Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government

  1. #1

    Default Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government

    One of the chief modes of activism in support of liberty is to dispatch the anti-liberty "libertarians" who are trying to flood the US with big government voters.

    The one statistic that should shut them up -- at least if made publicly where their bullsh*t answers are going to make them look like the mendacious scum they are to the public they are trying to destroy -- is this statistic from Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project "When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity" figure 4.2:

    "Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?"

    US General population smaller/bigger 48% smaller 41% bigger
    All Hispanics 19% smaller 75% bigger
    First Generation Immigrant Hispanics 12% smaller 81% bigger
    Second Generation Immigrant Hispanics 22% smaller 72% bigger
    Third generation and higher 36% smaller 58% bigger

    Moreover, this ignores the higher total fertility rates of the Hispanics hence their higher contribution to the eligible voting population.
    Last edited by jabowery; 10-25-2013 at 01:01 PM.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...

    Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

  4. #3

    Default

    Has PEW ran this type of study for Indonesian immigrants? Or Slavic, how about Irish....Maybe African?

    WTF makes "Hispanics" special?

  5. #4

    Default

    Hispanics Mexicans is by far the biggest immigrant group.

  6. #5

    Default

    When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

  7. #6

    Default

    Also, let's see some more polls on other issues. There's no need to single out social services.

    How do Hispanic immigrants compare with the rest of the population in their views on policing the world and the war on drugs?

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    One of the chief modes of activism in support of liberty is to dispatch the anti-liberty "libertarians" who are trying to flood the US with big government voters.








    So I gave you one pic for each strawman in that one sentence.
    There are actually quite a few more pics online, so I'm sure we can produce them for as long as you refuse (or are unable?) to understand the only libertarian position on immigration.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.
    Tell that to the anti-abortion activists.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Also, let's see some more polls on other issues. There's no need to single out social services.

    How do Hispanic immigrants compare with the rest of the population in their views on policing the world and the war on drugs?
    Why are you arguing for more Mexican immigration? What's your angle erowe1? You hope to convert them to Evangelicalism or something?

  11. #10

    Default

    Hey thanks for the neg rep, JCD.
    So since apparently I'm the buffoon here, why don't we prove it by starting at the beginning again:

    Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
    Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.


    Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
    Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  12. #11

    Default

    1. As far as I'm concerned Constitution is a useful tool/framework for libertarian politics, but my views aren't derived from the US Constitution.

    2. I believe it's dumb to support a policy based on an abstract concept in philosophy, regardless of its real-world practical consequences.

    3. The real life consequence of Mexican immigration is millions of poor people, dependent on the government services, who tend to elect socialists. Decidedly unlibertarian outcome. fisharmor may or may not be a true libertarian, but he is unquestionably an idiot for supporting unresticted immigration importation of poverty from Latin America.

    4. For most voters pocketbook issues always trump foreign policy. For Mexican immigrants pocketbook issues include the free stuff they receive from the government. To think that Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world is absurd. erowe1 is a dumb person for thinking that way.
    Last edited by JCDenton0451; 09-17-2013 at 08:26 AM.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    1. As far as I'm concerned Constitution is a useful tool/framework for libertarian politics, but my views aren't derived from the US Constitution.
    Ok, good. So here's my apology: I'm sorry for assuming you held a position. I've run into crap constitutional arguments against immigration a hundred times here.
    So tell me, where do your views against immigration come from? Do you appeal to a particular authority, or is it that you view it as pragmatic?
    If you are appealing strictly to pragmatism, how do you intend to implement pragmatic ideas as pragmatically as possible?

    2. I believe it's dumb to support a policy based on an abstract concept in philosophy, regardless of its real-world practical consequences.
    It would appear that you do consider it pragmatic.

    3. The real life consequence of Mexican immigration is millions of poor people, dependent on the government services, who tend to elect socialists. Decidedly unlibertarian outcome.
    This requires a belief that democratic process can result in libertarianism.
    If you want to go pragmatic with this, fine. Admit that the democratic process universally results in socialism regardless of who is participating in it.
    This is manifest and obvious.

    fisharmor may or may not be a true libertarian, but he is unquestionably an idiot for supporting unresticted immigration importation of poverty from Latin America.


    I particularly like the vest on this one.

    You're making the argument that not using the state to crush a thing is the same as supporting that thing.

    4. For most voters pocketbook issues always trump foreign policy. For Mexican immigrants pocketbook issues include the free stuff they receive from the government. To think that Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world is absurd. erowe1 is a dumb person for thinking that way.


    He asked what their positions are on other issues besides social services. At no point did he say "Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world".
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    Why are you arguing for more Mexican immigration? What's your angle erowe1? You hope to convert them to Evangelicalism or something?
    I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it, yes, that's one very good reason.

