• Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:44 PM
    You're moving the goalposts. Nobody is claiming that votes exceeded registered voters. The claim is that registered voters exceeds eligible voters in some states. You earlier denied that. You asserted in a black-and-white manner that that claim was flat out false. Now you seem to just be dancing around it. But it's really indisputable. In the case of Alaska, given the evidence you've already been shown, there is no conceivable way that there are as many eligible voters in the state as there are registered voters. This is according to the state's own data for both numbers. It has been known and reported in the mainstream media for years, and I have not seen any representative of the state's government, or anyone else besides you, try to deny that it is the case.
    123 replies | 4465 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:35 PM
    That's pretty much what he says in this quote: "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech Notably, he called restrictions placed on the ability of corporations to spend money on lobbying violations of the freedom of speech. I think that illustrates how he understands the rights of individuals to apply to corporations, as tools being used by individuals.
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 12:22 PM
    Yes. That's what we need. More say on the part of average American voters over who the president is. "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”-H. L. Mencken
    18 replies | 334 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 10:59 AM
    How is that a key word? Is there some other possible source that could be used for number of people 18 and over in a state that isn't an estimate? Even when we get results of the 2020 census, it will still be an estimate. But first of all, it's the state of Alaska's own estimate. You claimed that the state of Alaska's own website did not provide the number of eligible voters in 2020 to compare with the number of registered voters, and in fact it does (actually, not exactly, since the number of eligible voters is less than the number of people 18 and over, which is what this number is). Second, yes it's an estimate. It's not exact down to the ones digit. No population data ever can be. But it's not off by anything on the order of 10% either. If you look at the underlying figures that's available at the link I provided you on the Alaska state government website (e.g. births, deaths, migrations, baseline population data going back to the 2010 census, etc.) you will see that there's no conceivable way to get an extra 50,000 people in the state of Alaska above the state government's own estimates of its population. The state of Alaska, using its own numbers for both population 18 and over and registered voters does affirm that it has more registered voters than it has people 18 and over. And it's not within the margin of error.
    123 replies | 4465 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 10:49 AM
    It doesn't really matter. Whether Trump does or doesn't run again, either way, I don't see any potential for any candidates worth supporting being in the race.
    14 replies | 423 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 08:28 AM
    Ok, but what did she say? What was the actual disparaging comment she made? Was it something so horrifying that neither you nor anyone in the media dares to quote it? For the life of me, I can't find an actual quote of it anywhere. I still don't know whatever it was that she said.
    36 replies | 802 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 08:21 AM
    Paul doesn't call her a diakonos of God. He calls her a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae. And even if he did call her a diakonos of God, I have trouble seeing why it would be wrong to translate that as "servant." He often refers to himself and others as servants of God. When you say that it has to be translated "minister" and that "servant" and "helper" are mistranslations, it seems like you're implying that the word connotes some kind of formal leadership position (granted, the word "minister" itself can also just be a synonym for "servant" depending on the context--so I'm not saying that's a mistranslation). The word may sometimes be used for people in formal leadership positions. But there's nothing in the word itself that requires that. Notice that in almost all of the 28 occurrences of the word in the New Testament, only a few of them refer to the title of an official church office (i.e. a "deacon"). The rest of the occurrences take a more generic sense. https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=ESV|version=SBLG|strong=G1249&options=GVUVNH&display=INTERLEAVED
    10 replies | 172 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 07:33 AM
    Why do you consider "servant" or "helper" to be mistranslations of the Greek word diakonos?
    10 replies | 172 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:50 AM
    Have you seen the word-for-word quotes of these allegedly disparaging comments? All I've been able to find are that video of her posting a sign and a tweet where she said, “Your biological son does NOT belong in my daughters’ bathroom." Is there something else out there that's worse than either of those things that articles are just referring to obliquely without quoting what she said? Or do those two items make up the full extent of what her supposedly disparaging comments were?
    36 replies | 802 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 04:18 PM
    I heard that accusation made. But what did she do to attack the child? It must have been something other than just hanging that sign up.
    36 replies | 802 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 01:59 PM
    To see how fast the transgender movement has been moving lately, consider the fact that both Mr. Potato Head and Mrs. Potato Head, as two separate gender-specific characters, appeared in Toy Story 4 in 2019, as far as I know without controversy. And that was coming from a leftwing Hollywood production company.
    39 replies | 652 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 01:33 PM
    Consider this scenario. A group of people contractually agree to pool their resources for some endeavor, and as part of that agreement they delegate to some board of trustees whom the elect to manage the use of those resources under the name of the organization that they create by way of that contract. This organization can buy and sell property, put its money in a bank account, hire employees, and enter into other contracts as decided by that board, in accordance with the contract these people chose to enter with one another. Included within the kinds of contracts this organization enters with other parties there are stipulations that limit this organization's liability. These people who choose to pool their resources in this way do so without any charter by a state recognizing or creating their organization. They create it themselves. Is this a corporation or a partnership? I would argue that such things did exist before the advent of the modern corporation as we know it, albeit perhaps without as much formality (e.g. in ancient voluntary societies such as churches, synagogues, and other such organizations that owned property separate from that of their members). But to acknowledge this would require that the word "corporation" not be defined in such a way that only government-created entities could count by definition. But even if no good examples can be found in antiquity, they surely would exist today even without any state's help or regulations.
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:51 AM
    Another point that hasn't been brought up here (understandably, since it's not what the OP is directly about), is what should happen *if* the search performed was improper. The status quo is that the evidence obtained that way would not be admissible in court, via the exclusionary rule. This exclusionary rule is another innovative reading into the Constitution of something that isn't there by judges who view it as a living document. But the exclusionary rule is now so ingrained in our legal system that I highly doubt that SCOTUS would even question its applicability even if they do rule that the search in this case was unconstitutional. Evidence for actual crimes (i.e. the kind of crimes that have victims and violate natural law and not just statutes made up by politicians) should always be usable in prosecuting the guilty party, no matter how the evidence was found. But if it was found in some unjust way, then the police officer, or whoever performed the unjust acts that resulted in finding that evidence, should be help accountable for the crimes they committed in finding that evidence as a matter that's kept separate from the prosecution of the criminal the evidence implicates.
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:43 AM
    Ron Paul may not be right about everything. But calling him a gullible ignorant sucker is going a bit far, don't you think?
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:40 AM
    I disagree. It's to decide if it's reasonable, at least if done within the framework of the Constitution taken literally. Otherwise, warrants would always be required, not just for misdemeanors, but also for felonies. Just as with deciding reasonableness before the fact, so also after the fact, the judges, in this case the Supreme Court, may decide if this particular search was reasonable or unreasonable. And that can and should be decided without regard for whether or not the officer had a warrant. In the case at hand, the argument against requiring a warrant would be that by the time he got a warrant, the blood alcohol level that he would be able to test the suspect for would no longer be indicative of what it was when the suspect was driving on public roads, and thus if the search was reasonable at all then it would need to be performed without waiting for a warrant. But that is what the question really should boil down to for SCOTUS--whether or not it was reasonable at all. If a search is reasonable, then neither the 4th Amendment nor anything else in the Constitution requires that a warrant be gotten prior to performing it. There may be statutes that require that. And there may be court rulings that were made by judges who view the Constitution as a living document that require that through reading into the Constitution things that aren't there. But the Constitution does not. And the title of this thread says that SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of it.
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:29 AM
    That is a good question. But notice that the stipulation "without a warrant" is superfluous there. If it's improper without a warrant, then it's improper with one as well. Similarly, the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is also beside the point.
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:53 AM
    OK, then constitutionally, those criteria of what he would need to do in order to get a warrant are what this comes down to, and not whether or not he actually had a warrant. He would certainly have probable cause, having actually seen me use the illegal gas can, and he would certainly be able to describe the person and place to be searched, that being the same house where he saw me use the illegal gas can. It would again come down to what constitutes an unreasonable search. Lacking a warrant wouldn't be what made it unreasonable. The inability to get a warrant would result from the same unreasonableness as the unreasonableness that a judge after the fact would be able to identify. But if the judge after the fact rules it unreasonable, then (if that judge interprets the Constitution literally) it should be on the basis of the same facts that a judge who would have refused to issue the warrant would and not by counting the lack of warrant as the one fact that makes it unreasonable.
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:38 AM
    That's definitely unreasonable. But if he had a warrant, that wouldn't make it any more reasonable. I meant to focus the point I was making on the issue of whether or not warrants should make a difference. But yes, we all break laws virtually every day without even knowing it. There are so many laws we can't reasonably be expected to keep track of them all. And their existence gives the state the power to do things like what you described. Any time they want to violate someone's rights, all they need to do is find a law they break and use that as their pretext. This is grossly unjust, whether constitutional or not.
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:33 AM
    There have been a bunch of articles posted at mises.org that address those types of claims over the years. Here's one: http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/ (Edit: I just realized that link wasn't the Mises one. That's where I got to that article from though.)
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:24 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again."
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:17 AM
    I disagree with all of this as well. Corporations as we know them are registered with and regulated by governments. And those government requirements placed on them are anti-libertarian. But corporations in and of themselves are inevitable in a free market, including with corporate personhood and limited liability, and not just government creations. Libertarian policy would permit their existence through contracts that do not include the state as a party. Compare what you're saying to the institution of marriage (which really, is a very specialized type of corporation where two become one flesh). As far as the government as we know it today is concerned, a marriage only exists when the government recognizes it as such, subject to the government's regulations. But absent any of those state interferences in marriage, and in fact even if no state existed at all, there would still be marriages.
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:12 AM
    I don't imagine there are very many people who are unaware of that. But if there are, then that's on them. It's not like banks are tricking people into thinking that's the case. And at any rate, if there is a problem of banks doing that, then it doesn't call for outright banning of fractional reserve banking. That fraudulent practice could be dealt with as the fraud that it would be, while parties who choose to engage in nonfraudulent fractional reserve banking arrangements with one another could still be left free to do that. But again, in the current world, where we have a central bank, this is more of an academic question about what banking could be like in the absence of that central bank as opposed to how it is now.
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 07:53 AM
    This proposal is another one that I've noticed seems to be popular here. But this is at least as bad and antithetical to Ron Paul's positions as antitrust laws. The government shouldn't prop up fractional reserve banking with a lender of last resort and legal tender laws. But it shouldn't ban it either. If two parties voluntarily choose to enter an agreement where one of them deposits their money with the other, who by mutual agreement is only required to keep a fraction of it on hand and is free to loan out the remainder, that's their right, and no third party has any right to intervene and ban that agreed upon arrangement. There are problems with it that the market can handle without the government's help. The same applies to anti-trust laws.
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 07:48 AM
    What's your basis for thinking that? Granted, the population of this place, and the views that are held by the majority here, has changed a lot since 2016, partly by way of Trumpers invading, and partly by way of old RP supporters changing their views. And of course even in 2008-2012, Ron Paul drew support from people with diverse views who didn't agree with him on everything. But there are still a significant minority here with strong libertarian leanings. My guess would be that a third here would be opposed to anti-trust laws.
    38 replies | 691 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 07:43 AM
    It may be wrong. But it's not unconstitutional. I see nothing in the Constitution that says that warrants are constitutionally required for anything whatsoever. The only mention of warrants in the Constitution is in the 4th Amendment, which stipulates requirements that must be met for warrants to issue, but says nothing about when warrants are required. The question then comes down to whether or not following a misdemeanor suspect into their home is "unreasonable." But the question of whether or not its unreasonable is determined by other factors apart from whether or not they have a warrant. They could have a warrant and it still be unreasonable, or they could not have a warrant and it would still be reasonable. It can't be unreasonable without a warrant and then somehow if they have a warrant under the otherwise exact same circumstances that would make it reasonable.
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 06:52 AM
    Again, as far as I can tell, at least for some states (e.g. Alaska) it's not disputed by anyone at all. Do you dispute it? What more proof do you need than what's already been provided? That doesn't sound very difficult to me. I agree with you that no one person can make a big difference. Whatever affect this has is cumulative of all the separate individuals who do it. And by the nature of this, it's easy to do and not get caught, so we can't know how many that is.
    123 replies | 4465 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 06:47 AM
    Done. And? What are you getting at here? Do you dispute that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters?
    123 replies | 4465 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 09:52 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Firestarter again."
    62 replies | 1598 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 08:23 AM
    It's not just possible. That's exactly what the quote you just gave says--"different government agencies" = the swamp.
    62 replies | 1598 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

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
897
Posts Per Day
2.01
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 05:02 PM
Join Date
12-09-2019
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. tfurrh tfurrh is offline

    Member

    tfurrh
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

02-20-2021


02-10-2021


01-11-2021


12-27-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast

02-28-2021


02-27-2021


02-26-2021


02-25-2021



Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast