• Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:06 PM
    The rest of the country is not your property. You might not want to live in a country that has ugly women, or fans of boy bands, or people with those big plugs in their ears, or any number of other things. But those things aren't yours to control. The rest of the people in the country are going to be what they're going to be, and if they don't violate your rights, it's really none of your business what that is.
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:54 PM
    I do nothing at all, except enjoy myself at the new authentic Mexican restaurants popping up, and take advantage of the boon of the influx of cheap labor. And I also don't waste my time investigating their backgrounds. I let you waste your time on that. You're the one who cares about it. But here's what else I do. If I don't want Nicolas Maduro engaging in 5th generation warfare against the US. I don't instigate that by engaging in 5th generation warfare against him first and putting him in a position where he's left with no choice but to retaliate. I call a truce. I say to Maduro, "Look, the US did wrong things to you. I admit it, and to the extent that I had anything to do with it, I apologize. We're going to stop that now. We're going to leave you alone, and ask that you leave us alone in return." You might find that his incentive to mix bad people in with the good people that we are actively removing from his country for the sole purpose of hurting him would disappear the moment we stop actively removing those good people. The American people don't want to be in a 5th generation war with Venezueala, or any other kind of war with them. The angels that you call "duly elected representatives of the people, authorized by the people that elected them" didn't start that war in service of our interests. They started it in the interests of certain special interest groups who fund their campaigns at higher levels than we could if we wanted to.
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:47 PM
    "Should not have been here" according to make believe laws and your own personal preferences. But we also see native citizens suffering some violent atrocity at the hands of other native citizens. And then it's fair to use force to punish or prevent that, whether the criminal be a native citizen or someone whom you think should not have been here. This does not extend out to using force against other people who are not committing those crimes.
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:03 PM
    Your argument seems to be that because some wrong thing is done to one group of people, we should support doing that same wrong thing to another group of people in order to make it more fair. Is that a fair statement of your position?
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:27 AM
    If "invaders" refers to people engaged in violent acts with victims, then sure. But not just for peaceful people whose only crime is the victimless make believe crime of crossing a border without jumping through the hoops some politicians made up. And if you ask how they're supposed to tell the peaceful ones from the violent ones, then the answer is by the same due process that needs to be applied to people who are already here when they're accused of any crime. They can't just engage in some kind of pre-crime enforcement or assume that people they see are guilty until proven innocent.
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:24 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again."
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:54 AM
    We can't undo what's done. But we can cut our losses. I've heard that accusation before. "Your solution is doing nothing!" That's what the statists always say about every issue. In their minds, the notion of any progress ever being made that is not under the direction of the government just doesn't register. To them, you either want the government to solve a problem, or you are on the side of the enemy. I won't waste time answering something as obviously wrong as that beyond saying that my solution is to prefer not making the problem worse over making it worse.
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:13 AM
    Why is Maduro doing this? Because he hates us for our freedoms? Because he's just plain evil? Because he's a totally irrational lunatic? Because he wants to go to war against the most powerful military in the world? Or is it because over many years the US has intervened in his country, making him like a cornered animal with no recourse left but to attack? Our government refuses to recognize Maduro as Venezuela's president. It actively supported a coup against his predecessor. It has imposed a variety of economic sanctions on his country. It has facilitated the active evacuation from his country of literally millions of people (out of a total population of under 30 million). There Maduro sits watching us remove from him the resources of his best people, and he decides, "Well, if they're going to do that, I might as well send some of the not-my-best-people along too, and make them America's problem to have to pay for and deal with instead of mine, since they're the reason I don't have the funds to imprison them." His action is actually rational, and even defensible, given his circumstances.
    69 replies | 1298 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:48 AM
    I agree with you. On the other hand, I would retort that the government is actually in a uniquely bad position, rather than good, due to multiple reasons, and that this extreme fraud is symptomatic of those weaknesses of using government as your middle man to help the poor. If this helps disabuse people of the notion that it's better to go through the government to help those in need than other organizations, then there's a silver lining there.
    9 replies | 329 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:27 AM
    This is true. But does the fact that it was fraudulent make it any more "looting" and "theft" than it would have been if it were only given to people who jumped through the right hoops and didn't lie in the government forms they filled out?
    9 replies | 329 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:13 AM
    Recorded in the system using what? SSN? Driver's License? Birth certificate? In other words, records that you can just stop using and claim not to have? Granted, if they have your finger prints or DNA, that's a different story. And maybe they have facial recognition stuff now that adds another more difficult to avoid layer. But even all these things can be gotten around. That is, if someone honestly believes that they would be better off living the life of an undocumented immigrant. But for all the griping about all their alleged unfair advantages, nobody really believes that.
    34 replies | 768 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-22-2022, 03:40 PM
    I don't see why not.
    34 replies | 768 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-22-2022, 12:05 PM
    Except it is giving the Democrats what they really truly do actually want, and still producing the exact same result that was being criticized in all those threads. So the analogy it's more like is Brer Rabbit pretending not to want to get thrown in the brier patch.
    13 replies | 738 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-22-2022, 06:36 AM
    The hypocrisy goes both ways. It's odd how the usual suspects who came up with that sensational language in the thread titles you just shared have suddenly changed their tune when a Republican does the same thing and can't praise him enough for it.
    13 replies | 738 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 02:36 PM
    That's apples and oranges. If a state required that black people have front and rear license plates but white people only had to have rear ones, then the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to write laws to take action against those state for denying certain persons in them equal protection under the law with other persons. But applying the same law to all persons, whether it be requiring two license plates or just one, wouldn't violate that. In abortion, states have laws against murder that protect some persons and not others, specifically the unborn.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 01:52 PM
    Not just allegedly. The 14th literally says, "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But nothing you're saying here somehow makes this a state issue rather than federal. Nor does it require a new amendment to codify anything in the Constitution. The last line of the 14th says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The point of the Dobbs decision was that, with respect to abortion and the balancing of the rights of mothers and the rights of babies that it involves, the debate to which you refer should be resolved by Congress through appropriate legislation, and not the Supreme Court.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 12:52 PM
    I don't see any way the US Constitution can be a legally binding contract. Mind you, I can't deny that it must be legally binding according to US Law, pretty much by definition. But arguing that it's legally binding on the basis of US Law would just be a circular argument. I don't think it can hold up to scrutiny under a logically and ethically defined set of criteria for legally binding contracts.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 06:27 AM
    But the way they amended the Constitution in the 14th Amendment gave the federal government power over the states that applied not only to slavery but to any other violations of rights as well. The 14th Amendment basically nullified the 10th Amendment when it comes to any state laws that violate the terms of the 14th. The 14th doesn't require us to look to the BOR to determine what rights people have (in fact, I think that's misguided). But even if it did, the 9th Amendment could easily be brought to bear on the abortion issue. IMO the part of the 14th that could most easily be used to support federal abortion restrictions is the equal protection clause. This is academic though. It really doesn't matter whether or not abortion would be a state or federal issue under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The fact is, we are many decades removed from the days when the 10th Amendment really mattered. Notice that, in spite of all the people who have been saying that Dobbs returned abortion to being a state issue and not federal, I saw nothing in Alito's opinion that indicated that. He merely insisted that legislation, such as what Roe v. Wade established, should come from the legislative branch of government and not the judicial. By my reading, he left the door wide open for federal laws on abortion that originate in Congress rather than the courts. He said nothing about it being a state issue as opposed to federal, unless I missed it.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 06:27 PM
    That's pretty unimpressive. Real statists would leverage the power of a small minority of the population to get the remaining supermajority to serve them.
    16 replies | 855 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 06:18 PM
    Do you mean that you support laws that would ban me from offering goods or service for sale with the stipulation that I will not accept the crown's money in exchange?
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 04:06 PM
    I was replying to pcosmar's post in which he said he favored a government funded by a tip jar and said that this was the model the Constitution gave us. It is in his view that this original constitution was later destroyed. I don't share his view. I say it was never meant to be like the model he idealizes. The putting down of the Whiskey Rebellion was the fruit of the Constitution, and by design.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 03:43 PM
    The government under the Constitution had only been operational for 2 years when Washington began to take action against the Whiskey Rebellion using federal troops on American soil, killing a few of the insurrectionists and ultimately hanging two more (it would have been many more if they had not successfully fled, forced to be fugitives in their own land). It was the original Waco siege. The Alien and Sedition acts became law only a few years later. So that model that you say the Constitution was came to be destroyed when it was hardly out of the gate, by the very people who championed its ratification, which leads back to the claim that this was their intent all along.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 02:36 PM
    That was surprisingly well said.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 02:31 PM
    By this very same understanding, we can know something about the nature of the laws all societies need. They need laws that are authoritative over them. The people governed by the laws cannot simultaneously have authority over those laws. The laws must be transcendent, objective, timeless, and universal. The law that all societies need is strictly justice itself. No manmade laws can add to or take away from this one, already existing, authoritative law of justice. Our relationship with justice can only be one of discovering its laws, not inventing them, just like with the laws of physics, math, and logic. We may not know what the laws of justice are perfectly (just as our knowledge of physics, math, and logic is imperfect), especially when it comes to gray and questionable situations, but we can do our best and approximate them. And our approach to these laws is different when we see them as laws to be discovered and submitted to, and we disabuse ourselves of the notion that we get to just make them up and legislate them. The expression, "There ought to be a law..." should be removed from our discourse. Whatever said law may be, it either already exists inasmuch as it is just, or it does not already exist. If it does not already exist, then it is unjust and ought not exist.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 01:41 PM
    Do they really though?
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 12:48 PM
    Something I learned during this change of the British monarchy is that the UK doesn't have a written constitution. Some countries don't. They still have unwritten constitutions. But they end up with similar regimes just by different means.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 10:21 AM
    I agree with you that we will never rid ourselves of warlords. I hold out no hope of ever seeing that, nor do I consider it a worthy use of time and energy to pursue that as a goal. But accepting this inevitability doesn't require that I convince myself that these warlords who subjugate me and others are actually the good guys, and cease to state the truth that the means they depend on for their power are unjust violent acts. I have to live with this reality, but I don't have to endorse it.
    161 replies | 2491 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-19-2022, 09:04 AM
    So without this program there would be extreme poverty in Alaska? I doubt that, since there isn't any extreme poverty in any of the other 49 states.
    12 replies | 529 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-17-2022, 03:07 PM
    You also brought it up in post 28, which was the post I was replying to there.
    59 replies | 1703 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    09-17-2022, 02:37 PM
    That's definitely one meaning of migrant. Or similarly it could be someone who travels around doing seasonal work, not necessarily going home every year, but possibly going somewhere else to do other work. And by that definition, I don't see how we can rule all these people out. But that's not the only way to use the word migrant either.
    44 replies | 1154 view(s)
More Activity
About Invisible Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
11
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.)
Political Campaign Skills
Computer and Technical:
Scientists and Engineer

Signature


There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Ron Paul
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,657
Posts Per Day
2.60
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:55 PM
Join Date
12-09-2019
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. tfurrh tfurrh is offline

    Member

    tfurrh
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

09-12-2022


07-27-2022

  • 07:43 AM - Deleted Posts

04-23-2022


03-30-2022


09-29-2021


09-27-2021


09-15-2021


09-14-2021


08-19-2021


05-18-2021


05-14-2021


04-29-2021


02-28-2021


02-20-2021


02-10-2021


01-11-2021


12-27-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 107 1231151101 ... LastLast

09-24-2022


09-23-2022


09-22-2022


09-21-2022



Page 1 of 107 1231151101 ... LastLast