Tab Content
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    48 replies | 1006 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:32 PM
    Well, that's just stupidity because then every country in the world would be incentivized to export all prisoners/insane/etc. here, which is exactly what is happening currently as a result of willful non-enforcement of border law. It is perfectly reasonable to have a border and to exclude undesirables from other countries. We have enough undesirables here, we should not have to carry the burden of every other country in the world, also.
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:48 PM
    That proves my point. Go back and carefully work out why that's the case and you'll get it. Then there is a simple solution: increase legal immigration quotas. Once again, this was never an issue until it became politicized. Prior to the rise of the "amnesty" narrative, there were plenty of people who wanted to immigrate to the US to work (not just collect handouts) and they were able to. In the last 40+ years, the entire US economy has been gutted and shipped overseas, not for "profits" as claimed by the Marxist narrative, but just in order to destroy this once-powerful country which was a virtually unassailable bastion of the Gospel. In its place, they have built a circus of welfare-handouts and pretend-jobs. This isn't about race, it's not about economic theories, it's not even about political ideology: it's about the Gospel.
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:39 PM
    262 replies | 28228 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:20 AM
    Way to completely miss the point. "Climbing over the fence" means coming here illegally. People who want to come here to work because of better jobs/pay are eager to follow all legal procedures because they don't want to get revoked later on due to even a minor paperwork mistake. Overseas, people pay good money to immigration consultants to help them fill out all the legal immigration forms correctly and completely for this very reason. They want to be sure they have the best chance of immigrating legally and staying on a pathway to citizenship once they get here. People who want handouts don't care about any of that because the handouts are mainly based on children and so anyone who can sire children can live on the dole. American men are no longer willing to seed American women for a host of (quite valid) reasons. Foreigners are more than happy to come here and do the honors in our place, and get paid to sit on the couch and collect welfare checks for the children they breed here. If you think this is not demographic warfare, you are so clued out that I don't know what to say to help you...
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:01 AM
    Just zeroing in on this, for a moment. This is an obvious false-dichotomy. The problem is both open borders and the welfare state. The two go hand-in-hand. When you don't have a welfare-state, you don't have people trying to climb over the fence. Without a welfare-state, immigrants may still desire to enter your country if it is prosperous but, since they are seeking lawful employment, they will not even try to climb over the fence. But if you're just coming here for the free stuff, why bother with legal entry? Enter by hook or by crook. The fact that the neoCON/RINO establishment will not even discuss the welfare-state shows that they have absolutely and totally capitulated this issue to the Left and all the saber-rattling about "tEh BoRdEr" is just empty bluster and machismo whose purpose is to placate the few on the Right who have not yet completely buried their heads in the sand. I'm not saying Trump is insincere, and I'm not saying a wall is a bad idea. But if they're just building a wall so we don't have to argue over the actual issue (the omnipotent warfare-welfare-State), then what's the point? Instead of meeting the enemy in the center of the battlefield, we have been diverted to some side-issue, yet again. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of strategic jiu-jitsu when it's appropriate. "Win by yielding" is often the most powerful strategy. But when the only thing you're doing is yielding, then there is no intention to win at all and those who keep telling us "Just yield, this is not the hill to die on" for every hill are just turncoats and traitors. If there is no hill worth dying on, then we are no longer men and the trans-Agenda forcibly converting "men" into their true female form is not wrong...
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:04 AM
    It's just a false-dichotomy. If you own a very large ranch and you can successfully defend its extents through self-produced or private security, local law-enforcement, local political cover, and so on, then you are effectively sovereign no matter how much DC seethes about it. Many American families have been quietly following this model of de facto sovereignty for generations. It is anti-State and libertarian to the core, no matter what label they apply to themselves. The whole world has only ever been an anarchy. Some were just better at playing The Game. We usually call them emperors, conquerors, dictators, etc. "The State" is just a comfortable illusion, a bedtime story people tell themselves so they can feel like "____ can't happen here because we have a State", where _____ could be war, terrorism, running violence in the streets, etc. It is just an illusion and was never anything other than an illusion. The sooner that "realist conservatives" wake up and start dealing with reality instead of willingly having the wool pulled over their eyes by Clown World, the better for all of us. The illusion of The State can't be defeated by pretending harder...
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 09:04 PM
    6689 replies | 661234 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:43 PM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:29 PM
    The Gaffe Factory(TM) keeps pumping out gaffes faster than I can even keep up...
    48 replies | 1006 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:48 PM
    Not confusing anything. Get lost.
    10 replies | 304 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:46 PM
    Thank you for acknowledging this is AI-generated. Unfortunately, due to unreliability of LLMs, every single fact-claim of an LLM must be manually checked before being believed. I've had LLMs invent entire scientific papers and journals that have never existed. AI hallucination is real. <snip discussion of hell> Well, we've gone far afield of the topic of the thread. Suffice it to say that you and I will not agree on any of these topics. Hell is real. It's exactly what it is described to be: burning, forever, in unimaginable torment, unendurable agony.
    19 replies | 788 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 02:12 PM
    Yep. I haven't dug into the history of it, but I have no doubt the British already tried that. They've exported paper money everywhere they have gone, especially their colonies or former colonies. India obviously didn't fall for it.
    10 replies | 304 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 01:44 PM
    Not really, no, but I'm not going to press the matter. I think that this idea that there is some kind of cut-and-dried external litmus test, other than those given to us in 1 Cor. 12:3, 1 John 4:2,3, etc. is misleading. I don't know that Trump is a false professor. I don't know that he's a true professor, either, but that's not the same thing as knowing he's a false professor. I have not heard him remark on matters of 1 Cor. 12:3 or 1 John 4:2,3, so I don't see how anybody can "remote diagnose" Trump's soul from the armchair.
    19 replies | 788 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    236 replies | 8418 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 01:24 PM
    Not necessarily disagreeing, but what makes this post not just another instance of the same kind of virtue-signaling? Anti-virtue-signaling can become just another variety of virtue-signaling...
    19 replies | 788 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 09:35 AM
    I want to make a few remarks on the idea that consent (as a litmus test for civil law) opens Pandora's Box (culturally). The argument, in itself is not baseless, and Wokism proves this. There are social problems that have the "camel's nose in the tent" problem -- if you allow even a small amount of certain kinds of cultural corruption, it will lead to an explosion of cultural corruption. This is not false. However, this is a bit of a red herring in respect to the role of consent in libertarian law, and I think that Smith didn't crank Wilson's arm hard enough on this particular point. Basically, the issue is this: it may be ever-so-undesirable for there to be homosexuals having sex with each other in the privacy of their homes, but the question facing public policy is whether or not the State is the right tool to fix this social problem? And the answer is almost always NO. The State is almost never the right tool to fix any given social problem. And there are many reasons why this is the case. First, the State is unable to fix social problems like homosexuality. There is no amount of throwing people in jail that is going to make them stop being sexually evil. And even if the State could make them stop (e.g. by beheading, etc.), if it comes at the cost of completely corrupting the image of God in man by violence, how are we any better? We have cured one form of beastliness (sexual depravity) at the expense of descending into another form of beastliness (violent depravity). This point alone suffices to prove the libertarian position. "Everyone should own puppies and eat Skittles in order to fix <social problem X>" is irrational and absurd because owning a puppy and eating Skittles can't solve <social problem X>. Thus, in itself, this moots the entire idea that there can possibly be any moral duty for people to support owning puppies and eating Skittles. So, the entire statist enterprise is sunk on this point alone. But, second, the State not only can't fix most social problems, it almost always actively makes them worse. The drug war is a great example of this. Let's suppose that drugs are the single, greatest social issue. Let's suppose that each time somebody self-injects Morphine, this is worse than the entire Holocaust. It's an evil so great that practically any legal measure, no matter how extreme, is justified. We could publicly burn people for injecting Morphine, and it would be morally justified. That's what we're assuming, here. Now, given this great evil, the worst thing we could do is institute a public policy that results in more people injecting Morphine, right? Since that would be increasing the amount of Holocausts happening all over the country, every day. But this is precisely what the "War on Drugs" has done. As laws and punishments have increased, as government budgets have increased, drug usage has also increased pro rata (linear), or even more than linear. Vastly more people use drugs of all kinds today than used drugs prior to the "War on Drugs", both in absolute numbers and by proportion. If it were true that increased drug use is the worst possible social problem you can have, then the highest moral duty would be to stop the "War on Drugs" because it's only making things worse. The data on this and similar social issues is completely univocal. The more that a government tries to "ban" something, the more widespread its use becomes, precisely because its contraband status makes it even more of a boutique item, and access to it becomes a powerful symbol of status and prestige. There is no faster way to prove that you are very rich and powerful than to bring out a large supply of coke. And the more contraband it is, the more profoundly your access to it demonstrates how rich and powerful you must be. Third, the State is always ultimately just a camouflage for private interests. This is the "key that unlocks" the previous points. To the statist (who is invariably a collectivist), the perversity of...
    19 replies | 788 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:47 AM
    262 replies | 28228 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:20 AM
    Bob Murphy weighs in on the debate:
    19 replies | 788 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:03 AM
    Yep. Also, the Indians are not gullible about money like the West is. They all know why the globalists want to ban cash. In India, there's really no such thing as a "ban" on anything. There's just certain jurisdictions where the cops will use a new law to crack down on some gang they don't like. And that's basically all that ever comes of it. Life goes on as it has always gone on. The globalists are delusional if they think they can seize control of money in India by mere fiat...
    10 replies | 304 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 07:53 AM
    Sure, I'm not saying they're identical, just similar. The HOA is consensual, a city-state is not necessarily consensual (although we may safely assume it has large majority consent from its constituents due to its geographic and hereditary compactness.) There is no clear line-of-distinction between the two... a city-state can be thought of as a very large HOA, an HOA as a small city-state, and somewhere between the two is the line-of-distinction between the two. While I'm anti-State, I'm a "compass-heading anti-statist" rather than a "destination anti-statist" -- I care much more that we (as a country) move away from statism than that we "abolish the State" all in one fell swoop (which has never worked). As long as we keep making incremental moves away from Progressivism and the omnipotent-State, we are moving in the right direction. The faster we sail in that direction, the better. But it's the compass-heading that matters the most to me. Ideological litmus-testing and ideological purism are uninteresting to me because they are just quagmires for ideologues. Thus, if we move towards increasingly allowing people to form semi-autonomous HOAs and easing restrictions against those, we are moving in the right direction. In America, the state-level government was originally architected to be the primary level of government, i.e. we were supposed to be a union of largely independent governments who are bound into an open-borders agreement with each other (and any other disputes to be resolved by the Federal courts or Federal law). Instead, we have a single, monolithic, occupying tyranny in DC and all state and local governments have been gutted for the express purpose of centralizing all power in DC. Let's reverse course and let's move back to the original model of this country. And if we have to go all the way back to city-states in order to accomplish that, so be it. Complaining on the Internet has changed nothing and will change nothing...
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 04:27 PM
    LMAO :tears:
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 03:56 PM
    HOAs -- rightly understood -- are just miniature city-states. The entirety of Christendom was once almost one giant patchwork of city-states and surrounding rural supports. The rural support was defended by the security apparatus of the city-state to which it belonged. This was not always a strictly territorial arrangement, as in feudalism. People who needed more security stayed in the urban area. People who could live with less security could stay in rural areas (often because they were poor, or they could provide their own security). *shrug -- then it doesn't make sense for it to be policed in that way, and it's a waste of money to spend the public treasure on such a venture. That doesn't mean you have to accept illegal entry, you just have to capture and deport them, etc. Note that the single biggest reason we have an issue with the border is welfare. We have trillions in free handouts in the US. People are "immigrating" here illegally to dip their bowl in some of the free pork which is constantly streaming out of DC. Before we had the world's largest welfare state (in absolute dollars, if not percentage), we had no issue with people climbing over fences and walls to get in here. So, shut off the magnet, and the problem would be solved overnight. But no Republican will ever talk about that because 2024 Republicans are equivalent to circa 1994 Democrats. The Republicans have always been about 30 years behind the Democrat party, but in lock-step with the globalist Agenda, all the same. So, we will have a big knock-down-drag-out political fight about "border versus no-border" but we will never talk about the actual cause. It's like a morbidly obese person trying to tell the doctor they're sure it's a thyroid issue and the doctor is telling them, "No, you just eat way too much. Stop over-eating and lose weight." So, we'll continue arguing about our thyroid southern border instead of the Federal Reserve money fountain and the DC special-interest pork-barreling that is causing it... - This qualifier is required because the BlackRock version of "HOA"s is just another statist corruption of a formerly valuable private arrangement.
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 01:45 PM
    Any HOA with gated entrance is going to have rules about that. You can't remove a section of the outer wall, you can't remove the gate, you can't change the gate-code, you may not loan your code to someone else, you may not tailgate others, you may not allow others to tailgate you, certain types of visitors may have to follow a sign-in procedure, and so on, and so forth. Sure, it may be possible to have a wall-less border (that is also secure). But the deeper issue is that if you want to achieve Goal X, you have to choose a tool from among the set of available tools that can actually accomplish Goal X. If Goal X is to dig a powerline ditch but you choose Tool A which is a children's sandbox scoop, have fun trying to dig a ditch with that. You need to choose an appropriate tool, such as a proper steel shovel, or a Ditch-Witch, or whatever. The government is the wrong tool for almost everything that modern man wants to use it for. He says, "I will now dig a ditch (or seal the border)" and he proceeds to grab the plastic toy sand-shovel of the government. He does so with great ceremony and pomp, as though he were a priest performing some ancient liturgy. But no matter how deeply he believes in his heart that this plastic toy shovel will help him dig a 5-foot deep, mile-long trench, it will not help him at all. He would do just as well scratching at the dirt with his bare paws. If you want to dig a ditch, use a proper shovel. If you want to seal a border, have proper security. If your political apparatus makes it impossible to have public security agencies do the job, then contract it out. If the contractors are corruptible, then privatize the whole system. The root problem in almost all public policy failures is tragedy of the commons... no one individual has any vested interest in the outcome, so the outcome is never achieved. Privatization is not magic pixie-dust. What makes it work is what economists call internalization of costs and benefits. When I fix up my house, I am the beneficiary in two ways. First, I get to live in a nicer house, because I just fixed it up. And when I sell it, it will get a better price (because I fixed it up). So, almost all the benefits of fixing my house up go to me. For this reason, nobody needs to pass a law saying, "People need to fix up their houses. There need to be at least 10,000 remodels per year." Nobody needs to do that because the incentives are already aligned -- everyone who can benefit from fixing up their house has already done so, because it was the most beneficial thing they could do with their spare money. Therefore, everyone who doesn't fix up their house must have had some other, more pressing thing to spend their money on. When you collectivize resources (e.g. parks, roads, borders, etc.) you break internality. You make both the costs and benefits of maintaining that resource into an externality. Since nobody in particular benefits, nobody in particular has an interest in seeing to it that that resource is maintained. And so you get blight. The US southern border is exactly such a blight. The Democrats are the main beneficiary of that particular blight, which is why the Republicans bitch and moan about it so much. But there are plenty of other blights that the Republicans benefit from (e.g. the MIC), and you will never hear them complain about those. And it is precisely because of this root hypocrisy (the desire to "keep the good thing going") that the Republicans will never take a principled stand on the border. They will not enforce it, neither will they allow local polities to enforce it in their place. They don't actually want change, they just want you to think they want change, so they make a big show of complaining about it. And nothing ever changes.
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-09-2024, 09:50 PM
    6689 replies | 661234 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-09-2024, 09:20 PM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-08-2024, 06:51 PM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-08-2024, 04:48 PM
    We don't talk about the other voices, oyarde. Remember? :tears:
    22 replies | 569 view(s)
  • ClaytonB's Avatar
    07-08-2024, 02:51 PM
    I know you're a Beethoven-appreciater and I found this performance particularly enjoyable...
    6689 replies | 661234 view(s)
More Activity
About ClaytonB

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Displayed country:
USA
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Political Campaign Skills
Computer and Technical:
Scientists and Engineer

Signature


Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
8,101
Posts Per Day
1.75
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 09:42 PM
Join Date
10-30-2011
Referrals
0

4 Friends

  1. isoldeg3003 isoldeg3003 is offline

    New Member

    isoldeg3003
  2. johnson900 johnson900 is offline

    New Member

    johnson900
  3. skilscjn06 skilscjn06 is offline

    New Member

    skilscjn06
  4. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

07-12-2024


06-10-2024


04-29-2024


04-16-2024


03-09-2024


02-13-2024


01-29-2024


01-05-2024

  • 08:51 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:50 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:50 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:48 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:46 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:45 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:43 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:43 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:42 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:40 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:38 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:35 PM - Deleted Posts
  • 08:33 PM - Deleted Posts


Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 125 1231151101 ... LastLast

07-13-2024


07-12-2024


07-11-2024


07-10-2024


07-08-2024


07-07-2024


07-06-2024


07-05-2024



Page 1 of 125 1231151101 ... LastLast