• BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 02:37 PM
    Mexicans are not the only border crossers, and it is disingenuous to insinuate as such by only mentioning them. The Chinese, among many others, are factors in this stance. And, in fact, no, we would not have to check everyone. If the hosts cannot account for their guests, then it would entirely be on them. The problem you are having with this issue is that you wrongly assume these visitors have to be hunted down, when the government does not have to actively search for anyone at all. If the hosts cannot account for them, and are held financially liable for any wrongdoing they may eventually do as a result of their overstaying their visit, you will quickly find this issue resolving itself as individuals and businesses would not want to have such an outstanding liability on their hands. The liability would never disappear so long as the host has guests unaccounted for in the country. In short, the public is not the one requesting the various visas. It is specific institutions and businesses, and therefore those should bear the associated burden. As such, the public should not bear any burden created by those entities inviting foreigners into the country to stay for a time. However, if the public should accept burdens (such as any placed on the justice system, hospitals, and so forth) as a result of the negligence of those institutions in properly seeing their guests home, then those institutions should be held financially accountable for their negligence. Basically, your "Papers, please?" argument is categorical nonsense derived from a misbegotten sense of the proper way to approach the issue.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 12:43 PM
    The responsibility for those people rests with the host that invited them. If the host failed to properly see their visitor home, then the only one that would be getting a "Papers, please?" would be them. There is no need at all to be randomly harassing the public on account of poor hosts. Similarly, the host should be held liable for the behavior of their guest. Lastly, there is still more than enough people that did come across the border, and as such it is worth both securing the border and having a legitimate use for the army at the same time. Yes, it is citizens expanding the welfare state. That is precisely why new ones shouldn't be added easily, and anchor babies should be done away with entirely.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 12:38 PM
    Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes. Advocates of the welfare state/communism make claim to your property. They do it now, and they will do it again should your desired bankruptcy ever arrive. They will not stop until they are successfully resisted and defeated. They've won every battle so far. That's why we're at this point now. And as their numbers continue to grow, our chances of releasing our shackles lessen. Even complete governmental collapse would not resolve us of our duty to stand and fight. Waiting on bankruptcy and thinking it will solve the problem of the welfare state is wishful thinking, the na´ve hope that liberty will be achieved without putting your ass on the line.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 12:22 PM
    Communism keeps going until it runs out of other people's money, and then the chaos is typically followed by a system that is unfavorable to liberty. The American Revolution was an aberration in this regard, but it took a specific, relatively homogenous culture to engender its outcome. Do you want to bet on liberty having a Second American Revolution when the population is so very divided? Looking at world history the betting man would look to some kind of socialist hellhole emerging out of the quagmire. There will be no political solution to the welfare state. Whatever final solution comes will be won in blood. The parasites will fight for their right to be taken care of.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 12:12 PM
    Wow, this is one truly poor critique of my position. There is no expansion necessary. Pull the troops back home and put them on the border, where they've always belonged (to the extent any army is necessary the defense of borders is their only legitimate purpose). The funding is already there, and would be cheaper than overseas deployment by several orders of magnitude. No need to worry about the "Papers, please?" nonsense if they're not getting in, in the first place.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 12:04 PM
    Educating people has little effect when the welfare state meets their needs. In order for that education to matter there must be a need for that education in their lives. As it stands there is no need for said education due to the welfare state. Understanding this, and that the welfare state is not going away any time soon, efforts must be made to limit the number of new people receiving succor from it. Failure to do so only further marginalizes those that would see it end. Every shade of libertarian understands there is no political solution to this absent a demonstrable show of force to see it through. And in order for the success of that endeavor to be possible the numbers of the parasites must be as small as possible.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 11:48 AM
    Great. Current immigration policy continues unabated until bankruptcy (whenever the hell that finally happens), and guarantees more supporters of the welfare state will be here when the system comes crashing down. Somehow open borders libertarians view this as a positive thing. Now here's the part you need to get through your skull: if the system crashes, the one that follows is not guaranteed to be favorable to liberty if a significant enough percentage of the population demand welfare and/or communism. What in the hell do you think those endorsers of parasitic behavior are going to opt for? A free market? The fight against the welfare state does not end with the bankruptcy of the current state, and it is a delusional fantasy to think it does. People that hate free markets, hate meritocracy, and believe they have positive rights will not suddenly develop a liking for free markets in the chaos that follows bankruptcy. Those that understand the fight ahead want the numbers of those parasites as small as possible for when the attempt to end the welfare state is made in earnest. Any approach that allows for the increase in the number of parasites, including open borders policies, is suicidal and detrimental to the liberty of those that do not want to be shackled by the welfare state.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-13-2017, 11:18 AM
    And precisely how do you think welfare will be ended? People need to stop pretending ending the welfare state is this trivial thing when a huge percentage of the population supports the parasitic behavior and immigration is consistently adding to the number of people on the dole. The left will actually fight for welfare, and if their numbers are large enough they will win that fight. It's delusional nonsense to propose solutions that do not work until after our current situation is dramatically altered.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-09-2017, 12:21 AM
    Which is categorically impossible so long as borders remain open and the welfare state is in place. Ron Paul does not endorse uncontrolled immigration while the welfare state exists. A bald-faced lie and piss-poor use of de facto because Ron Paul's actions were not in line with unlimited immigration because the necessary conditions for unlimited immigration have not been met. Ron Paul is not for uncontrolled immigration unless there is no welfare state. That is not the situation, and so his position is not in line with yours. His actions as a politician were not in line with an advocate of unlimited immigration and I can explain why, while you cannot.
    372 replies | 4879 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-08-2017, 08:30 PM
    Let me dredge up your comment from another thread where you pretended Ron Paul represented something he plainly did not. Ron Paul does not support uncontrolled immigration while the welfare state exists. Superfluous Man, I'll give you an option here. You're either ignorant of where Ron Paul stands on immigration, or you're a liar.
    372 replies | 4879 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-08-2017, 07:51 PM
    You'd do well to remember it yourself, since you routinely forget what Ron Paul stood for on issues such as immigration. The vision of liberty that exists in your head is not synonymous with the version of liberty Ron Paul would have produced as president. As soon as you realize all of us here desire greater personal liberty, and have undertaken various means to attempt to achieve that goal, the sooner you'll come down off the ridiculous high horse you've put yourself on. I wrote in Rand Paul. What in the hell is the point of thumbing my nose at Trump voters that are otherwise my ally? What in the hell is your purpose in agitating them?
    372 replies | 4879 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-08-2017, 07:12 PM
    And the welfare state cannot be destroyed until Americans come to blows over it, or the whole damn system collapses and something rises from the ashes. There will be no political solution to the welfare state when a significant proportion of the population strongly believes in parasitic behavior. That something is not guaranteed to be favorable to liberty, and those that would agitate for a continuation of a welfare system need to be as small as possible in number if and when that time comes. I've said it to the open borders proponents on here before and I'll say it again: stop adding cannon fodder to the trenches of the enemy. All Ron Paul is doing in that clip, is being consistent to what he ran for POTUS on. He was never an open borders advocate until after the welfare state was dismantled, and not until that point in time. Any other stance is suicidal.
    2 replies | 162 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-07-2017, 09:48 AM
    Alex Jones would have been better off ending his sentence after "stroke". It'd have formed a better explanation for the stupid ass decision.
    99 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-07-2017, 12:53 AM
    The absurdity is astounding. Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes and yet he did not run for president advocating the privatization of all government functions. Ron Paul is a man of his word, and therefore there would have been a tax of some kind even if he had been elected president. Which means invoking his name as a counterpoint against someone who pointed out there will be taxes of some kind is stupid.
    55 replies | 2182 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-04-2017, 07:23 PM
    Nah. Keeping others out, gaining power over those that want government to take care of them, and shrinking the government US citizens have to deal with is the name of my game. A harder version of what Ron Paul ran on, to be sure, but one with fewer teat suckers to deal with when push inevitably comes to shove.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-04-2017, 06:39 PM
    We're on a forum dedicated to a man that ran on an immigration platform advocating enforcing the laws on the books. That's a far cry from open borders, but yet we have plenty of those "plants" here. Are you one of those plants?
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    04-04-2017, 05:18 PM
    Swap "muh culture" with "open borders" and it remains true. Funny, that.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-31-2017, 11:09 PM
    The long march through the institutions. Just wait. It will get worse. The SJWs are only getting started, and they're the next generation of progressive.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-31-2017, 06:59 PM
    Ron Paul never ran on a platform endorsing uncontrolled immigration. What do you think he meant by enforcing the laws on the books? He also wanted to end birthright citizenship, a major source of the cannon fodder for the welfare state. You cannot seriously tell me that eliminating birthright citizenship equates to endorsing uncontrolled immigration. And while all of the anarchists will cringe at it, one of the planks of his immigration platform was a guest worker program. Guess what that entails? Government bureaucracy. I will repeat myself: Anyone that supports uncontrolled immigration at this time is also a supporter of the welfare state. Stop filling the trenches of the enemy with cannon fodder. Endorsing uncontrolled immigration while the welfare state exists is suicidal to liberty. And attacking only the welfare state while immigration continues unabated is stupid and tantamount to carrying water for the parasites.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-31-2017, 02:56 PM
    The welfare state cannot be destroyed when foreigners are continually added to their rolls via citizenship, asylum, refugee programs and such. It adds to the already significant number of supporters of the welfare state that are already here, and guarantees it will persist. What in the hell do you think their children are going to vote for? Dismantling the welfare state? For God's sake man, you cannot possibly believe such nonsense. Americans are going to have to come to blows before the welfare state is gutted. Anyone with even an inkling of understanding of the political situation knows that. And when that time comes anyone with a functioning brain will want the side with the welfare supporters on it to be as small as possible. The parasites are not going to go quietly into the night, so thinking that allowing uncontrolled immigration while the welfare state exists is a good idea makes you a traitor to liberty because it guarantees there are more people that must be fought when the time comes. Any advocate of uncontrolled immigration at this time is also a supporter of the welfare state. Stop filling the trenches of the enemy with cannon fodder. Using the Civil War as an example, the North made heavy use of immigrants in their war with the South. This was a huge advantage for the North. You're advocating strengthening the equivalent of the North. When principles cause you to make stupid decisions, then they are not principles worth adhering to.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-31-2017, 11:55 AM
    Truth. It pisses me off that they'll tell you you're selfish for wanting to gut the welfare state, but pay nothing into it themselves and collect a large tax refund each year on account of their children. Parasites.
    169 replies | 2971 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-30-2017, 11:46 AM
    I truly appreciate your optimism. However, there is a big difference between his supposed mistakes made in the eyes of the media (his supporters did not care in the slightest about any of the media manufactured nonsense) to ones that go directly against a set of the people that supported him. This is him going after his supporters because they didn't buckle under his gaze. You bet your ass it is a mistake to alienate allies. He will find it infinitely easier to start producing legislation amenable to Democrats and Republicans than legislation to those that hold conservative views. Establishment Republicans have no spine and will sell out the American people however it takes to benefit corporations and provide the delusion they are "governing responsibly". Democrats will be more than willing to help out, because bipartisanship always means the little guy gets boned. Trump wants to create the legacy that he governed because he does not have the intellectual integrity to hold the line and do what is right. This is made painfully obvious by his endorsement of Ryan's health care plan. Trump doesn't care if what he does is right, so long as he does something. In my book that makes him less a man, and more an automaton.
    185 replies | 3278 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-30-2017, 11:27 AM
    Trump fucked up. The simple point of fact is that he needs the Freedom Caucus not because they are some great preponderance in the House, but because of the number of people that voted for him across the nation that have views aligning with them. He's going to be a 1 term president. The voters didn't put Republicans in so they could be dipshit Establishmentarians, and that's exactly what he has opted to be. I was cautiously optimistic when he was first elected, but it is clear at this point that he is no solution to any problem. He is ineffectual and incompetent.
    185 replies | 3278 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-27-2017, 10:23 PM
    If you can only accept that which can be ascertained as a cause, then save your time, and everyone else's, and don't bother discussing social matters. Causes can be identified only when all variables are controlled and accounted for, whether experimentally or logically, and this is obviously impossible for social matters. The simple truth is you should have known better than to apply "Correlation does not imply causation" to a discussion on social matters. Such a view would render any discussion of social matters null and void, and therefore is to be summarily rejected as useless to the discussion. Correlations, which is all any discussion concerning social matters revolves around, can be accepted or rejected by an individual according to the value they place on them. Information, even partial, can have real life value, making the discussion of social matters and those correlations a rational and practical endeavor. That is why it is less absurd to accept that which cannot be ascertained as a cause than to demand a cause that can only be ascertained via omniscience. The former is rational, the latter is decidedly not.
    44 replies | 1102 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-27-2017, 07:17 PM
    Any time a discussion of social issues dredges up "correlation does not imply causation" I simply have to face palm. People should know better. Correlations are all that can be identified in social matters because of the simple fact numerous individuals are being discussed. Reasons for these correlations can be given, and the value of them assessed. It's a thoroughly reasonable and rational endeavor to attempt to explain the behavior of large groups of people. The likelihood of any correlation being identified as a cause of anything affecting society is effectively zero. Invariably there will be some individual, or group of individuals, that did not fit the correlation, no matter how statistically small that number remains. This idea that a cause can be identified in social matters is, frankly, absurd, and if one is going to only accept that which can be ascertained as a cause, then they are better off simply never discussing any social matter because they will be left sorely disappointed every time. It's an asinine position to hold outside of rigorous scientific experiments, or logical exercises.
    44 replies | 1102 view(s)
No More Results
About BSWPaulsen

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
308
Posts Per Day
0.16
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:09 PM
Join Date
11-22-2011
Referrals
0

03-09-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

04-20-2017


04-14-2017

  • 05:59 PM - Hidden
  • 05:54 PM - Hidden

04-13-2017


04-08-2017


04-07-2017


04-06-2017


04-04-2017


03-31-2017



Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast