to be speaking for by saying "us"?

[Pauls' Revere]

Besides, the millions were sending to strengthen the economy and border in Southern Mexico will deter all this. :sarcasm:

[Slave Mentality]

So, this woman is in the vanguard of the invaders.

She says we are right to be afraid of her and her kind.

Why?

1093006356788011008

I'm being told I'm a racist, fascist, freedom hating, forum wrecking, scumbag because I don't want New England (or the rest of the country for that matter, although many places are too far gone) to become New Ghana or New Honduras.

So, change my mind.

Why is this Velazquez broad full of shit? (A member of Congress by the way. What do you supposes the reaction would be if a white congresscritter said that?)

Why is she lying?

Why do I have have nothing to fear from her and her kind that she claims to be speaking for by saying "us"?


Take solice in the universal truth that the entirety of the universe is constantly finding balace. The same laws of physics applies to our existence on this planet.

It could not exist if it was not perfect and balanced. It would have ended a long time ago if not.

Time to reach beyond these constructs being built to control us. Step outside your mind to see the truth.

Fear nothing.

It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see. - Henry David Thoreau

[phill4paul]

Take solice in the universal truth that the entirety of the universe is constantly finding balace. The same laws of physics applies to our existence on this planet.

It could not exist if it was not perfect and balanced. It would have ended a long time ago if not.

Time to reach beyond these constructs being built to control us. Step outside your mind to see the truth.

Fear nothing.

It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see. - Henry David Thoreau

I don't think Thoreau ever lived through a pogrom, or died because of one, before "balance" was restored.

[Swordsmyth]

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.
It is an invasion, this is exactly how ancient tribes used to invade eachother, they just move themselves and their families into the territory and started using the resources of the other tribe.

[Swordsmyth]

Take solice in the universal truth that the entirety of the universe is constantly finding balace. The same laws of physics applies to our existence on this planet.

It could not exist if it was not perfect and balanced. It would have ended a long time ago if not.

Time to reach beyond these constructs being built to control us. Step outside your mind to see the truth.

Fear nothing.

It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see. - Henry David Thoreau
You can contemplate your navel while hostile foreigners impose tyranny and begin genocide against your neighbors, friends and family if you want but they will come for you too in the end.

[Swordsmyth]

Take solice in the universal truth that the entirety of the universe is constantly finding balace. The same laws of physics applies to our existence on this planet.

It could not exist if it was not perfect and balanced. It would have ended a long time ago if not.

Time to reach beyond these constructs being built to control us. Step outside your mind to see the truth.

Fear nothing.

It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see. - Henry David Thoreau
Maybe you should try telling that to the people of the countries the US has invaded?

[Superfluous Man]

“Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan,” Clifton concluded. “What is the 10-year plan? How many, exactly whom and what skills will they bring? What do we want? Answer these questions, and the current discussion can be resolved.”

Clifton said the magic word. Plan.

Sadly, he's right. Most Americans, like him, really do want central planners to decide for the nation what economic interactions are to transpire here, rather than trusting such things to the free market. They honestly believe that questions like the ones he asks about such things as what skill sets people have, are the government's business.

[Swordsmyth]

Clifton said the magic word. Plan.

Sadly, he's right. Most Americans, like him, really do want central planners to decide for the nation what economic interactions are to transpire here, rather than trusting such things to the free market. They honestly believe that questions like the ones he asks about such things as what skill sets people have, are the government's business.
Immigration is NOT a free market issue, it can't be as long as most people and cultures don't believe in liberty.

That would be like having a free market in crime.

[fedupinmo]

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.


And yet, when they show up and vote illegally for socialists, slanting our political system away from liberty, shall we all celebrate our own demise just so we can avoid accusations of racism?

[Superfluous Man]

Immigration is NOT a free market issue, it can't be as long as most people and cultures don't believe in liberty.

That would be like having a free market in crime.

So you agree with me that the government shouldn't concern itself with what skill sets any would-be immigrants have, like Clifton wants it to do?

[Swordsmyth]

So you agree with me that the government shouldn't concern itself with what skill sets any would-be immigrants have, like Clifton wants it to do?
Since we have to control immigration anyway then there is no reason not to give preference to those who will be of a greater benefit to our society from among those that apply.

[Swordsmyth]

And yet, when they show up and vote illegally for socialists, slanting our political system away from liberty, shall we all celebrate our own demise just so we can avoid accusations of racism?
We should celebrate their liberty to tyrannize us.:sarcasm:

[Superfluous Man]

Since we have to control immigration anyway then there is no reason not to give preference to those who will be of a greater benefit to our society from among those that apply.

And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

[Swordsmyth]

And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?
Our elected representatives.

[Superfluous Man]

Our elected representatives.

If you believe they can do that, then it was disingenuous for you to pretend you have any interest at all in free markets.

[Swordsmyth]

If you believe they can do that, then it was disingenuous for you to pretend you have any interest at all in free markets.
I have no interest in a free market in immigration, I never said I did.

[Superfluous Man]

So, this woman is in the vanguard of the invaders.

She says we are right to be afraid of her and her kind.

Why?

1093006356788011008

I'm being told I'm a racist, fascist, freedom hating, forum wrecking, scumbag because I don't want New England (or the rest of the country for that matter, although many places are too far gone) to become New Ghana or New Honduras.

So, change my mind.

Why is this Velazquez broad full of $#@!? (A member of Congress by the way. What do you supposes the reaction would be if a white congresscritter said that?)

Why is she lying?

Why do I have have nothing to fear from her and her kind that she claims to be speaking for by saying "us"?

Which of these is your position?
a) We should only prevent those who, like her, think we should fear them and their kind, from entering the USA. But those who do not think like that should be allowed to enter, in which case, their being from Latin America should not even be considered among the criteria of allowing them to enter.
b) We should exclude all of them, whether they agree with her or not, in which case, holding that belief really has nothing to do with it.
c) We should exclude all of them, because they're all the same. They are not individuals, but a collective, and she speaks for all of them. To be a person who wants to immigrate to the USA from Latin America is to be a person who thinks we should fear them.

[Stratovarious]

If you believe they can do that, then it was disingenuous for you to pretend you have any interest at all in free markets.
Human Trafficking is not 'free market' .

[Stratovarious]

Which of these is your position?
a) We should only prevent those who, like her, think we should fear them and their kind, from entering the USA. But those who do not think like that should be allowed to enter, in which case, their being from Latin America should not even be considered among the criteria of allowing them to enter.
b) We should exclude all of them, whether they agree with her or not, in which case, holding that belief really has nothing to do with it.
c) We should exclude all of them, because they're all the same. They are not individuals, but a collective, and she speaks for all of them. To be a person who wants to immigrate to the USA from Latin America is to be a person who thinks we should fear them.
We should refuse anyone that is not absolutely in love with America in every way.

[Stratovarious]

And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?
Who's job is immigration?

[Superfluous Man]

Human Trafficking is not 'free market' .

Human trafficking is not the issue. To the extent that you're talking about kidnapping, it can and should remain banned. This does not require restricting the immigration of those who aren't engaged in that.

[Superfluous Man]

Who's job is immigration?

I don't understand how that question fits the conversation, unless you left some words out.

Immigration is the job of whoever does the immigrating.

[Superfluous Man]

We should refuse anyone that is not absolutely in love with America in every way.

Are you absolutely in love with America in every way?

Do you really think the federal government should be in charge of deciding what it means to be in love with America in every way, and judging us all to see if we make its cut?

What means should the federal government use to accomplish that? And even if you believe some way of measuring that exists, do you trust it with that responsibility?

There are countries where the government does that kind of thing. They are not bastions of freedom.

[Stratovarious]

I don't understand how that question fits the conversation, unless you left some words out.

Immigration is the job of whoever does the immigrating.


And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

There you go.

[Stratovarious]

I don't understand how that question fits the conversation, unless you left some words out.

Immigration is the job of whoever does the immigrating.


And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?


Are you absolutely in love with America in every way?

Do you really think the federal government should be in charge of deciding what it means to be in love with America in every way, and judging us all to see if we make its cut?

What means should the federal government use to accomplish that? And even if you believe some way of measuring that exists, do you trust it with that responsibility?

There are countries where the government does that kind of thing. They are not bastions of freedom.

''that depends on what the meaning of is is.''

[Stratovarious]

Human trafficking is not the issue. To the extent that you're talking about kidnapping, it can and should remain banned. This does not require restricting the immigration of those who aren't engaged in that.
Human trafficking means a lot of things today, and in this context it means
human trafficking for votes, liberal votes. Liberals will go to any links to saturate America
with welfare sucking votes.

[Superfluous Man]

There you go.

So you're repeating back to me my question of whose job it is to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

If so, then the answer is each of us as individuals answer that for ourselves, and nobody else. This is just as true when it comes to economic exchanges involved in immigration as it is in every other economic exchange. If I decide that I want to employ laborers who come from Latin America because of the benefit that I can pay less for the same amount of productivity from them than I can from others, then that's my decision alone, and it's my right to welcome them onto my property. Central planners are totally incapable of managing the economy according to the evaluations of benefit that can only be made by each individual actor for themselves.

This truth is the very essence of the purpose of this website.

[Superfluous Man]

''that depends on what the meaning of is is.''

It's conspicuous how you avoid answering my questions.

[invisible]

It is an invasion, this is exactly how ancient tribes used to invade eachother, they just move themselves and their families into the territory and started using the resources of the other tribe.

Wow! And all this time, I had always thought it had been done with things like arrows and spears. They must have been trying to steal the other tribes' welfare cards and jobs, there couldn't be any other possibilities!


You can contemplate your navel while hostile foreigners impose tyranny and begin genocide against your neighbors, friends and family if you want but they will come for you too in the end.

An excellent example of the fearmongering and divisive language from this particular poster. I remember when the muslim fanatics were the hostile foreigners out to impose their genocidal tyranny against us, our neighbors, and families. They must have all moved to the Latin American countries and become socialists!

[Swordsmyth]

Wow! And all this time, I had always thought it had been done with things like arrows and spears.
They brought weapons with them and so do our current invaders, they can also get them after they arrive because we are stupid enough to allow them in without resistance unlike the ancient tribes.




An excellent example of the fearmongering and divisive language from this particular poster. I remember when the muslim fanatics were the hostile foreigners out to impose their genocidal tyranny against us, our neighbors, and families. They must have all moved to the Latin American countries and become socialists!
:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

Wow! And all this time, I had always thought it had been done with things like arrows and spears. They must have been trying to steal the other tribes' welfare cards and jobs, there couldn't be any other possibilities!

Their weapons are damnable pity and smug self righteousness.

[Swordsmyth]

Their weapons are damnable pity and smug self righteousness.
And a treasonous collaborating government.

[enhanced_deficit]

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/09/gallup-five-million-latin-americans-coming-u-s-next-12-months/


Is it an invasion yet?:facepalming:

Trump & Democrats Near Agreement on DACA (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514924-Trump-amp-Democrats-Near-Agreement-on-DACA&)




Do you agree with Breitbart narrative that MAGA and Dems are working as team on this issue?

Also Brietbart seems to be going back to its roots, lately it had become bit moderate. Wonder if conservative base rockstar Steve Bannon is back at helm of Breitbart.




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527029-Trump-I-want-to-scrap-all-H1B-visas&p=6733646&viewfull=1#post6733646


I mean, if it makes you feel better...
https://i.imgur.com/Ij1NsAo.png



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3dCNCHyLY


This is pretty close to a resignation from Trump. Time to start looking seriously for a 2020 presidential candidate, IMO. Even if he's not leaving now, he will be after his present term is finished. He's done, stick a fork in 'em!
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/32/c5/d7/32c5d77ba2c04629590f151df19510e5--real-donald-trump-donald-oconnor.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

Trump & Democrats Near Agreement on DACA (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514924-Trump-amp-Democrats-Near-Agreement-on-DACA&)




Do you agree with Breitbart narrative that MAGA and Dems are working as team on this issue?

Also Brietbart seems to be going back to its roots, lately it had become bit moderate. Wonder if conservative base rockstar Steve Bannon is back at helm of Breitbart.




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527029-Trump-I-want-to-scrap-all-H1B-visas&p=6733646&viewfull=1#post6733646
Breitbart is wrong, if there was going to be a deal it would have happened already.

[Stratovarious]

So you're repeating back to me my question of whose job it is to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

If so, then the answer is each of us as individuals answer that for ourselves, and nobody else. This is just as true when it comes to economic exchanges involved in immigration as it is in every other economic exchange. If I decide that I want to employ laborers who come from Latin America because of the benefit that I can pay less for the same amount of productivity from them than I can from others, then that's my decision alone, and it's my right to welcome them onto my property. Central planners are totally incapable of managing the economy according to the evaluations of benefit that can only be made by each individual actor for themselves.

This truth is the very essence of the purpose of this website.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Superfluous Man http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750344#post6750344) I don't understand how that question fits the conversation, unless you left some words out.

Immigration is the job of whoever does the immigrating.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Superfluous Man http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750321#post6750321)
And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

[Stratovarious]

So you're repeating back to me my question of whose job it is to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

If so, then the answer is each of us as individuals answer that for ourselves, and nobody else. This is just as true when it comes to economic exchanges involved in immigration as it is in every other economic exchange. If I decide that I want to employ laborers who come from Latin America because of the benefit that I can pay less for the same amount of productivity from them than I can from others, then that's my decision alone, and it's my right to welcome them onto my property. Central planners are totally incapable of managing the economy according to the evaluations of benefit that can only be made by each individual actor for themselves.

This truth is the very essence of the purpose of this website.

You can move to Latin America and employ them there, this is a free country, yes , freedom.

[Superfluous Man]

You can move to Latin America and employ them there, this is a free country, yes , freedom.

It's also my right to employ them here on property that I rightfully own and the government does not, or to sell or rent my property to them, or to welcome them on it as guest for whatever reason I want, as long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights. The decisions of what constitutes a benefit to me in any of those things is mine to make, not the government's.

Every other person in America has these same rights with their property. If some of us want to welcome these people onto our properties, and others don't want to welcome them onto theirs, then those who don't want to welcome them shouldn't have to, but only with respect to their own privately owned property. They don't have a moral license to impose their wills on the rest of us, and the properties that we, and not they, own.

[Superfluous Man]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Superfluous Man http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750344#post6750344) I don't understand how that question fits the conversation, unless you left some words out.

Immigration is the job of whoever does the immigrating.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Superfluous Man http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750321#post6750321)
And who's job is it to decide what constitutes a benefit and measure that for us?

If what I wrote in post 40 didn't answer your question, then I still can't figure out what you're trying to say here.

Why not just ask whatever your question is without leaving any words out?

[Stratovarious]

Wow! And all this time, I had always thought it had been done with things like arrows and spears. They must have been trying to steal the other tribes' welfare cards and jobs, there couldn't be any other possibilities!



An excellent example of the fearmongering and divisive language from this particular poster. I remember when the
muslim fanatics were the hostile foreigners out to impose their genocidal tyranny against us, our neighbors, and families. They must have all moved to the Latin American countries and become socialists!

"...we will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade
the United States. We will bury you from within'' Khrushchev 1956

The concept applies today;
America can be destroyed via illegal-alien disease, gangs, un ending influx of welfare grabbers, resource thieves,
terrorists, and worst of all; communist, blood-sucking, socialist-liberals.
-
Muslim Fanatics still are the enemy, their mission like Judaism is to rule over earth, Muslims vow
genocide on' Christians , and they do just that.

[Stratovarious]

It's also my right to employ them here on property that I rightfully own and the government does not, or to sell or rent my property to them, or to welcome them on it as guest for whatever reason I want, as long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights. The decisions of what constitutes a benefit to me in any of those things is mine to make, not the government's.

Every other person in America has these same rights with their property. If some of us want to welcome these people onto our properties, and others don't want to welcome them onto theirs, then those who don't want to welcome them shouldn't have to, but only with respect to their own privately owned property. They don't have a moral license to impose their wills on the rest of us, and the properties that we, and not they, own.

Then marry them. Should make the process smooth as silk.

[Stratovarious]

It's also my right to employ them here on property that I rightfully own and the government does not, or to sell or rent my property to them, or to welcome them on it as guest for whatever reason I want, as long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights. The decisions of what constitutes a benefit to me in any of those things is mine to make, not the government's.

Every other person in America has these same rights with their property. If some of us want to welcome these people onto our properties, and others don't want to welcome them onto theirs, then those who don't want to welcome them shouldn't have to, but only with respect to their own privately owned property. They don't have a moral license to impose their wills on the rest of us, and the properties that we, and not they, own.


You plan to keep them in cages or keep them on your property do you?

[Stratovarious]

If what I wrote in post 40 didn't answer your question, then I still can't figure out what you're trying to say here.

Why not just ask whatever your question is without leaving any words out?
I have not Führer questions at this point.

:frog:

[Superfluous Man]

Then marry them. Should make the process smooth as silk.

I doubt that. By my observation, the government doesn't make working legally in America smooth as silk for anyone. But even if so, if you believe what you have claimed to believe, you shouldn't think that the government should place stipulations like that on my right to hire whomever I want.

[Superfluous Man]

You plan to keep them in cages or keep them on your property do you?

No. I would let them leave freely and let other property owners, whose properties are none of my business, decide if they want to allow them on their properties. Once they're not on my property, I have no right to impose my will on others. Neither do you, or anyone else.

If you don't want them on your property, you shouldn't be forced to let them be on it. But outside the limits of your own property, you no longer have any legitimate say over whether they should be allowed anywhere else.

[devil21]

ICE has been running dragnet checkpoints in Charlotte the last couple weeks, without local police involved or even notified. People are starting to get pissed off and some ugly videos of confrontations have started coming out. Do we really want federal agents running checkpoints on residential streets in neighborhoods?? That's a really bad precedent to support, given history of what happens when large segments of the population supports such things.

[Stratovarious]

I doubt that. By my observation, the government doesn't make working legally in America smooth as silk for anyone. But even if so, if you believe what you have claimed to believe, you shouldn't think that the government should place stipulations like that on my right to hire whomever I want.
Move to China , hire millions, do it with Uncle Sam's blessings, no immigration nightmares.

[Anti Federalist]

So, this woman is in the vanguard of the invaders.

She says we are right to be afraid of her and her kind.

Why?

1093006356788011008

I'm being told I'm a racist, fascist, freedom hating, forum wrecking, scumbag because I don't want New England (or the rest of the country for that matter, although many places are too far gone) to become New Ghana or New Honduras.

So, change my mind.

Why is this Velazquez broad full of shit? (A member of Congress by the way. What do you supposes the reaction would be if a white congresscritter said that?)

Why is she lying about it then, if she is not being truthful?

Why do I have have nothing to fear from her and her kind that she claims to be speaking for by saying "us"?

What do "they" have in store for "us" that we should be afraid of?

[phill4paul]

ICE has been running dragnet checkpoints in Charlotte the last couple weeks, without local police involved or even notified. People are starting to get pissed off and some ugly videos of confrontations have started coming out. Do we really want federal agents running checkpoints on residential streets in neighborhoods?? That's a really bad precedent to support, given history of what happens when large segments of the population supports such things.

They are doing it because local law enforcement won't report foreign nationals that trespass and commit crimes in our neighborhoods. This is a result of progressive half-backs that have come in enough numbers to create sanctuary cities.

[Anti Federalist]

No. I would let them leave freely and let other property owners, whose properties are none of my business, decide if they want to allow them on their properties. Once they're not on my property, I have no right to impose my will on others. Neither do you, or anyone else.

If you don't want them on your property, you shouldn't be forced to let them be on it. But outside the limits of your own property, you no longer have any legitimate say over whether they should be allowed anywhere else.

The hell I don't.

If your cheap migrant labor runs amok and ruins the value of my property I have every right to sue you for damages.

[Anti Federalist]

ICE has been running dragnet checkpoints in Charlotte the last couple weeks, without local police involved or even notified. People are starting to get pissed off and some ugly videos of confrontations have started coming out. Do we really want federal agents running checkpoints on residential streets in neighborhoods?? That's a really bad precedent to support, given history of what happens when large segments of the population supports such things.

These would not be justified, I would not have to live in a "Constitution Free Zone" if we stopped these fuckers at the border like any sane and rational country would.

That is of course, opposed to a country hell bent on suicide...like this one.

[Ender]

These would not be justified, I would not have to live in a "Constitution Free Zone" if we stopped these $#@!ers at the border like any sane and rational country would.

That is of course, opposed to a country hell bent on suicide...like this one.

It isn't immigrants that caused the"Constitution Free Zone" crap. It's .gov- and it's NOT about "protecting" you- it's about keeping you a prisoner.

The Matrix has never been more obvious than it is today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL4qIIxg8A

[Superfluous Man]

The hell I don't.

If your cheap migrant labor runs amok and ruins the value of my property I have every right to sue you for damages.

If they ruin the value of your property by actually doing something *to* your property, then sure you do. But that wouldn't be outside the limits of your property.

But if you just mean that them being nearby results in lowering the price you would be able to get by selling your property, then no, you absolutely do not.

If you want to control the other properties that are near yours so that you can keep the people you consider undesirable off of them, then you need to buy those properties. Until you do, they don't belong to you. And you don't have a right to control them just because of how they affect the market value of your land.

[Anti Federalist]

It isn't immigrants that caused the"Constitution Free Zone" crap. It's .gov- and it's NOT about "protecting" you- it's about keeping you a prisoner.

The Matrix has never been more obvious than it is today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL4qIIxg8A

I agree...not disputing that at all.

Take away the justification i.e. illegal migrant hordes invading at will, and you will stand a good chance of convincing enough people that constitution free zones are not needed.

Analogy:

Thirty years ago people were terrified of street crime. Many would say justifiably, to walk down certain streets at night was almost certainly a death sentence.

Convince people that arming citizens will reduce crime (stopping migrants at the border) and when successful, you can start making inroads on prison and sentencing reform, which is happening now, even under El Hombre Naranja.

[phill4paul]

If they ruin the value of your property by actually doing something *to* your property, then sure you do. But that wouldn't be outside the limits of your property.

But if you just mean that them being nearby results in lowering the price you would be able to get by selling your property, then no, you absolutely do not.

If you want to control the other properties that are near yours so that you can keep the people you consider undesirable off of them, then you need to buy those properties. Until you do, they don't belong to you. And you don't have a right to control them just because of how they affect the market value of your land.

If you own property that has a swine farm and I buy property next to it then I do not have cause to complain.

If I own property and you buy property next to it and start a swine farm then we have a problem.

[Anti Federalist]

But if you just mean that them being nearby results in lowering the price you would be able to get by selling your property, then no, you absolutely do not.

So, if you decide to build a toxic waste disposal facility next door to me, thus rendering my property worthless, I have no recourse.

Strange...I thought this was a cornerstone of libertarian property rights in which people can recover for damages and losses without government regulations.

I must have been mistaken.

[Superfluous Man]

If you own property that has a swine farm and I buy property next to it then I do not have cause to complain.

If I own property and you buy property next to it and start a swine farm then we have a problem.

A problem that you could have solved by buying the property yourself, or entering a contract with the person who owned it.

If you own a property, and some black people buy the house next door, and then you find that it's not as easy to sell your property as it used to be, and you think it's because now black people live next door, well, sorry, but you have no just cause to take any action to prevent that happening, or retaliate against them for it.

[Superfluous Man]

So, if you decide to build a toxic waste disposal facility next door to me, thus rendering my property worthless, I have no recourse.


Are you talking about a toxic waste facility that does nothing at all that has any physical effect on your property? If yes, then see above. If no, then we're back to talking about something where my actions did encroach into your property.



Strange...I thought this was a cornerstone of libertarian property rights in which people can recover for damages and losses without government regulations.


Yes, for actual damages and losses. Other people not wanting to pay you as much as you want them to for your property on account of something that didn't actually affect that property itself is not a damage or loss.

But if you really want to go down this road, then the increased demand for land in the US that would result from allowing all of the people to come live here who want to do so would cause the price you could sell your property for to go up, not down.

[Stratovarious]

ICE needs to be shut down today.
We have border patrol that is what we need we
are building redundancy upon redundancy, time to
back the truck up over all of these Tyrannical agencies,
non of which were designed to protect any of us.
-
Shut down;
ICE
DHS
TSA
and so much more.

[Stratovarious]

If they ruin the value of your property by actually doing something *to* your property, then sure you do. But that wouldn't be outside the limits of your property.

But if you just mean that them being nearby results in lowering the price you would be able to get by selling your property, then no, you absolutely do not.

If you want to control the other properties that are near yours so that you can keep the people you consider undesirable off of them, then you need to buy those properties. Until you do, they don't belong to you. And you don't have a right to control them just because of how they affect the market value of your land.
Petition the government to build a maximum security prison next door, heck your property
value might even go up, do you want it there?
Then don't forget to take all your South American poor to China with you and start that Shangri la,
utopia, with MASSIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL.

[phill4paul]

A problem that you could have solved by buying the property yourself, or entering a contract with the person who owned it.

If you own a property, and some black people buy the house next door, and then you find that it's not as easy to sell your property as it used to be, and you think it's because now black people live next door, well, sorry, but you have no just cause to take any action to prevent that happening, or retaliate against them for it.

I don't mind if black people buy the house next to me. That's their right as an American citizen. Now if they turn it into a drug house and have all kinds of traffic from customers coming up and down the road in my community then we are going to have a problem. They should have set up shop in an area zoned for business. Mines zoned for residential. And there is a reason for that.
You seem to me a naive man. One that does not understand how communities work. You seem to have a belief system that is just as naive as socialists that call for a Green New Deal. There is the real world, and then there is the land of unicorns and glitter farts.

[Superfluous Man]

I don't mind if black people buy the house next to me. That's their right as an American citizen.
I never said anything about their citizenship. That's totally irrelevant. If the previous owner of the property chose to sell it to them, then it's now theirs, and they have a right to be there, regardless of citizenship.


Now if they turn it into a drug house and have all kinds of traffic from customers coming up and down the road in my community then we are going to have a problem. They should have set up shop in an area zoned for business. Mines zoned for residential. And there is a reason for that.
You support zoning laws too?

Holy smokes.


You seem to me a naive man. One that does not understand how communities work. You seem to have a belief system that is just as naive as socialists that call for a Green New Deal. There is the real world, and then there is the land of unicorns and glitter farts.

Perhaps. If so, then everyone who supports our site mission is naive.

[Superfluous Man]

For those who are interested, this question of whether or not central planners in the government should protect someone's land value by dictating what or who can be allowed on nearby land owned by someone else (i.e. zoning laws), rather than handling this issue in the free market, comes up from time to time, and there are a lot of articles and talks on it already available from organizations that share the same mission as this website.

Here are some to peruse.

https://www.google.com/search?q=zoning+site:mises.org&lr=&as_qdr=all&ei=XrVhXMnsMKnDjgTPwq64Cw&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjJk_fNnrTgAhWpoYMKHU-hC7c4ChDw0wMIiwE&biw=1920&bih=969 (<-- This one is mises.org. They're own search function doesn't produce a link I can share.)

https://fee.org/search/?q=zoning

https://www.fff.org/?s=zoning

http://www.independent.org/issues/google_results.asp?cx=018225991961863933630%3Awvyq uibswjc&ie=UTF-8&cof=FORID%3A11&q=zoning#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=zoning&gsc.page=1

https://www.aier.org/search?keys=zoning

https://tomwoods.com/ep-932-zoning-do-we-need-it/

[Stratovarious]

No Federal Checkpoints
No Checkpoints period

[phill4paul]

I never said anything about their citizenship. That's totally irrelevant. If the previous owner of the property chose to sell it to them, then it's now theirs, and they have a right to be there, regardless of citizenship.


You support zoning laws too?

Holy smokes.



Perhaps. If so, then everyone who supports our site mission is naive.

Life just doesn't work the way you want it too. I'm sorry. It just doesn't. I've networked and have a good relationship with my neighbors. We have a child friendly neighborhood. We have a neighborhood watch.
If you think that you're going to move into a house in our neighborhood (and stop with the "You should have bought it," idiocy) set up a meth lab and have all the unsavory meth-heads that you want travel through our neighborhood...you'd be wrong.
Your anarchic, "hey, man, individual rights, dude!" doesn't cut it. Not here where we don't always practice the NAP.

[Superfluous Man]

Life just doesn't work the way you want it too.

I wasn't saying anything about how things work. I was talking about right and wrong.

Of course we live in a world where people regularly do wrong. The fact that people commonly do something doesn't make it less wrong though.

And if I understood you correctly, you also weren't just making statements about what people commonly do, but rather about what people actually ought to do.

Now it sounds like you're basically saying, "I know that what I advocate is wrong. But I advocate it anyway because it's what I want to do and what I'm going to do, wrong or not."

Well, ok. If that's what you're saying, then at least we agree that what you're talking about is wrong.

ETA: But if you're not just talking about how things are commonly done in this statist world (which demonstrably doesn't work), but what kind of solutions actually would work to accomplish the desired ends with the most good for the most people and the least harm, then you are completely wrong to advocate your statist solutions thinking they work better than the free market would. One of the many advantages of the free market over centrally managed economies, is that it really does work much better, in every way for every issue.

[spudea]

No Federal Checkpoints
No Checkpoints period

How was the recent Antifa rally comrade?

"No borders, no wall, no USA at all!"

[Slave Mentality]

You can contemplate your navel while hostile foreigners impose tyranny and begin genocide against your neighbors, friends and family if you want but they will come for you too in the end.

And you can froth at the mouth on an internet forum while hostile natives keep stealing your liberties. The result will be the same. They will come for you too in the end. I have just made peace with it.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't mind if black people buy the house next to me. That's their right as an American citizen. Now if they turn it into a drug house and have all kinds of traffic from customers coming up and down the road in my community then we are going to have a problem. They should have set up shop in an area zoned for business. Mines zoned for residential. And there is a reason for that.
You seem to me a naive man. One that does not understand how communities work. You seem to have a belief system that is just as naive as socialists that call for a Green New Deal. There is the real world, and then there is the land of unicorns and glitter farts.

So government should tell you what you can and can't do with your land.

[devil21]

They are doing it because local law enforcement won't report foreign nationals that trespass and commit crimes in our neighborhoods. This is a result of progressive half-backs that have come in enough numbers to create sanctuary cities.

That may be true but "Your Papers Please" is not acceptable. We've been put into a no-win situation where there are no good solutions to advocate for. ICE says it's because the new Sheriff pulled out of the 287g program that checked immigration status and held people at the jail. Local PD checkpoints are bad enough (to local police's credit, they've scaled DUI and ID checkpoints way back over the last couple years) but Feds operating them in neighborhoods instead is terrible and history warns why repeatedly.

[phill4paul]

That may be true but "Your Papers Please" is not acceptable. We've been put into a no-win situation where there are no good solutions to advocate for. ICE says it's because the new Sheriff pulled out of the 287g program that checked immigration status and held people at the jail. Local PD checkpoints are bad enough (to local police's credit, they've scaled DUI and ID checkpoints way back over the last couple years) but Feds operating them in neighborhoods instead is terrible and history warns why repeatedly.

The "win" is to enforce border security. If we didn't have a problem with foreign national trespassers then we wouldn't have this situation.

[Swordsmyth]

It's also my right to employ them here on property that I rightfully own and the government does not, or to sell or rent my property to them, or to welcome them on it as guest for whatever reason I want, as long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights. The decisions of what constitutes a benefit to me in any of those things is mine to make, not the government's.

Every other person in America has these same rights with their property. If some of us want to welcome these people onto our properties, and others don't want to welcome them onto theirs, then those who don't want to welcome them shouldn't have to, but only with respect to their own privately owned property. They don't have a moral license to impose their wills on the rest of us, and the properties that we, and not they, own.
They don't have a right to be here to be hired by you.

[Swordsmyth]

If they ruin the value of your property by actually doing something *to* your property, then sure you do. But that wouldn't be outside the limits of your property.

But if you just mean that them being nearby results in lowering the price you would be able to get by selling your property, then no, you absolutely do not.

If you want to control the other properties that are near yours so that you can keep the people you consider undesirable off of them, then you need to buy those properties. Until you do, they don't belong to you. And you don't have a right to control them just because of how they affect the market value of your land.
Them being nearby results in communism, communism is a direct harm to everything I own.

[devil21]

The "win" is to enforce border security. If we didn't have a problem with foreign national trespassers then we wouldn't have this situation.

There's already fences and obstructions wherever feasible. It's not like the border is wide open and I question why people keep talking like it is. But even a new wall doesn't address the situation of those already here.
No liberty minded man or woman could seriously consider advocating for mass round-ups or federal dragnet checkpoints since, as I pointed out, history clearly warns why that ends badly. Especially since the issue has been engineered from the beginning for this outcome by the same people that are now offering such solutions.

[Anti Federalist]

And you can froth at the mouth on an internet forum while hostile natives keep stealing your liberties. The result will be the same. They will come for you too in the end. I have just made peace with it.

Made peace with what, specifically?

[Superfluous Man]

They don't have a right to be here to be hired by you.

If "here" is my property, then that's for me to decide and no one else.

[Swordsmyth]

ICE needs to be shut down today.
We have border patrol that is what we need we
are building redundancy upon redundancy, time to
back the truck up over all of these Tyrannical agencies,
non of which were designed to protect any of us.
-
Shut down;
ICE
DHS
TSA
and so much more.
We had INS before ICE, somebody needs to enforce immigration law inside the country, visa overstays can't be stopped at the border, we can discuss reducing ICE/INS when we have deported most of the 20+ Million invaders.

[Swordsmyth]

If "here" is my property, then that's for me to decide and no one else.
"Here" is our national territory and you are not sole owner of that.

[Swordsmyth]

Made peace with what, specifically?
He has accepted tyranny and even death and now he wants to make the rest of us surrender as well.

[Swordsmyth]

There's already fences and obstructions wherever feasible. It's not like the border is wide open and I question why people keep talking like it is. But even a new wall doesn't address the situation of those already here.
No liberty minded man or woman could seriously consider advocating for mass round-ups or federal dragnet checkpoints since, as I pointed out, history clearly warns why that ends badly. Especially since the issue has been engineered from the beginning for this outcome by the same people that are now offering such solutions.
There are places where it is wide open and the rest of the border should have increased patrols.

[Superfluous Man]

"Here" is our national territory and you are not sole owner of that.

Neither is anyone else the sole owner of it. But we are the sole owners of our own properties and have the sole right to welcome others on them or not.

Each individual has a say over their property and nobody else's.

And since they don't have a say over other peoples' properties, they also can't delegate to the government to have a say over them either, since that would be delegating an authority that isn't theirs to delegate.

[Zippyjuan]

There are places where it is wide open and the rest of the border should have increased patrols.

Yes, on steep mountains, deserted deserts where nobody goes. Costs of building outweigh the benefits. There are over 650 miles of barriers. Because you can doesn't mean you should or need to. It would also require seizing hundreds of miles of private property.

[Superfluous Man]

No liberty minded man or woman could seriously consider advocating for mass round-ups or federal dragnet checkpoints since, as I pointed out, history clearly warns why that ends badly.

Immigration restrictionists are totally fine with a police state. It's impossible to be serious about immigration restriction without requiring that every single person within the nation's borders be able to prove they have the government's permission to be here, and to impose limitations on their basic rights, like getting jobs, for failure to do so. Things like a border wall are meaningless little bandaids that couldn't possibly accomplish much. The only real meaningful tools they'll ever have will always be the ones that involve the control of all people within the country, not just at the border. Many of these people also consider themselves liberty minded, and nothing we say can convince them they aren't.

They are in a bizarro world where everything is the exact opposite of reality.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, on steep mountains, deserted deserts where nobody goes. Costs of building outweigh the benefits. There are over 650 miles of barriers. Because you can doesn't mean you should or need to. It would also require seizing hundreds of miles of private property.
There are places that are not steep mountains or deserted deserts that are wide open and people do go across the steep mountains and deserted deserts.

If we don't build more walls then we need more patrols and we need more patrols even if we do build a wall.

[Swordsmyth]

Neither is anyone else the sole owner of it. But we are the sole owners of our own properties and have the sole right to welcome others on them or not.

Each individual has a say over their property and nobody else's.

And since they don't have a say over other peoples' properties, they also can't delegate to the government to have a say over them either, since that would be delegating an authority that isn't theirs to delegate.
As a group we do own the national territory and we have a right to control who enters it for the purpose of defending our rights from those who would violate them even more than our fellow Americans do.

[devil21]

There are places where it is wide open and the rest of the border should have increased patrols.

The areas where there are no barriers is because it is either not feasible to build there or is already very difficult terrain for someone to cross in the first place (though both are related, obviously). Face the fact that it is not possible to effectively monitor a 2000 mile border with patrols. It is not acceptable to perform mass round-ups or federal checkpoints.

I'm sure once they officially float all the biometric ID big brother junk as a "solution" to stop immigration you will be right here cheerleading it, though. To use immigration scare tactics as the means to get people who would otherwise recoil at such things to accept the next big jump in police state tech and expanded Papers Please checkpoints. Like i said, the same ones that engineered the migration in the first place are the same ones setting us up to offer their solution.

[Swordsmyth]

Immigration restrictionists are totally fine with a police state. It's impossible to be serious about immigration restriction without requiring that every single person within the nation's borders be able to prove they have the government's permission to be here, and to impose limitations on their basic rights, like getting jobs, for failure to do so. Things like a border wall are meaningless little bandaids that couldn't possibly accomplish much. The only real meaningful tools they'll ever have will always be the ones that involve the control of all people within the country, not just at the border. Many of these people also consider themselves liberty minded, and nothing we say can convince them they aren't.

They are in a bizarro world where everything is the exact opposite of reality.
You don't need a police state if you properly control the border and immigration before there is a massive invasion, we can go back to that when we have expelled the 20+ Million invaders.

[Swordsmyth]

The areas where there are no barriers is because it is either not feasible to build there or is already very difficult terrain for someone to cross in the first place (though both are related, obviously). Face the fact that it is not possible to effectively monitor a 2000 mile border with patrols. It is not acceptable to perform mass round-ups or federal checkpoints.

I'm sure once they officially float all the biometric ID big brother junk as a "solution" to stop immigration you will be right here cheerleading it, though. To use immigration scare tactics as the means to get people who would otherwise recoil at such things to accept the next big jump in police state tech and expanded Papers Please checkpoints. Like i said, the same ones that engineered the migration in the first place are the same ones setting us up to offer their solution.
It is quite possible to control any size border with patrols and I will not support biometrics etc. but we must stop and reverse the invasion or we will have a communist police state because the invaders will vote for people who will implement it.

[Superfluous Man]

As a group we do own the national territory and we have a right to control who enters it for the purpose of defending our rights from those who would violate them even more than our fellow Americans do.

This is false.

No group can own any more than what the individuals who comprise the group own. And those individuals can only delegate such authority to the larger group as they as individuals already have.

Forming groups doesn't create some double-standard where what would be wrong for the individuals in the group somehow becomes not wrong for the group as a whole.

If you want to restrict me from your property, you may. And if some of your neighbors do too, they may as well. And you and those neighbors can form a group and collectively restrict me from all of your properties. But this right of yours and your neighbors only applies to the properties that you and they own. If you have other neighbors who don't choose to go along with you and your group in this and who want to welcome me onto their property, then you have no right to stop them, and neither does the group you belong to, since that other neighbor's property doesn't belong to anyone in your group.

And despite what AF and the mushroom cloud guy may think, this even remains the case if my proximity near their property causes its resale price to plummet due to my smelling different, talking different, looking different, etc.

[CaptUSA]

You don't need a police state if you properly control the border and immigration before there is a massive invasion, we can go back to that when we have expelled the 20+ Million invaders.*

Yes. The police state must be limited to the first 500 miles within the borders. But until we can "go back to that", we need to give them more power! Makes sense. :rolleyes:


*More division brought to you by your State-sponsored troll.

[Zippyjuan]

It is quite possible to control any size border with patrols and I will not support biometrics etc. but we must stop and reverse the invasion or we will have a communist police state because the invaders will vote for people who will implement it.

Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.

[Swordsmyth]

This is false.

No group can own any more than what the individuals who comprise the group own. And those individuals can only delegate such authority to the larger group as they as individuals already have.

Forming groups doesn't create some double-standard where what would be wrong for the individuals in the group somehow becomes not wrong for the group as a whole.

If you want to restrict me from your property, you may. And if some of your neighbors to, they may as well. And you and those neighbors can form a group and collectively restrict me from all of your properties. But this right of yours and your neighbors only applies to the properties that you and they own. If you have other neighbors who want to welcome me onto their property, then you have no right to stop them, and neither does the group you belong to, since that other neighbor's property doesn't belong to anyone in your group.
Nonsense, your drivel would only be true in a world where everyone was an anarchist, as things are the foreigners will impose government on us and we have a right to keep them out of our area in order to determine for ourselves what kind of government we will have.

Let me know when you have converted the rest of the world to AnCapism and we can talk but we will end up back here anyway because the private law enforcement agencies will evolve into tyrannical territorial governments.

[devil21]

It is quite possible to control any size border with patrols and I will not support biometrics etc. but we must stop and reverse the invasion or we will have a communist police state because the invaders will vote for people who will implement it.

Quoted for posterity.

Could we try to compete in the marketplace of ideas instead of alienating immigrants more each day by calling them invaders and rapists? Naaa, screw that pussified stuff, right? Let's just go all gestapo on 'em and let god sort 'em out.

[Swordsmyth]

Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.
Have you heard of fighting fire with fire?

Sometimes a little bit of something can be used to prevent a lot of the same thing.

[Swordsmyth]

Quoted for posterity.

Could we try to compete in the marketplace of ideas instead of alienating immigrants more each day by calling them invaders and rapists? Naaa, screw that pussified stuff, right? Let's just go all gestapo on 'em and let god sort 'em out.
They are invaders and they will not convert to libertarianism faster than they arrive, you must actually want the communist dictatorship that they are already helping to build.

[Stratovarious]

How was the recent Antifa rally comrade?

"No borders, no wall, no USA at all!"
Spud, witf are you talking abut' ?

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. The police state must be limited to the first 500 miles within the borders. But until we can "go back to that", we need to give them more power! Makes sense. :rolleyes:


*More division brought to you by your State-sponsored troll.
We are in the midst of a war, it is being waged with creative tactics but it is still a war, MILLIONS of foreigners are coming here and changing our government to suit them.

When the war is over we can stop fighting it.

[devil21]

Have you heard of fighting fire with fire?

Sometimes a little bit of something can be used to prevent a lot of the same thing.

Heard it. Need new material.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmi8cJG0BJo

Anybody seen a free market around here lately?



They are invaders and they will not convert to libertarianism faster than they arrive, you must actually want the communist dictatorship that they are already helping to build.

Still pushing this bs narrative that immigrants are commies even though you've been set straight on it repeatedly? This is how I know you're a shill, among other ways, no matter how many times you're factually proven wrong you ignore it entirely and never adapt or evolve from the same wrong talking points. The fact is, immigrants come here and are only courted by the left. Who do you realistically expect them to then support? Those that court them or those that call them invaders? Most of the immigrants I've seen (and yes there are a good many in Charlotte) are hard workers and business owners...not the stuff of "commie lore".

[CaptUSA]

They are invaders and they will not convert to libertarianism faster than they arrive, you must actually want the communist dictatorship that they are already helping to build.

Ah yes... If you want to treat people like people, you are a traitor to your homeland.

Nice propaganda there, SS. You should make posters.

[CaptUSA]

We are in the midst of a war, it is being waged with creative tactics but it is still a war, MILLIONS of foreigners are coming here and changing our government to suit them.

When the war is over we can stop fighting it.

Nobody here wants your endless wars, Orwell. Your divisive propaganda game has run its course.

[Swordsmyth]

Heard it. Need new material.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmi8cJG0BJo

Anybody seen a free market around here lately?
That is entirely different, they were the only ones attacking the free market, they weren't fighting fire with fire, they were starting fires.

[Stratovarious]

We had INS before ICE, somebody needs to enforce immigration law inside the country, visa overstays can't be stopped at the border, we can discuss reducing ICE/INS when we have deported most of the 20+ Million invaders.

Right! INS, you're spot on, I forget my alphabet agencies, we have border patrol we have INS, we have the coast guard,
the Military , right?
So the Federal Government decides that we need 10 more and varied fed agencies to take care of
the same problem , we have a problem here.......
If I remember right, they stopped the police in lots of areas from turning in illegals, we keep
digging a deeper whole and refuse to enforce existing laws with existing agencies.

[Swordsmyth]

Ah yes... If you want to treat people like people, you are a traitor to your homeland.

Nice propaganda there, SS. You should make posters.
I am treating them like people, people who want to impose tyranny on my country.

And you are a traitor and so is every other open borders advocate.

[Swordsmyth]

Nobody here wants your endless wars, Orwell. Your divisive propaganda game has run its course.
I don't want this war either but I can't be rid of it just by wishing it away, 20+ MILLION invaders have entered our country and are altering our government to suit them.

You advocate surrender even though what they are imposing is the worst form of tyranny known to man, you are a traitor.

[Swordsmyth]

Right! INS, you're spot on, I forget my alphabet agencies, we have border patrol we have INS, we have the coast guard,
the Military , right?
So the Federal Government decides that we need 10 more and varied fed agencies to take care of
the same problem , we have a problem here.......
If I remember right, they stopped the police in lots of areas from turning in illegals, we keep
digging a deeper whole and refuse to enforce existing laws with existing agencies.
INS doesn't exist anymore, ICE replaced it.

[Ender]

They are invaders and they will not convert to libertarianism faster than they arrive, you must actually want the communist dictatorship that they are already helping to build.

Baloney.

The "communist dictatorship" was fully implemented with the "Civil" War- has nothing to do with your continual hate strategy.

[Stratovarious]

Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.
How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

[devil21]

That is entirely different, they were the only ones attacking the free market, they weren't fighting fire with fire, they were starting fires.

Wise up and apply exactly what happened with the financial "crisis" to the immigration "crisis" and then suddenly you'll see the pattern. If someone still can't see the pattern then they probably should stop commenting on anything more advanced that Kim and Kanye.

[Zippyjuan]

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

The borders are protected. Trump says so. (see my sig).

[Stratovarious]

INS doesn't exist anymore, ICE replaced it.

No wonder I haven't heard that acronym for a while, I'm dead against DHS, I believe ICE
is an offshoot of it.

[Stratovarious]

The borders are protected. Trump says so. (see my sig).
How does protecting our borders equate to a police state, not wut' DONE' Trump say......:frog:
I know you can't answer the question , carry on........

[Swordsmyth]

Baloney.

The "communist dictatorship" was fully implemented with the "Civil" War- has nothing to do with your continual hate strategy.
LOL

We had and still have much more liberty and much less tyranny than the Demoncrats will implement when the invaders have turned the entire country into Kalifornia.

[Ender]

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

Standing armies=police state.

The FF were explicit on this- thus the 2nd Amendment- and it is THIS problem we should be shouting about- not immigrants.

[Swordsmyth]

Wise up and apply exactly what happened with the financial "crisis" to the immigration "crisis" and then suddenly you'll see the pattern. If someone still can't see the pattern then they probably should stop commenting on anything more advanced that Kim and Kanye.
Apples and bowling balls, there was no equivalent to the invaders imposing a Demoncrat dictatorship in the financial crisis.

[Stratovarious]

Standing armies=police state.

The FF were explicit on this- thus the 2nd Amendment- and it is THIS problem we should be shouting about- not immigrants.

No zipender , protecting our borders is essential.
Why do you want open borders?

[Ender]

LOL

We had and still have much more liberty and much less tyranny than the Demoncrats will implement when the invaders have turned the entire country into Kalifornia.

Maybe you oughta learn a little REAL history, Mr. Neocon. And BTW- there's no difference between the right & left that you want us to fight about. That's just a ruse to take everyone's eye off the real "take-over".

[Swordsmyth]

Standing armies=police state.

The FF were explicit on this- thus the 2nd Amendment- and it is THIS problem we should be shouting about- not immigrants.
That is nonsense, the Founding Fathers explicitly authorized a standing army as long as it had to be authorized every two years and it isn't a police state to have one that patrols the border and leaves the citizens alone.

We are also in the middle of a war and our country has been overrun by 20+ Million invaders, if that doesn't justify an army to repel them then I don't know what would.

[Zippyjuan]

Trump claims crime was bad and then dropped in El Paso (where he is flying off to meet hordes of adoring fans at a rally later today). Problem is, crime was never that high and dropped a decade before any barriers were added. He is trying to show that walls prevent crime.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/feb/08/donald-trump/no-border-barrier-did-not-drive-down-crime-el-paso/


No, border barrier did not drive down crime in El Paso, Texas


As he promotes his border wall, President Donald Trump holds up El Paso, Texas, as a successful test case.

"The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities," Trump said during his Feb. 5 State of the Union address. "Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country. Simply put, walls work and walls save lives."

That wasn’t the first time Trump hailed El Paso’s barrier as a solution to crime. And it might not be the last: Trump plans to be in El Paso on Feb. 11 for a campaign rally.

But the claim is not true.

To start, El Paso has not been considered one of the nation’s most dangerous cities. Its violent crime rate has been significantly below the national average compared to cities of similar size. Even more, the violent crime rate went up — not down, as Trump claimed — after the construction of a border fence in the region.

An FBI tool allows users to view violent crime rates reported by police agencies, from 1985 to 2014. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program classifies four offenses as violent crime: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Every year from 1985 to 2014, El Paso’s violent crime rate was significantly lower than the average for all localities of similar size. (Note: Not all departments reported data every year.)


More at link.

https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/blog_crime_mid_size_cities_1991_2014.gif

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe you oughta learn a little REAL history, Mr. Neocon. And BTW- there's no difference between the right & left that you want us to fight about. That's just a ruse to take everyone's eye off the real "take-over".
LOL

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hockeyspy.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2Fshark.jpg&f=1



We had and still have much more liberty and much less tyranny than the Demoncrats will implement when the invaders have turned the entire country into Kalifornia.

[Ender]

No zipender , protecting our borders is essential.
Why do you want open borders?

Look, Mr name-caller, did I mention open borders? Standing armies are NOT lawful- neither are entitlements & immediate citizenship.

The answer is, and always has been:

NO ENTITLEMENTS
FREE TRADE

[Ender]

LOL

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hockeyspy.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2Fshark.jpg&f=1



We had and still have much more liberty and much less tyranny than the Demoncrats will implement when the invaders have turned the entire country into Kalifornia.

AND THE LAST TIME YOU WERE IN CALIFORNIA WAS.........?

[Zippyjuan]

No zipender , protecting our borders is essential.
Why do you want open borders?

False dichotomy. Not wanting a bigger b order force/ wall does not equal not wanting any border force. We have adequate protection. You can spend an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars on the problem if you want. But you start getting less return from every additional dollar. How much is enough? The border will never be 100% secure. Even a 100% secure border will not prevent having people in the country illegally- half of them entered legally and simply didn't leave when they were supposed to.


"Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."

Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.

What the country does need, he said, is "a much better immigration service" fed by more resources. Not that he'd "vote for extra money." But he does, he told the crowd, have a plan.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201

[acptulsa]

Apples and bowling balls, there was no equivalent to the invaders imposing a Demoncrat dictatorship in the financial crisis.

Obama sold Chrysler to FIAT. He used the whole thing to steal from us all and give untold millions to Solyndra. Dictatorship, robbery, cronyism, assets to foreign socialist governments--sounds like the DNC dictatorship has been here for years. Maybe trying to prevent it is kind of like giving a vaccine to a patient that already has the disease and actually needs the cure instead?


AND THE LAST TIME YOU WERE IN CALIFORNIA WAS.........?

He lives somewhere in the Pacific time zone...

[Ender]

That is nonsense, the Founding Fathers explicitly authorized a standing army as long as it had to be authorized every two years and it isn't a police state to have one that patrols the border and leaves the citizens alone.

We are also in the middle of a war and our country has been overrun by 20+ Million invaders, if that doesn't justify an army to repel them then I don't know what would.

THE ONLY WAR THE US IS IN IS TRYING TO TAKE0VER THE WORLD & ALL RESOURCES- MAYBE IF THAT WAS STOPPED, THERE WOULD BE MORE FREEDOM.

[phill4paul]

So government should tell you what you can and can't do with your land.


There is government, and then there is overbearing government. There has always been government and there will always be government. There will never be anarchy. As much as some believe that this is the natural state of a free society. Because in that open state of anarchy there will always be oppressors. Those that do not play by the anarchists NAP.
Individuals band together for any number of reasons. They have since the beginning of time. They create covenants and laws to enforce these covenants. These they create to help maintain the peace.
So, in some instances, is it not, perhaps, better that individuals come together, map out certain areas for industrial parks, waste disposal facilities, pig farms and chicken farms and some areas for family housing? As opposed to allowing someone setting up a meth-lab on the property adjoining yours?

[phill4paul]

Neither is anyone else the sole owner of it. But we are the sole owners of our own properties and have the sole right to welcome others on them or not.

Each individual has a say over their property and nobody else's.

And since they don't have a say over other peoples' properties, they also can't delegate to the government to have a say over them either, since that would be delegating an authority that isn't theirs to delegate.

You seem unable to understand the concept of 'common' space. Perhaps if you want them on your property you should buy adjoining parcels all the way from the border to your front door?

[Swordsmyth]

AND THE LAST TIME YOU WERE IN CALIFORNIA WAS.........?
LOL

Why don't you tell me about how much of a libertarian paradise it is?

You are making a fool out of yourself, the list of liberties that Kalifornia has deprived its citizens of that other states and even the feds have not is endless.

[CCTelander]

Hmmm. If you fail to vigorously support certain draconian immigration measures then you're a traitor.

The CONstitutional penalty for treason is death.

Logically then, it looks like somebody would like to see a great many of us dead.

So who then am I supposed to side with, and who should I fear? Those leftists who want me dead because I'm white and productive? Or the righties who want me dead for my thoughtcrimes of failing to support their authoritarian crap and just. being a voluntaryist?

This is a tough one.

[Swordsmyth]

False dichotomy. Not wanting a bigger b order force/ wall does not equal not wanting any border force. We have adequate protection. You can spend an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars on the problem if you want. But you start getting less return from every additional dollar. How much is enough? The border will never be 100% secure. Even a 100% secure border will not prevent having people in the country illegally- half of them entered legally and simply didn't leave when they were supposed to.



http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201

We do NOT have adequate protection on the borders or against overstays, 20+ Million invaders is ample proof of that.

[Swordsmyth]

Hmmm. If you fail to vigorously support certain draconian immigration measures then you're a traitor.

The CONstitutional penalty for treason is death.

Logically then, it looks like somebody would like to see a great many of us dead.

So who then am I supposed to side with, and who should I fear? Those leftists who want me dead because I'm white and productive? Or the righties who want me dead for my thoughtcrimes of failing to support their authoritarian crap and just. being a voluntaryist?

This is a tough one.
Nobody wants to kill you but if you continue to give aid and comfort to the enemy that wants to kill and enslave us that may change when the collapse comes.

[Swordsmyth]

THE ONLY WAR THE US IS IN IS TRYING TO TAKE0VER THE WORLD & ALL RESOURCES- MAYBE IF THAT WAS STOPPED, THERE WOULD BE MORE FREEDOM.
20+ Million invaders are proof that you are wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

Obama sold Chrysler to FIAT. He used the whole thing to steal from us all and give untold millions to Solyndra. Dictatorship, robbery, cronyism, assets to foreign socialist governments--sounds like the DNC dictatorship has been here for years. Maybe trying to prevent it is kind of like giving a vaccine to a patient that already has the disease and actually needs the cure instead?



He lives somewhere in the Pacific time zone...
What you said only proves my point and has nothing to do with the invasion.

[Zippyjuan]

We do NOT have adequate protection on the borders or against overstays, 20+ Million invaders is ample proof of that.

Running out of arguments I see. You keep repeating the same talking points from your guidebook. "Invasion." "Hordes". "commies".

[Anti Federalist]

So government should tell you what you can and can't do with your land.

Let's be clear.

It's not "your" land.

So until such time as it is...

[Stratovarious]

Look, Mr name-caller, did I mention open borders? Standing armies are NOT lawful- neither are entitlements & immediate citizenship.

The answer is, and always has been:

NO ENTITLEMENTS
FREE TRADE

My bad I thought you'd be flattered or just admit that you and zippy were the same
poster, just playing darts,,,,,sorry.
-
Ok so, then , mmm, lets see, you didn't call for 'open borders' .
I didn't call for 'standing armies' , ''now we have something we can agree on'' :frog:
How are you going, I mean how in the hell are you going to keep out disease ridden felons, rapists, murderers,
terrorists, ms13 and drug traffickers merely by cutting all incentives (something I've called for a million times)?

[Swordsmyth]

Running out of arguments I see. You keep repeating the same talking points from your guidebook. "Invasion." "Hordes". "commies".
I don't need more argument, the facts are on my side and my arguments are sufficient.

[acptulsa]

What you said only proves my point and has nothing to do with the invasion.

WE MUST REPEL THE INVADERS!

Too late. They're already here.

ALL THE MORE REASON TO KEEP THEM FROM COMING IN!!!1!!

[Stratovarious]

Hmmm. If you fail to vigorously support certain draconian immigration measures then you're a traitor.

The CONstitutional penalty for treason is death.

Logically then, it looks like somebody would like to see a great many of us dead.

So who then am I supposed to side with, and who should I fear? Those leftists who want me dead because I'm white and productive? Or the righties who want me dead for my thoughtcrimes of failing to support their authoritarian crap and just. being a voluntaryist?

This is a tough one.
Are you talking to anyone in particular?

[Swordsmyth]

My bad I thought you'd be flattered or just admit that you and zippy were the same
poster, just playing darts,,,,,sorry.
-
Ok so, then , mmm, lets see, you didn't call for 'open borders' .
I didn't call for 'standing armies' , ''now we have something we can agree on'' :frog:
How are you going, I mean how in the hell are you going to keep out disease ridden felons, rapists, murderers,
terrorists, ms13 and drug traffickers merely by cutting all incentives (something I've called for a million times)?
You can't even keep out the leeches by just eliminating government handouts, they would still come here to partake of our prosperity and then vote for handouts.

[Stratovarious]

... We have adequate protection. ....

That is complete blsht zippy.

[CCTelander]

Nobody wants to kill you but if you continue to give aid and comfort to the enemy that wants to kill and enslave us that may change when the collapse comes.


That sounds very much like a threat. Perhaps you need to step back a bit and compose yourself, before you say something truly unfortunate that gets you into trouble.

[Zippyjuan]

My bad I thought you'd be flattered or just admit that you and zippy were the same
poster, just playing darts,,,,,sorry.
-
Ok so, then , mmm, lets see, you didn't call for 'open borders' .
I didn't call for 'standing armies' , ''now we have something we can agree on'' :frog:
How are you going, I mean how in the hell are you going to keep out disease ridden felons, rapists, murderers,
terrorists, ms13 and drug traffickers merely by cutting all incentives (something I've called for a million times)?

https://thiscantbehappening.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/illegalentrycaptures.jpg

Chart is immigrant border crossing arrests. Down considerably- not a surging crisis. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09/at-last-a-workable-reason-to-impeach-the-mfer/

[Swordsmyth]

WE MUST REPEL THE INVADERS!

Too late. They're already here.

ALL THE MORE REASON TO KEEP THEM FROM COMING IN!!!1!!
We will have a hard enough time expelling them, letting them send for reinforcements would be insane.

[Swordsmyth]

That sounds very much like a threat. Perhaps you need to step back a bit and compose yourself, before you say something truly unfortunate that gets you into trouble.
That is not a threat, I don't want to kill any Americans if I can keep my freedom without it but there are people who will want to kill those who collaborate with the invaders when the collapse comes.

If either the invaders or the resistance end up killing you then you can't say you weren't warned.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.

[Anti Federalist]

Running out of arguments I see. You keep repeating the same talking points from your guidebook. "Invasion." "Hordes". "commies".

What argument?

Clearly, if you allow an invading demographic, hostile your customs, traditions, institutions, values and ideals, to overwhelm and displace you, you will end up a second class citizen in that nation that was once yours.

Just ask the American Indians.

There's no argument there, that's a matter of historical fact.

The only "argument" is between people who see what is front of their eyes, and people that tell them what they are seeing is all wrong, we're reading it all wrong.

Just like murderous government agents said at Waco: "This is NOT an Assault!!!" as they, assaulted and burned out, shot and killed men, women and children with tanks, snipers and automatic weapons fire.

[acptulsa]

We will have a hard enough time expelling them, letting them send for reinforcements would be insane.

If we run around swatting at the reinforcements, we won't have time to deal with the core problem. And if we never deal with the core problem, the core problem will never stop sending for reinforcements.

[Stratovarious]

You can't even keep out the leeches by just eliminating government handouts, they would still come here to partake of our prosperity and then vote for handouts.

No you can't , so true.

[Stratovarious]

https://thiscantbehappening.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/illegalentrycaptures.jpg

Chart is immigrant border crossing arrests. Down considerably- not a surging crisis. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/09/at-last-a-workable-reason-to-impeach-the-mfer/

lmao
8 years of 'standing down' under Obama lowered
border crossing arrests.

[Zippyjuan]

lmao
8 years of 'standing down' under Obama lowered
border crossing arrests.

Decline started under Bush- not Obama. (actually Obama was tough on the border too- he did not "stand down"). Obama took office in January 2009. And despite higher forces, they have not roared back under Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

If we run around swatting at the reinforcements, we won't have time to deal with the core problem. And if we never deal with the core problem, the core problem will never stop sending for reinforcements.
We can cut off the reinforcements and deal with the core problem.
We will lose if we don't stop the reinforcements, we are close to losing because people like you have interfered with our attempts to do either.

[Swordsmyth]

Decline started under Bush- not Obama. (actually Obama was tough on the border too- he did not "stand down"). Obama took office in January 2009. And despite higher forces, they have not roared back under Trump.
Bush was a friend of illegals too.

[Stratovarious]

If we run around swatting at the reinforcements, we won't have time to deal with the core problem. And if we never deal with the core problem, the core problem will never stop sending for reinforcements.
Your solution?

[Zippyjuan]

Bush was a friend of illegals too.

He built the most miles of walls.

[Stratovarious]

Decline started under Bush- not Obama. (actually Obama was tough on the border too- he did not "stand down"). Obama took office in January 2009. And despite higher forces, they have not roared back under Trump.
Great , Bush/Obama ,
now what zippy/.///

[Stratovarious]

He built the most miles of walls.
Obama spent 12 billion in one year on border security , so what zippy.........

[acptulsa]

You can't even keep out the leeches by just eliminating government handouts, they would still come here to partake of our prosperity and then vote for handouts.

So eliminating the core problem won't work, and eliminating the bait that's luring them won't work, so we prevent the totalitarianism by temporarily setting up a police state, and then resign ourselves to the police state being permanent?

Is that the jist of your spam?


Your solution?

Eliminate the bait, fix the core problem, and don't listen to people who want a permanent police state.

[Swordsmyth]

He built the most miles of walls.
That doesn't change the fact that he tried to keep the Border Patrol from stopping the illegals.

[Zippyjuan]

When you have a nice place, people will want to come here. Want people to not come? Make it into the worst stinkhole. Or move to a deserted island where you can live with only people exactly like yourself.

The whole issue is to stir up fears to allow for an expansion of government powers.

[Swordsmyth]

So eliminating the core problem won't work, and eliminating the bait that's luring them won't work, so we prevent the totalitarianism by temporarily setting up a police state, and then resign ourselves to the police state being permanent?

Is that the jist of your spam?
I didn't say any of that.

[Swordsmyth]

When you have a nice place, people will want to come here. Want people to not come? Make it into the worst stinkhole. Or move to a deserted island where you can live with only people exactly like yourself.
Or we can put up a wall or hire guards.

Failure to do so will mean that nobody can ever have a nice place, the leeches would follow us to the island.

[Stratovarious]

Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

[acptulsa]

I didn't say any of that.

You post your spin so fast you don't even have time to go back and see what you said.

[Swordsmyth]

Eliminate the bait, fix the core problem, and don't listen to people who want a permanent police state.
Do you propose to eliminate prosperity?
How do you propose to fix the core problem? (especially if the enemy is allowed to import as many reinforcements as they want)
Nobody wants a permanent police state.

[Stratovarious]

So eliminating the core problem won't work, and eliminating the bait that's luring them won't work, so we prevent the totalitarianism by temporarily setting up a police state, and then resign ourselves to the police state being permanent?

Is that the jist of your spam?



Eliminate the bait, fix the core problem, and don't listen to people who want a permanent police state.

That's not a solution , why not let us in on your solution, it might be helpful.

[Swordsmyth]

You post your spin so fast you don't even have time to go back and see what you said.
I know exactly what I said and it wasn't any of that.

You are either a deliberate liar or you are so crazy that you see things that aren't there.

[Zippyjuan]

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

Border Patrol is a police force. They are part of the police state. And they don't just work at the border. Then can have checkpoints as far as 200 miles inland. They also check transportation- train, bus, airports. They can randomly stop and search people- including US citizens. Those guys groping you at the airport? They also work for Homeland Security. Gotta protect you from them ferriners! It's for your own good.

[Stratovarious]

Border Patrol is a police force. They are part of the police state. And they don't just work at the border. Then can have checkpoints as far as 200 miles inland. They also check transportation- train, bus, airports. They can randomly stop and search people. Those guys groping you at the airport? They also work for Homeland Security.

This has nothing at all to do with your statement, and my response;
-
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Zippyjuan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750749#post6750749) Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.
-

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

[acptulsa]

Do you propose to eliminate prosperity?
How do you propose to fix the core problem? (especially if the enemy is allowed to import as many reinforcements as they want)
Nobody wants a permanent police state.

Prosperity? You're against prosperity?

If we had true prosperity, nobody would be worried about immigrants undercutting their wages.

[Zippyjuan]

This has nothing at all to do with your statement, and my response;
-
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Zippyjuan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750749#post6750749) Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.
-

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

Answered.

[Stratovarious]

Answered.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Zippyjuan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750749#post6750749) Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.
-

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

[Swordsmyth]

Prosperity? You're against prosperity?
Prosperity is the primary bait, you said to eliminate the bait.
Do you propose to eliminate prosperity?


If we had true prosperity, nobody would be worried about immigrants undercutting their wages.
But we would still complain about invaders imposing a communist regime.


How do you propose to fix the core problem? (especially if the enemy is allowed to import as many reinforcements as they want)

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Zippyjuan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6750749#post6750749) Irony- Calling for a bigger police state to prevent a bigger police state.
-

How does protecting our borders equate to a police state?

I think your computer/ phone is stuck. It keeps posting the same thing.

[acptulsa]

I think your computer/ phone is stuck. It keeps posting the same thing.

His and Swordshyll's too.

Must be the same brand as yours.

[Zippyjuan]

His and Swordshyll's too.

Must be the same brand as yours.

"stick with the script".

[nikcers]

Make the wall with 5g cell towers, it probably lights people up like flash lights because the frequencies it uses. They can probably even cook people with microwaves if they try to go over the border with some radio frequencies.

[acptulsa]

"stick with the script".

You'd know the marching orders better than I. I don't have a script.


Prosperity is the primary bait, you said to eliminate the bait.

Welfare looks like prosperity to some. But true prosperity doesn't happen in the presence of more government. It only happens where there is less government. Wilson and Harding proved this a century ago.

Once people have tasted true prosperity, it's going to be popular enough that it'll take them another hundred years to boil the frogs again. As Coolidge noted, even newcomers raised on totalitarianism will reject it, rather than rock the boat. Two hundred mile Constitution-free police state zones won't accomplish that.

Problem - reaction - "solution" doesn't work where there's no problem. Without a big federal government, where are the problems going to come from?

[Swordsmyth]

You'd know the marching orders better than I. I don't have a script.



Welfare looks like prosperity to some. But true prosperity doesn't happen in the presence of more government. It only happens where there is less government. Wilson and Harding proved this a century ago.

Once people have tasted true prosperity, it's going to be popular enough that it'll take them another hundred years to boil the frogs again. As Coolidge noted, even newcomers raised on totalitarianism will reject it, rather than rock the boat. Two hundred mile Constitution-free police state zones won't accomplish that.

Problem - reaction - "solution" doesn't work where there's no problem. Without a big federal government, where are the problems going to come from?
It takes time for people to learn what caused the prosperity, if you allow an unlimited number of them to come all at once they will destroy it before they understand it.

Coolidge knew that and tightened immigration controls.

[Zippyjuan]

You'd know the marching orders better than I. I don't have a script.



I don't either. But the theme seems to be to promote fear and division.

[phill4paul]

Problem - reaction - "solution" doesn't work where there's no problem.

In what universe do you think that foreign national trespassers, being able to come unfettered, is not a threat?

[nikcers]

In what universe do you think that foreign national trespassers, being able to come unfettered, is not a threat?

Let's just give the government more money that will make them do their jobs.

[Zippyjuan]

In what universe do you think that foreign national trespassers, being able to come unfettered, is not a threat?

So anybody can just stroll across the border "unfettered"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/02/National-Politics/Images/Border_Wall_39746-36feb-4629.jpg?t=20170517

[acptulsa]

It takes time for people to learn what caused the prosperity, if you allow an unlimited number of them to come all at once they will destroy it before they understand it.

Coolidge knew that and tightened immigration controls.

Congress wrote that bill, and you have no idea what deals Coolidge might have made before he signed it.

He did understand the problem, but he didn't for a second think it couldn't be overcome.


'There are among us a great mass of people who have been reared for generations under a government of tyranny and oppression. It is ingrained in their blood that there is no other form of government. They are disposed and inclined to think our institutions partake of the same nature as these they have left behind. We know they are wrong. They must be shown they are wrong.'--Calvin Coolidge

The problem we have today isn't what the immigrants don't know. It's what Americans don't know. They can all learn the truth at once, if we could only demonstrate it.

That's a higher calling for libertarians than creating walled-in police states hunting people without papers.

[phill4paul]

Let's just give the government more money that will make them do their jobs.

Did I say that? How about lessening government? Let me go down to this particular house, that is along a particularly idyllic road leading to and from home. The one that has been leased out to foreign national trespassers, and subsequently turned into a third world shit hole. The one wherein the trash blows away from the yard, down the hill, onto formerly idyllic road and gets spread up and down it by passing cars for a quarter of a mile in each direction. Let me go in with a couple of friends, neighbors, concerned citizens, point guns at the fuckers and tell them there kind isn't welcome here. And if they don't listen burn them out. Their anarchist landlord be damned.
Will that work?

[Swordsmyth]

Congress wrote that bill, and you have no idea what deals Coolidge might have made before he signed it.

He did understand the problem, but he didn't for a second think it couldn't be overcome.



The problem we have today isn't what the immigrants don't know. It's what Americans don't know. They can all learn the truth at once, if we could only demonstrate it.

That's a higher calling for libertarians than creating walled-in police states hunting people without papers.
LOL

YOU CAN'T CONVERT THEM AS FAST AS THEY CAN COME, THAT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE.
WE CAN'T EVEN CONVERT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A CULTURE THAT GIVES LIP SERVICE TO LIBERTY AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Coolidge was not insane and he wasn't cutting deals.

[Swordsmyth]

So anybody can just stroll across the border "unfettered"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/02/National-Politics/Images/Border_Wall_39746-36feb-4629.jpg?t=20170517
Not everywhere along the border is like that.

They just walk across or even drive across in many places.

[phill4paul]

So anybody can just stroll across the border "unfettered"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/02/National-Politics/Images/Border_Wall_39746-36feb-4629.jpg?t=20170517

WTF? Are you just a straight out simpleton? I'm honestly asking.

[Zippyjuan]

Not everywhere along the border is like that.

They just walk across or even drive across in many places.

Examples? (Yes, you can drive across after being checked at official entry points).

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/cb/0cb6d01c-1a69-11e9-bb3e-1bb39d0259ba/5c40998d43f86.image.jpg

[phill4paul]

Examples? (Yes, you can drive across after being checked at official crossing points).

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/cb/0cb6d01c-1a69-11e9-bb3e-1bb39d0259ba/5c40998d43f86.image.jpg

Stuck and deserted. Next meme?

[Stratovarious]

I think your computer/ phone is stuck. It keeps posting the same thing.

You are way over paid, even for a Soros Troll.
You refuse to answer the question because you can't ;

How does border security equate to your so called 'police state' , idot troll.....

Let me answer for you moron..........;'

'you keep asking the same question, and I don't know
so I'll just continue to say you're a broken record''

[Swordsmyth]

Examples? (Yes, you can drive across after being checked at official entry points).

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/gazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/cb/0cb6d01c-1a69-11e9-bb3e-1bb39d0259ba/5c40998d43f86.image.jpg
You have posted yourself maps of what parts of the border have what kinds of barriers.

Go find them yourself.

[acptulsa]

LOL

YOU CAN'T CONVERT THEM AS FAST AS THEY CAN COME, THAT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE.
WE CAN'T EVEN CONVERT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A CULTURE THAT GIVES LIP SERVICE TO LIBERTY AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Coolidge was not insane and he wasn't cutting deals.

You can if what you're doing is working. They don't come in search of a system that works bent on screwing it up. They may be stuck in their ways, but they aren't consciously determined to shoot themselves in the foot.

And if course Coolidge negotiated with Congress to nip the corruption in the bud.

Is shouting helping?

[Swordsmyth]

You can if what you're doing is working. They don't come in search of a system that works bent on screwing it up. They may be stuck in their ways, but they aren't consciously determined to shoot themselves in the foot.


You can't and history has proven that, the immigrants who came while we had a much freer system that worked much better didn't convert, they helped break the system and converted Americans to socialism.

[Zippyjuan]

You have posted yourself maps of what parts of the border have what kinds of barriers.

Go find them yourself.

I see. You can't find anywhere you can just drive across the border freely. (hint- try the US Canada border) Well, thanks for trying.

Be afwaid! The gobernment will save you!

[acptulsa]

You can't and history has proven that, the immigrants who came while we had a much freer system that worked much better didn't convert, they helped break the system and converted Americans to socialism.

Did they, now? You mean the ones from the Mayflower?

[Swordsmyth]

I see. You can't find anywhere you can just drive across the border freely. (hint- try the US Canada border) Well, thanks for trying.
You posted the maps that show where you can and there are news stories about people doing it all the time.

:rolleyes:

[Swordsmyth]

Did they, now? You mean the ones from the Mayflower?
Them too, ask the Injuns whether it was a good idea to let them come in unlimited numbers.

Every wave of immigrants has been more socialist than the last because the rest of the world has got more socialist at a faster rate than America did.

[nikcers]

Did I say that? How about lessening government? Let me go down to this particular house, that is along a particularly idyllic road leading to and from home. The one that has been leased out to foreign national trespassers, and subsequently turned into a third world $#@! hole. The one wherein the trash blows away from the yard, down the hill, onto formerly idyllic road and gets spread up and down it by passing cars for a quarter of a mile in each direction. Let me go in with a couple of friends, neighbors, concerned citizens, point guns at the $#@!ers and tell them there kind isn't welcome here. And if they don't listen burn them out. Their anarchist landlord be damned.
Will that work?

No you can't pay the government to do something when others are paying them more to not do something. Politicians that don't take the money get shot at or have their ribs broken. You got anything you can pay mitt Romney not to fucking destroy our country that is worth more than his life or his family's life??

[Zippyjuan]

You posted the maps that show where you can and there are news stories about people doing it all the time.

:rolleyes:

If it happens "all the time" you should have no troubles finding them. But I understand. You did your best.

[Swordsmyth]

If it happens "all the time" you should have no troubles finding them. But I understand. You did your best.
I don't have to fetch when you command, you yourself posted the maps that show which parts of the border have barriers and which don't.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't have to fetch when you command, you yourself posted the maps that show which parts of the border have barriers and which don't.

True. You don't back up claims with facts all that often- just toss out a few cliches. "Commies!" "Hordes!" "Invasion!" I am the one who does that.

Be afwaid! Gobernment will save you!

[Swordsmyth]

True. You don't back up claims with facts all that often- just toss out a few cliches. I am the one who does that.

Be afwaid! Gobernment will save you!
LOL

[acptulsa]

Every wave of immigrants has been more socialist than the last because the rest of the world has got more socialist at a faster rate than America did.

Immigration causes socialism, but the U.S. allows more, yet becomes more socialist more slowly.

Hmmm...

[Swordsmyth]

Immigration causes socialism, but the U.S. allows more, yet becomes more socialist more slowly.

Hmmm...
LOL

Where did I say the only cause of socialism was immigration?

[invisible]

Clearly, if you allow an invading demographic, hostile your customs, traditions, institutions, values and ideals, to overwhelm and displace you, you will end up a second class citizen in that nation that was once yours.

Why would you think that protecting customs, traditions, institutions, values, and ideals is a legitimate function of government? Is that in the Constitution somewhere? Aren't people supposed to be free to decide what customs, traditions, institutions, values, and ideals they have for themselves, as individuals? Why would you attempt to argue that those things should be decided on a collective basis, isn't that a socialist argument?

[nikcers]

LOL

LOL

[Zippyjuan]

Why would you think that protecting customs, traditions, institutions, values, and ideals is a legitimate function of government? Is that in the Constitution somewhere? Aren't people supposed to be free to decide what customs, traditions, institutions, values, and ideals they have for themselves, as individuals? Why would you attempt to argue that those things should be decided on a collective basis, isn't that a socialist argument?

Government should make everybody the same. Wait- that would be communism.

[Swordsmyth]

Why would you think that protecting customs, traditions, institutions, values, and ideals is a legitimate function of government? Is that in the Constitution somewhere? Aren't people supposed to be free to decide what customs, traditions, institutions, values, and ideals they have for themselves, as individuals? Why would you attempt to argue that those things should be decided on a collective basis, isn't that a socialist argument?
Liberty is custom, a tradition, a value and an ideal.

The legitimate function of government is to protect liberty.

You argument that people must be given the freedom to violate our liberty would be funny if it wasn't so deadly serious.

[Swordsmyth]

Government should make everybody the same. Wait- that would be communism.
Government should protect everyone's rights from those who wish to violate them, that's freedom.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

LOL

[Zippyjuan]

Liberty is custom, a tradition, a value and an ideal.

The legitimate function of government is to protect liberty.

You argument that people must be given the freedom to violate our liberty would be funny if it wasn't so deadly serious.

More cliches but,

Liberty means you are free to practice your own values, customs, and ideals. And others can practice theirs. If everybody must have the same ideals and customs, that isn't liberty.

If your values are true, somebody else cannot take them from you.

What if a government decided that you were the one with the wrong ideals and wanted you to change to join the crowd? Would you be calling that liberty?

[nikcers]

Liberty means you are free to practice your own values, customs, and ideals. If everybody must have the same ideals and customs, that isn't liberty.

If your values are true, somebody else cannot take them from you.

That's the joke.

[Swordsmyth]

Liberty means you are free to practice your own values, customs, and ideals. If everybody must have the same ideals and customs, that isn't liberty.

If your values are true, somebody else cannot take them from you.
Liberty means liberty, it doesn't mean you are free to practice tyranny.

Do you even read what you type?

[Ender]

My bad I thought you'd be flattered or just admit that you and zippy were the same
poster, just playing darts,,,,,sorry.
-
Ok so, then , mmm, lets see, you didn't call for 'open borders' .
I didn't call for 'standing armies' , ''now we have something we can agree on'' :frog:
How are you going, I mean how in the hell are you going to keep out disease ridden felons, rapists, murderers,
terrorists, ms13 and drug traffickers merely by cutting all incentives (something I've called for a million times)?

Well, lessee.......

End the WoD.
End the WoT.
FREE TRADE.

And voila!

I know, I know, it all equals rocket science.

[Zippyjuan]

Liberty means liberty, it doesn't mean you are free to practice tyranny.

Do you even read what you type?

(more cliches) You want tyranny to restrict those who are different from you. That is not liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

(more cliches) You want tyranny to restrict those who are different from you. That is not liberty.
LOL

The definition of liberty is that people are prevented from engaging in tyranny and I absolutely want government to restrict people from engaging in tyranny.

Did you skip your meds today?

[Swordsmyth]

Well, lessee.......

End the WoD.
End the WoT.
FREE TRADE.

And voila!

I know, I know, it all equals rocket science.
That isn't enough, they would still come for the prosperity and vote for the socialism that would destroy it.

[Swordsmyth]

More cliches but,

Liberty means you are free to practice your own values, customs, and ideals. And others can practice theirs. If everybody must have the same ideals and customs, that isn't liberty.

If your values are true, somebody else cannot take them from you.

What if a government decided that you were the one with the wrong ideals and wanted you to change to join the crowd? Would you be calling that liberty?
Liberty is liberty, government enforcing it is a good thing, government failing to enforce it and suppressing it is a bad thing.

Morality isn't relative, I am right and my enemies are wrong, the legitimate purpose of government is to impose right against wrong on this subject.

[Stratovarious]

Well, lessee.......

End the WoD.
End the WoT.
FREE TRADE.

And voila!

I know, I know, it all equals rocket science.

Do you have a phobia of sentences, and is your world all acronyms....:facepalm:

[Stratovarious]

Well, lessee.......

End the WoD.
End the WoT.
FREE TRADE.

And voila!

I know, I know, it all equals rocket science.

How are you going to keep out disease ridden felons, rapists, murderers,
terrorists, ms13 and drug traffickers merely by cutting all incentives ?
Your gibberish is not a solution to the question.

[Zippyjuan]

Liberty is liberty, government enforcing it is a good thing, government failing to enforce it and suppressing it is a bad thing.

Morality isn't relative, I am right and my enemies are wrong, the legitimate purpose of government is to impose right against wrong on this subject.

More cliches but- "I am right and my enemies are wrong" is used to justify tyranny.


the legitimate purpose of government is to impose right against wrong on this subject

That isn't liberty. The Communists were good at that.

[nikcers]

Do you have a phobia of sentences, and is your world all acronyms....:facepalm:

Do you have a phobia of acronyms?

[Stratovarious]

Do you have a phobia of acronyms? fo troll

[Swordsmyth]

More cliches but- "I am right and my enemies are wrong" is used to justify tyranny.



That isn't liberty. The Communists were good at that.
You are the moron trying to justify tyranny by gutting the definition of liberty.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

[Swordsmyth]

How are you going to keep out disease ridden felons, rapists, murderers,
terrorists, ms13 and drug traffickers merely by cutting all incentives ?
Your gibberish is not a solution to the question.
How is he going to cut all incentives without destroying prosperity?

[johnwk]

No, that's only what those in power would like everyone to think, and the racists are only their useful idiots.

Useful idiots? Really.

A very real problem, one that does not get the attention it ought to get is, we have domestic enemies, mostly socialists and communists, who are hard at work to destroy American and the flame of freedom it represents. They have realized they cannot overpower America by force and have resorted to other tactics to destroy us, one tactic is to flood our country with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, disease carrying and criminal populations of other countries.


Make no mistake. There is a very real war taking place on American soil.


JWK


There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.

[Stratovarious]

How is he going to cut all incentives without destroying prosperity?
I'm not sure I follow?
You mean like turn the country into sht to stop attracting an influx of illegals
and ruin the country?
Could you elaborate.....

[nikcers]

You are the moron trying to justify tyranny by gutting the definition of liberty.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

If you can't rape the willing than it's not rape if they are consenting to big government...

[Zippyjuan]

You are the moron trying to justify tyranny by gutting the definition of liberty.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

You need a new playbook with more accurate definitions (assuming that being factual is actually a goal for you).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty


Definition of liberty (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see DESPOT sense 1) control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not sure I follow?
You mean like turn the country into sht to stop attracting an influx of illegals
and ruin the country?
Could you elaborate.....
He needs to elaborate, he is the one who claims he can eliminate all incentives even though prosperity is the biggest incentive.
Your suggestion would seem to be the only way he can do what he claims t o be able to do.....................

[Swordsmyth]

You need a new playbook with more accurate definitions (assuming that being factual is actually a goal for you).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty
And people aren't any of those things if other people are allowed to engage in tyranny.

You have gone completely insane.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

[Swordsmyth]

If you can't rape the willing than it's not rape if they are consenting to big government...
I am not willing and I know many other people who aren't, we have a right to keep out those who want to rape us.

[Zippyjuan]

And people aren't any of those things if other people are allowed to engage in tyranny.

You have gone completely insane.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

Exactly. You want to repress people who do not think the same as you- therefore you want tyranny in the name of liberty which is a contradiction.

[Swordsmyth]

Exactly. You want to repress people who do not think the same as you- therefore you want tyranny in the name of liberty which is a contradiction.
Preventing people from engaging in tyranny is not and can not be tyranny.

You have gone completely insane.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

[Zippyjuan]

Preventing people from engaging in tyranny is not and can not be tyranny.

You have gone completely insane.

There is and can be no such thing as the freedom to engage in tyranny.

You are stuck in "repeat" mode again. Bot glitch?

[Swordsmyth]

You are stuck in "repeat" mode again. Bot glitch?
When you keep saying the same insane thing over and over you will get the same response over and over.


@Bryan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=2) please read this exchange, Zippy is openly advocating against the mission of this site and in favor of tyranny while mocking us and claiming to advocate for freedom. (the "freedom" to engage in tyranny)

Will you finally have him banned?

[nikcers]

He needs to elaborate, he is the one who claims he can eliminate all incentives even though prosperity is the biggest incentive.
Your suggestion would seem to be the only way he can do what he claims t o be able to do.....................

I'm not sure I follow?
You mean like turn the country into sht to stop attracting an influx of illegals
and ruin the country?
Could you elaborate.....

The only way to get rid of all incentives is to either make America into Mexico or make Mexico more like America. So the idea is to make all the Democrats go to Mexico and vote for more government. Send them over to fix Mexico.

[Stratovarious]

He needs to elaborate, he is the one who claims he can eliminate all incentives even though prosperity is the biggest incentive.
Your suggestion would seem to be the only way he can do what he claims t o be able to do.....................

I guess I wasn't clear, I thought you understood my stance
on illegals.
By stating 'cut all incentives' I'm referring to the same
rant I've posted here probably 5 or six times;

Cut all incentives to ILLEGALS;
Welfare
licenses
Sanctuary Cities
Free med care
Free Education
Anchor Babies
Chain Migration
Amnesty
DACA
All freebies of any kind

None of the above is enough to keep out the disease ridden rapists, murderers , extortionists,
felons, thieves, terrorists etc, enhanced border security via a wall, and better, more effective
border patrolling would help.

[nikcers]

You are stuck in "repeat" mode again. Bot glitch?

Maybe there is a feedback loop, that can require lots of rewiring might as well just try noise cancellation