• Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:28 PM
    That's not what I asked. John Hus lived in the 1400's. I don't see how you can connect the Taborites with 20th century progressives. ETA: Also, note how you and Raginfridus are both trying to connect Hus with modern leftism by opposite claims. He says Hus, following Wycliffe, taught statism by way of increasing the belief in the king's divine right to rule. You mention "no king" as an element of his contribution to leftism. I don't know which of you is right, because I don't recall ever reading anything he taught about kings, and I don't believe that a doctrine about the state was a central part of his teaching. But whatever the case, I highly doubt any connection between him (however he fit into the politics of his day) and modern leftism as we understand it.
    64 replies | 492 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:44 PM
    By raising to life the spiritually dead hearts of men who had nothing in them to commend themselves to God.
    93 replies | 635 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:28 PM
    "Something God can help you with, but will not do for you against your will." But the very help that every unrepentant person needs is a turning of their will. The fact that they will not to repent is what makes them unrepentant. This is the original and natural state of all children of Adam. And the only way out of it is with that help from God to which you allude, a help that manifests itself in a change of the person's will.
    93 replies | 635 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:25 PM
    When I saw this story I thought there must be some kind of price controls going on. Otherwise, this wouldn't happen. So I tried googling searches about Cape Town water price controls, and nothing really came up. Anybody know what price controls they may have?
    8 replies | 116 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:10 PM
    There is nothing you can do. But everything that must be done, God can do for you, leaving no credit left for you to take. Would you like God to do that? Cry out to him in humility, recognizing you have nothing to commend yourself to him, and He very well might.
    93 replies | 635 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:21 AM
    Agree- my Scottish side would love to go there- and I am told the Scots are great fun. ;)
    16 replies | 363 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:45 AM
    Could you cite the writings of theirs where they advocate statism, so I can see for myself if that's an accurate reflection of what they said?
    64 replies | 492 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:41 AM
    So five kids is a lot? What is this, China?
    28 replies | 327 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:34 AM
    It is true that we are living under the regime that was created by the Constitution of the US. And if might makes right, then there's nothing more that I could say. But might does not make right. And we're not discussing simply what is, but also what ought to be. And to what authority do you appeal where you find this fundamental rule? The Constitution itself? Or something higher?
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:29 PM
    As opposed to what alternative? The king being answerable to the pope, and the pope to God? If every individual is answerable only to God, then it stands to reason that this is true of kings as well as commoners. That's not statism. And what does it have to do with progressivism anyway?
    64 replies | 492 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:23 PM
    Being propagandized about a topic isn't the same as knowing it.
    64 replies | 492 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 06:51 PM
    Ideologically, they are not similar. In what way was John Hus a forerunner of the progressives? He lived 500 years before them, and was hardly one of their influences.
    64 replies | 492 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 06:48 PM
    Putin doesn't know the first thing about Christianity.
    64 replies | 492 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 06:41 PM
    When the property I own is land and not movable things, that's territory. At any rate, whether you call it territory or not, what I said remains true. I have a right to decide whom I let on my land. Donald Trump does not. If he kicks someone off my land that I want there, then it's not my guest who is violating my rights, but Donald Trump who is.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 06:39 PM
    That's not the most fundamental rule. Another rule is even more fundamental than that one, which is this: When the Constitution contradicts natural law, the Constitution is wrong, and must not be followed. Any unjust laws that are passed pursuant to the Constitution are void on account of being unjust, regardless of their constitutionality.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 06:37 PM
    Sounds like he fits in with the mission of this website pretty well then. Are you just trolling?
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 06:36 PM
    If I welcome someone onto my territory, and then you come along and kick them off the territory that I own and welcome them onto just because you consider them "illegal immigrants" because you insist they get your permission to be in the country and they didn't do that, then it's not that guest of mine who is violating my right to control my territory, but you who are doing that.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 11:40 AM
    Why never Trumpers? I imagine that a lot are Trumpers wanting to fantasize about what it must be like to be their hero.
    21 replies | 285 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 11:35 AM
    How? And if they are, then prosecute them for whatever it is they're doing to prevent them from being deported. Not for merely refusing to help the feds, and demanding the same from their employees. If they're actively impeding the feds, that's a different story.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 08:38 AM
    Then my question still applies. What is it that makes them "an actual battalion of troops"? Would it not be the case that an actual battalion of troops was involved in a conspiracy to commit crimes, even if they hadn't started committing them yet? If so, then that is the basis on which their actions can be addressed.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 08:06 AM
    If they're not causing trouble, then why call them a "battalion of foreign troops"? Are you talking about actually peaceful people who violate no one's rights, who are welcomed on every property they set foot by the owners of that property, who pay their way wherever they go and work for their pay by voluntary mutual agreement with their employers, and so on? If so, then you are stretching the sense of "battalion of foreign troops' beyond recognition. Obviously, I would have no right to violate the rights of those people who are doing nothing other than harmlessly exercising their own rights, as well as the rights of the other Americans who want them on their properties which are rightfully theirs and not mine and with whom they're doing business. On the other hand, if you're talking about people concerning whom we have some evidence that they either have committed some crime, are in the process of committing some crime, or have conspired to commit some crime, then for any of these reasons we may justly take action as appropriate for whatever that circumstance is. And if we suspect that any of those are the case, and we lack the evidence, then the first step is to investigate the matter until we have the evidence we need.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:59 AM
    And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS ? Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about? I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:54 AM
    Probably less. But that doesn't tell me anything useful about who has violated anyone else's rights and what just actions may be taken against them. In order to take action against someone for violating someone else's rights, I have to treat each person as an individual and follow due process in finding them guilty of whatever crime we're talking about, and then, on the basis of their guilt of that crime, take whatever freedom-limiting actions against them are appropriate to the circumstance. I can't punish someone because they belong to a group or come from some geographical place, just because some other people from that group or place committed some crimes.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:25 AM
    As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:24 AM
    A reasonable threat would be to withdraw that money, not to arrest local politicians for voting to tell their civil servants to refuse to enforce federal laws they have no obligation to enforce.
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    01-18-2018, 07:19 AM
    If we adopt a definition of crime as any violation of any arbitrary law that politicians make up, grounded in no higher authority than their own, which stands on a might makes right mentality, then there's no limit to what could be a crime. But if we step back and consider justice itself, as a universal law that is above those politicians (and above the Constitution), that determines the rightness or wrongness of what they do as well as us, then a crime is something a person does that harms the person or property of another. In this true sense, illegal immigration is not a crime. But even within the make believe law that politicians invented, a lot of people make false assumptions about illegal immigration. It's true that US law does declare illegal border crossing to be a misdemeanor. It's been awhile since I went through what the law actually says, but I believe that overstaying a Visa is probably in the same category. So that's considered a minor criminal matter. And punishments like jail time and deportation are legislated for that (unjustly so, of course, but I'm only talking about what US law is). Those are discreet actions that are performed at a point in time, and once committed, the misdemeanor in its entirety has been committed. But what I often hear people mistakenly say is something like, "They're illegal immigrants! They're committing a crime just by being here!" as if their mere presence in the USA is an ongoing commission of a crime. This view is not in accordance with US Law. They may have a status as unlawful aliens, but this does not imply that their mere presence is an ongoing violation of any law. The word "unlawful" is different than "illegal." "Illegal" would imply that their presence was a positive violation of a law. But "unlawful" only means that their presence lacks any positive legal endorsement. The only crime (as defined by US law) they're guilty of is that crime that they had already committed in the past whenever they illegally crossed a border or overstayed a Visa. Now that they are in the USA, the law does not say they have to leave lest they be continuously violating a law. As a matter of fact, there are even circumstances where US Law requires them not to leave (in which cases it would be absurd to pretend that they were continuously committing crime just by being here). If you think about it this makes sense. Can you imagine telling someone who ran a red light, "You're committing a crime right now just by being on this side of the red light, and this will be an ongoing crime you commit until you finally go back to the side you were on before you ran it."?
    130 replies | 1261 view(s)
More Activity
About Superfluous Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff 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.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,215
Posts Per Day
4.74
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 09:06 PM
Join Date
10-10-2016
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. BV2 BV2 is offline

    Member

    BV2
  2. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 69 of 78 FirstFirst ... 19596768697071 ... LastLast

11-05-2016



Page 69 of 78 FirstFirst ... 19596768697071 ... LastLast