    But even apart from that, I wasn't arguing for more Mexican immigration. Whether more or fewer Mexicans want to move out of Mexico City's tax jurisdiction and into Washington DC's, is not really of any concern to me. I argue neither for nor against it. But I do argue against the policies that people who want to impede that immigration would put in place to do so. Notice how in this thread, there's no specification about what those policies ought to be. It's all in the abstract of whether immigration is good or bad. But once you get to the question, "What do you want to do about it?" then the anti-immigration folks really have nothing to offer that isn't clearly unethical. And my angle is looking at the ethics of these policies.
    Last edited by erowe1; 09-17-2013 at 09:15 AM.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it, yes, that's one very good reason.

    But even apart from that, I wasn't arguing for more Mexican immigration. Whether more or fewer Mexicans want to move out of Mexico City's tax jurisdiction and into Washington DC's, is not really of any concern to me. I argue neither for nor against it. But I do argue against the policies that people who want to impede that immigration would put in place to do so. Notice how in this thread, there's no specification about what those policies ought to be. It's all in the abstract of whether immigration is good or bad. But once you get to the question, "What do you want to do about it?" then the anti-immigration folks really have nothing to offer that isn't clearly unethical. And my angle is looking at the ethics of these policies.
    Its not complicated. Let them come, but forbid them from voting or getting welfare. Simple enough, IMO.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  16. #15

    Default

    Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaAla View Post
    Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.
    That sounds.... pragmatic.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    That sounds.... pragmatic.
    Aren't those fighting words 'round here?
    ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  19. #18

    Default

    Undocumented LA County Parents on Pace to Receive $650M in Welfare Benefits

    Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has announced that illegal alien parents in the county will collect a projected $650 million in welfare benefits in 2013. The data was collected from the Department of Public Social Services, which also stated that more than $376 million in CalWORKs benefits and food stamps combined were given to illegal alien parents for their native-born children.

    Every month roughly $54 million is forthcoming in welfare payments, nearly $20 million in CalWORKs and $34 million in food stamps. The assistance is given to an estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents in the county.


    Antonovich said that the $54 million issued in July 2013, as compared to the $53 million in July 2012, was further evidence of how much illegal immigration is costing the U.S. He said:


    When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year. These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Hey thanks for the neg rep, JCD.
    So since apparently I'm the buffoon here, why don't we prove it by starting at the beginning again:

    Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
    Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.


    Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
    Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.
    See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

    So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

    Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

    The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

    Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

    So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

    They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".
    Last edited by jabowery; 09-17-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  21. #20

    Default

    The bell curve strikes again.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post

    Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
    Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.


    Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
    Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.
    [...] and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion

    Article 4 Section 4 US constitution
    Last edited by qh4dotcom; 09-17-2013 at 02:07 PM.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

    So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

    Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

    The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

    Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

    So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

    They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".
    As tempting as it is to nitpick at each line of this nonsense, it's probably better to step back and notice that you still haven't said what it is that you want to do that you think the anti-liberty libertarians oppose. Let's say immigration is so bad, what can you do to stop it that isn't also bad?

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

    So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

    Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

    The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

    Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

    So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

    They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".
    I agree with all of this.
    Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    As tempting as it is to nitpick at each line of this nonsense, it's probably better to step back and notice that you still haven't said what it is that you want to do that you think the anti-liberty libertarians oppose. Let's say immigration is so bad, what can you do to stop it that isn't also bad?
    Obviously there is nothing one can do to stop immigration that isn't bad. I mean even if all it cost was a Bazooka Joe cartoon collectible that would be BAD.

    On the other thing, some of us -- called "PATriots" -- have, throughout history, been willing to sacrifice our very lives to preserve the territory bequeathed us by our fore-PATers who, themselves, held it by their very blood gushing from their veins.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    Obviously there is nothing one can do to stop immigration that isn't bad. I mean even if all it cost was a Bazooka Joe cartoon collectible that would be BAD.

    On the other thing, some of us -- called "PATriots" -- have, throughout history, been willing to sacrifice our very lives to preserve the territory bequeathed us by our fore-PATers who, themselves, held it by their very blood gushing from their veins.
    You're really trying hard to avoid saying what you're actually for.

  27. #26

    Default

    Oh goody, I get to be the anti-constitutionalist pointing out what the constitution says, after all.
    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter.
    Yeah, only my "bull$#@!" is called "the dictionary".
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalization
    nat·u·ral·ize

    [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-]

    verb (used with object) 1. to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.

    2. to introduce (organisms) into a region and cause them to flourish as if native.

    3. to introduce or adopt (foreign practices, words, etc.) into a country or into general use: to naturalize a French phrase.

    4. to bring into conformity with nature.

    5. to regard or explain as natural rather than supernatural: to naturalize miracles.


    What combination of those plain English words have you tortured into meaning "we get to kick out the guys cutting our grass for a substandard wage"?
    Naturalization means exactly "make citizens". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

    This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.
    Ok, so what are you getting at? Because it sounds to me like I'm saying I should stop being faithful to my wife. Because that's not the way males act in nature.

    So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.
    So, you're saying that law and property, two things that every human being instinctively knows to exist, are artificial,
    and attempting to beat up strangers that wander onto your yard, something that every human being instinctively knows to be sociopathic behavior, is natural?
    I think you need to stop looking at the lower animals when trying to determine what is natural for humans, and start, you know, looking at humans.

    Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.
    You need to check your history. Then you need to provide me evidence of immigration barriers prior to the 19th century. (You might want to stick with Japan.)

    The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.
    So, wait.....
    when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers
    So, which is it? Were immigration barriers higher prior to sufferage or lower? Because you've said both.

    Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.
    Are these statements intended to be connected? Dueling existed in Europe and Asia for just as long as it did here.

    So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual
    Or maybe we just realize that we never signed any contracts.
    What you define as "civilization" is not what I define as civilization.
    I would really like Osan to show up and give us his Empire speech at this point. What you call "civilization" is code for the exploitation of the many by the few.
    Your "civilization" has a track record.
    I'll take common law, protected property right, and freedom of travel over your "civilization". Or I would if I could, and I can't, because your "civilization" has made it impossible, and would murder me if I seriously tried to achieve it.

    They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature
    Wow... and you even manage to finish it up with an assertion that without the state's "civilization" we'd be living in caves.
    Bravo.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  28. #27

    Default

    Not surprised at all, especially since there is no conservative media for those who refuse to learn the language and watch English TV. I think Fox News just recently came out with a Spanish channel.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qh4dotcom View Post
    [...] and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion

    Article 4 Section 4 US constitution
    So you contend that immigration is an invasion?
    If that is the case (it's not, but let's pretend for your sake), how do you reconcile the fact that the federal government is tasked with explicitly allowing them in (naturalization) and at the same time keeping them out (protecting from invasion)?

    Keep 'em coming, there's equal destruction for all the living document arguments here.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  30. #29

    Default

    Fisharmor, when I say the anti-liberty "libertarians" would last all of 3-picoseconds in the state of nature to which they are relegating us by corrupting the foundation of civilization, I mean that real libertarians -- people who understand in the blood, bone and marrow what it means to be a patriot, to have honor and to be an individual sovereign, would instantly challenge you to a natural duel and, being a coward to your very marrow, you would haughtily refuse with some bullsh*t justification from the Austrian school, whereupon you would be immediately killed for being the dishonorable coward that you are.

    The remainder -- the honorable individual sovereigns -- would greatly enjoy each other's company in the absence of your despicable kind.

    Who knows... we might even choose to rebuild civilization. However, given that it has produced vermin like yourself, it would probably be some time before the harsh lesson was forgotten.
    Last edited by jabowery; 09-17-2013 at 05:23 PM.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    Fisharmor, when I say the anti-liberty "libertarians" would last all of 3-picoseconds in the state of nature to which they are relegating us by corrupting the foundation of civilization, I mean that real libertarians -- people who understand in the blood, bone and marrow what it means to be a patriot, to have honor and to be an individual sovereign, would instantly challenge you to a natural duel and, being a coward to your very marrow, you would haughtily refuse with some bullsh*t justification from the Austrian school, whereupon you would be immediately killed for being the dishonorable coward that you are.
    Actually if one of your exalted cavemen was actively threatening my life or health I'd draw immediately and shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
    If he wanted to sword fight, I'd shoot him twice in the chest and once in the head, exactly as I train to do.
    I don't stand on formality with that sort of thing, you see.


    The remainder -- the honorable individual sovereigns -- would greatly enjoy each other's company in the absence of your despicable kind.

    Who knows... we might even choose to rebuild civilization. However, given that it has produced vermin like yourself, it would probably be some time before the harsh lesson was forgotten.
    Get a load of this guy!
    Count the green bars, genius.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Are Hispanic Immigrants America's Best Defense Against Tyranny?
    By erowe1 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 12-14-2015, 04:45 PM
  2. Now they're calling for bigger government.
    By tod evans in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2013, 12:12 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 12:23 AM
  4. look who is hiring - bigger government and its buddies
    By smithtg in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 08:05 AM
  5. The Case for Bigger Government
    By danberkeley in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 12:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •