• Conza88's Avatar
    Today, 08:30 AM
    Yes. Meh. Good for speculators for being treated well in a sense. See; JT's review.
    8 replies | 277 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    Today, 08:28 AM
    The pre-1914 world saw no immigration issues or policies, and no real border controls. Instead, there was free movement in the real sense; there were no questions asked, people were treated respectfully and one did not even need official documents to enter or leave a country. This all changed with the First World War, after which states seem to compete with having the least humane view on foreigners seeking refuge within its territory.The “immigration policies” of modern states is yet another licensing scheme of the 20th century: the state has enforced licensing of movement. It is virtually impossible to move across the artificial boundaries of the state’s territory in the search for opportunity, love, or work; one needs a state-issued license to move one’s body, be it across a river, over a mountain or through a forest. The Berlin Wall may be gone, but the basic principle of it lives and thrives. Yet the immigration issue seems to be somewhat of a divide within libertarianism, with two seemingly conflicting views on how to deal with population growth through immigration. On the one hand, it is not possible as a libertarian to support a regulated immigration policy, since government itself is never legitimate. This is the somewhat classical libertarian standpoint on immigration: open borders. On the other hand, the theory of natural rights and, especially, private property rights tells us anyone could move anywhere — but they need first to purchase their own piece of land on which to live or obtain necessary permission from the owner. Otherwise immigration becomes a violation of property rights, a trespass. This is an interpretation of a libertarian-principled immigration policy presented by Hans-Hermann Hoppe a few years ago, which since then has gained increasing recognition and support. I intend to show that the libertarian idea is as powerful as we claim, and that there is no reason we should not be able to reach consensus in the immigration issue. Both sides in this debate, the anti-government-policy as well as the pro-private-property, somehow fail to realize there is no real contradiction in their views. The anti-government-policy immigration standpoint (or, the open borders argument) and the pro-private-property ditto are two sides of a coin; their respective proponents have simply fallen prey to the devil in the details. Let’s go through the main arguments of both camps, and see to their respective strengths and weaknesses, and I’ll show you how this is true. We must not forget libertarianism is not a teleological dogma striving for a certain end; it rather sees individual freedom and rights as the natural point of departure for a just society. When people are truly free, whatever will be will be. Hence, the question is not what the effects of a certain immigration policy would be, but whether there should be one at all.
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    Today, 08:19 AM
    I literally cannot fathom this. He did NOT speak nicely of Ron back in the day; and he was always dismissive. He was literally incapable of seeing Ron's nuanced approach; that his real goal was education first & foremost: Stefan was guilty of the purist deviation fallacy. I haven't been listening / paying attention to him or his podcasts for about a year. What did I miss? How on earth has it gone all Trumptard?
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    3 replies | 223 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Today, 03:40 AM
    He's whatever you want him to be, bae.....
    8 replies | 185 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Today, 01:09 AM
    Pointing out reality isn't a downer. All IMO... for some people, you can't complete. Most others aren't going to turn on a dime, it can nominally take around six months or more for someone to go from getting a seed of liberty and turning it into a new world outlook. Within that six months there is a lot of person reflection, withdraw from past ties, leaning new things and then starting to articulate new views. One key is to recognize when you are just planning seeds that you need to accept that you are doing just that, don't expect the quick change. Otherwise, there are a lot of do's and don'ts to this; another major topic. These things are doable for most people, and it's the people that are important, the vessel comes after that. While working towards it, I understand the scope of the problem, so it's in mind. The key however, is that it has to be planned for, and it's why we need better plans. The Liberty Blueprint is just the first layer of plans.
    92 replies | 2175 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Today, 12:57 AM
    This^^ During the VA Ratifying Convention Patrick Henry was the most frequent speaker against ratification of the new Constitution. Here, on 4 June, 1788, Mr. Henry first spoke to the delegates and reminded them of Virginia's sovereignty and her membership in a confederation of states. This speech is acted out in my movie "The Spirit of '76 - The Greatest Story Never Told". 4 June, 1788. The Virginia Assembly, Richmond Virginia Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose.Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government — a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states — a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.The present circumstances of France — the good offices rendered us by that kingdom — require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements? — and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government — say it is composed by any thing but inspiration — you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of...
    87 replies | 1297 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Today, 12:43 AM
    When did Stefan ever claim he was never wrong and has never changed his mind? In fact he has said the opposite.. he changes his mind when he runs into reason and evidence to the contrary. For example, long, long ago before the podcast he supported multi-culturalism. He is ok with multi-culturism now to the extent that it is voluntary, he says that cultures can potentially assimilate, slowly, over time, potentially in a healthy way, but that multi-culturalism should not be something to promote because it usually ends up badly. He has also changed his mind on race and IQ. If he did ever argue that immigrants don't come here because of welfare or that a wall is a bad idea, then in a sense perhaps he has changed his mind on those - although I will have to take some time later to watch that video because I have a hard time believing that he really made the argument that immigrants don't come here for welfare but it is certainly possible. Why people make stupid youtube videos that show he changed his mind on something and claim he is contradictory when he has changed his mind based on reason and evidence is kinda ridiculous. He has said some really great things about Ron Paul - I am not totally happy with his treatment of Ron Paul at times, and I don't intend on supporting Trump - but in general he is a great source of philosophy discussions and research based podcasts and he does do a good job of supporting his views with reason. I mean, a wall does help curb immigration, but it isn't the end all solution. So that means you can make a valid argument in both directions, which he has.
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:20 PM
    Hope my orthodox brothers and sisters are having a wonderful and blessed Holy Week! :D I haven't been able to go to any liturgies since Sunday. :'( I will be going to Holy Saturday, though. :) At Agape Vespers I will be reading the Gospel in Russian. Pray for me if you are able.
    61 replies | 3027 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:58 PM
    He admits he is wrong when he finds evidence and reasoning that shows he was wrong, not when some random pseudo-intellectuals on the internet who don't take the time to understand his positions say he is wrong. I don't agree with him all of the time, but most of his stuff is pretty solid and well reasoned.
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:55 PM
    No, he's actually very intelligent. The people who who don't like him are often incapable of reasoning well, or just don't take the time to understand his arguments.
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:53 PM
    Then you haven't been listening to his latest podcasts on the topic..and yes it is absolutely a strawman. Immigration currently exists as a government program.. Most immigrants come here and are on government assistance. They are committing aggression against current citizens without paying into the system. Immigration control prevents that aggression from happening, using less aggression - additionally - immigration brings in more people who will vote for more welfare and socialism, which is even more aggression. He is picking the lesser of the evils and not abandoning his original position in any way, shape or form. He has no issue with immigration in a voluntary society.
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:07 PM
    Yes, because your post (below) is like wizards, better reflects a knee jerk response to the title of "states rights" while completely ignoring the actual questions. When you read the questions it clear to see that soapboxing that the fed can do whatever they want (as you did) completely misses the point of the thread in that this is a case of states rights gone rouge, and states doing whatever they want, regardless of the federally supported rights of the people. So here, the fed stepping in and would actually be a good thing, as they would be protecting the people from a rouge state. The knee jerk response of states no longer have rights and the fed can do whatever they want isn't the issue at all, and I certainly have no idea what the picking up a gun as a political act has to do with any of this as you included. "The Feds claim the right and authority to over rule just about anything a state or states want to do. It appears they have enough firepower to back up that claim. "The last move in politics is always to pick up the gun." -- R. Buckminster Fuller"
    11 replies | 168 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:53 PM
    There are a few options, one is the courts. File a legal challenge. This would be pretty expensive so you'd want some institutional backing. I found this page, could be of interest to look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States Another option is legislative, basically get legislation drafted up, gain support, and push it through to become law. You'd want a good common sense bill so legislators will look bad to not support it. If they don't you work to expose them. Worst case, you get people to run against them. There are some established techniques to make this happen by applying pain to legislators. Obviously none of this is easy or cheap. I'm not a lawyer but -- state legislators can pass whatever law they want; more or less; the laws however can be challenged in a court which can strike them down.
    11 replies | 168 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:37 PM
    No, I listen to all of his podcasts now and I don't need doctored up bullshit strawman video to tell me what his views on immigration are.. He does not hold contradictory points on immigration, he's taken hours and hours to go over his positions extensively and I've listened to many of them and pretty much all of them in the last year or so.
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:04 PM
    I don't see how teh Donald is any worse than the Buchananites-who the Paleocons typicaly are fanboys of. ~shrugs~
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • Bryan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:25 PM
    That's not the issue at all, you said "as opposed to giving aid and comfort to Hillary Clinton" as if this is a binary option, it is not and calling you out for framing this as a binary option does not equate to being threatened. It is understood that there may be "dozen data points where they are the same or similar to Ron/Rand on issues" and it could be argued that the GOP nominee may end up being better than the Democrat nominee but that doesn't mean that they have earned support, much less should enjoy having ones good name put behind the candidate. Some may think it's the best things, other will degree. I can very much respect people who have high standards of who they will put their name behind.
    34 replies | 632 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:33 PM
    Meh, a few days ago Molyneux asked an eastern European if he thought their country would consider removing the socialist policies that support immigration, and strike at the root of the problem, because in Serbia I think it was they set aside a bunch of land for Muslim immigrants - but they wouldn't be able to collect any welfare there - and turned out none of the immigrants wanted to move there..none... and the guy agreed that was very unlikely they would end their socialist policies and so they would have to use force to keep them out. Here is a nice little 15 second video that he put out the other day that makes a good point about immigration to socialist countries as well: Ultimately they both seem to agree on the issue, I'm not sure what the big complaint is. I don't think Ron Paul is completely opposed to a wall, he just knows that there are more effective ways to deal with the problem - they both seem to agree so I'm not sure what the issue is. If I go back and watch the original video that Molyneux posted, will I find that there was a lot of audio editing done to the version you posted?
    22 replies | 269 view(s)
  • Kotin's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:28 PM
    man that is so badass.. we are here for you shem if you need absolutely anything!! lets get this lover of liberty healthy and back to work in the legislature!
    67 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:42 PM
    Wow, I would be pretty surprised if that happened.. but not totally surprised.. Ted Cruz totally sucks as a human being.
    30 replies | 531 view(s)
  • brandon's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:03 PM
    I don't have kids yet so I don't know what its actually like, but in theory I do not plan on spanking them. I was spanked as a kid and I turned out okay, but I remember a lot of years as a kid when I feared my dad. I don't think that's really a healthy relationship. I'd like to cultivate respect, trust and safety, not fear. I have raised and trained dogs with no violence and only positive reinforcement, so I don't see why kids have to be different. I guess I really can't know until I have them though.
    65 replies | 709 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:03 PM
    edit: nm looks like you already broke down and did them.. Plug one side of the kitchen sink, squirt some dish soap in the bin and get the hot water going, filling it up about half way. Stick the dirty dishes in the soapy water. Chug a glass of Franzia, and wash the dishes in the other bin and let them dry.
    412 replies | 9311 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    5 replies | 177 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:31 PM
    412 replies | 9311 view(s)
More Activity

8 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    A Liberty candidate needs your help!

    Donate today to Thomas Massie with $20.12 or something bigger! http://www.thomasmassie.com/

    For Liberty!
  2. View Conversation
    Beautiful, congratulations, etc, etc. Enjoy! Enjoy! But also take great care.

    I speak as a Parent in urging you to reconsider the wisdom of posting a PHOTO OF YOUR CHILD on the internet.

  3. View Conversation
    TACO SOUP (Paula Deen As Messed With by Ruthie)


    Chopped Green Onions
    Grated Cheese
    Sour Cream
    Corn Chips or Nacho Chips or a Nice Crusty Bread

    1 1-ounce package ranch salad dressing mix
    1 1-1/4-ounce package taco seasoning mix
    1/2 cup green olives, sliced (optional)
    1 small can black olives, drained and sliced (optional)
    2 4-1/2 -ounce cans diced green chilies
    1 14-1/2-ounce can tomatoes with chilies
    1 14-1/2-ounce can diced tomatoes
    1 14-1/2-ounce can mexican tomatoes
    1 15-1/4-ounce can whole kernel corn, drained
    2 15-1/2-ounce cans pink kidney beans
    2 15-1/2 ounce cans pinto beans
    2 cups diced onions
    2 lbs ground beef


    Brown the ground beef and onions in a large skillet; drain the excess fat, then transfer the browned beef and onions to a large crockpot or soup pot. Add the beans, corn, green onions, tomatoes, chilies, olives and seasonings, mix together well, and cook on low setting all day (6 to 8 hours) if using a crockpot, or simmer over low heat about one hour in a soup or stockpot on the stove.

    Serve with corn or nacho chips. Top with sour cream, cheese, jalapenos, or whatever you like.

    Ruthie's Note: I only do a little salt and pepper on the meat while browning it, as the seasoning packages in this recipe really do a good job for seasoning the whole thing.

    I cut up the two kinds of olives and serve on the side for people to put on top if they want them; the olives are kind of strong if cooked in the soup.

    I found this recipe needed a bit more liquid, if cooking on stove top, so added one can of beef broth. I don't like it when my soup or chili burns on bottom of pan so always make sure there is enough liquid in the pot to prevent that.

    I also serve the green onions chopped as something you can add as a topping. Cooking them in the soup they get way overcooked.

    I let the soup cook longer than an hour on low, with an occasional bumping up of heat. Sometimes I cook it for 3 hours on low. Just keep an eye on the soup and stir it every now and then. I love to double this recipe and make a huge pot in the winter time.

    You can use any kind of bean you like. I use chili beans, pintos, kidney beans, and
    black beans, also like to put in one can of refried regular beans or refried black beans. Of course, baked beans or navy beans wouldn't work in this, nor would pork and beans. Use the kind of beans you would use in a chili. Also can mess with the kinds of tomatoes you put in. I also like to add some of those canned or bottled roasted red peppers. And you can add hot sauce if you wish, but I usually let people do their own hot sauce in individual servings.

    Just watch the liquid. You don't want it too thick, to avoid burning, but also don't want it too soupy.

    This also freezes well if you have any leftovers.

  4. View Conversation
    I just got your comments on my youtube channel. Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to listen. Please refer folks you know to my channel and my blog, matveimediaarts.blogspot.com
  5. View Conversation
    good luck in EMT school, bro! That's a very respectable job, IMHO.
  6. View Conversation
    Well, he's beautiful!
  7. View Conversation
    OK, I don't want to derail asimplegirl's thread. What the hell is that avatar??? LOL!
  8. View Conversation
    Yes, I'm the Photoshop nerd who can help you with your jeep pic. When you send it, make sure to send a note describing our conversation. I'll probably forget by then, lol.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 8 of 8
About satchelmcqueen

Basic Information


My YouTube Satchel McQueen Video

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on FaceBook

""Ill vote for Suzanimals Vagina""


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
04-26-2012 12:20 AM
General Information
Last Activity
04-26-2016 03:07 PM
Join Date

19 Friends

  1. Mitt Romneys sideburns
  2. MrDrawingguy MrDrawingguy is offline


  3. Nirvikalpa Nirvikalpa is offline

    Unapologetic Feminist

  4. PowerslavePA PowerslavePA is offline

    New Member

  5. profg profg is offline


  6. ruthie ruthie is offline


  7. Theocrat Theocrat is offline


    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
  8. V4Vendetta V4Vendetta is offline


  9. yongrel yongrel is offline


Showing Friends 11 to 19 of 19
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
No results to display...
No results to display...







  • 07:11 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 07:05 PM - Deleted Posts