Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 52 of 52

Thread: Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.
    Then you would have murdered President Andrew Jackson.

    You must love central banking.

    And green bars?

    Check out these green bars, you piece of sh*t.
    Last edited by jabowery; 09-17-2013 at 06:09 PM.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    Check out these green bars, you piece of sh*t.
    I'm sorry. I'm not sure what it was in the intervening 22 years that robbed you of the ability to commit coherent thought to words, but I've been insensitive.
    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.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    Then you would have murdered President Andrew Jackson.

    You must love central banking.

    And green bars?

    Check out these green bars, you piece of sh*t.
    Hold on a sec. Have your references to Andrew Jackson really been made on the assumption that people here liked him? Seriously?

  5. #34

    Default

    It's pretty clear that as election season passes there's a certain "element" that comes to these forums trying to draw people over to the darkside.

    Please post a poll showing white/black/Hispanic who supported Iraq war? Guarantee you it won't look very favorably to white people...
    Ron Paul: "For those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaAla View Post
    Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.
    Much easier said than done. I'll be convinced it can happen when blacks no longer vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Democrats have had a hold on the black vote since the 1930's.

    Good luck with an even bigger language and cultural barrier when it comes to Hispanics.

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.




    Get a load of this guy!

    Count the green bars, genius.
    I am kinda amused ...I like him.but he is harsh and nasty

    No one wants to hear whom I feel should not be allowed to vote....
    "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

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by puppetmaster View Post
    I am kinda amused ...I like him.but he is harsh and nasty
    The ninth circle of Dantes Inferno is reserved for those who betray the kind of trust that exists between individual sovereigns who voluntarily enter into mutual insurance company that holds territory against trespass -- which is the basis of all legitimate government.

    These anti-liberty "libertarians" are going receive much harsher treatment than I'm giving them.
    Last edited by jabowery; 09-18-2013 at 10:02 AM.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    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.
    No, it's not. He wants the border to be secured before there is any discussion about dealing with the illegals who are already here. You and I both know that they aren't going to secure the border, thus he won't vote for any sort of legalization.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    So you contend that immigration is an invasion?
    Yes. Illegally crossing our border, absolutely.

    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 is nothing to square.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I'm sorry. I'm not sure what it was in the intervening 22 years that robbed you of the ability to commit coherent thought to words, but I've been insensitive.
    I theorize that "jabowery" is a corruption of "Jabberwocky" ...
    "A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 55)

    "The evil that a man inflicts on his fellow man injures both - not only the one to whom it is done, but also the one who does it. Nothing corrupts a man so much as being an arm of the law and making men suffer. The lot of the subject is anxiety, a spirit of servility and fawning adulation; but the pharisaical self-righteousness, conceit, and arrogance of the master are no better. [...] The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 58) [bold emphasis added]

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yes. Illegally crossing our border, absolutely.



    There is nothing to square.
    An Appeal to the Reason of Those Still Reading

    I'm writing to you because I know how this works. People argue all the time on the internet. Side A argues with side B, and, with very few exceptions, neither side A nor side B ends up with a modified position as a result of the opposite side's efforts.

    I'm writing to you because you're on side C. The side that is casually checking out what other people's position on an issue is, keeping an open mind, and determining which side's position has greater merit.

    At this point, it's apparent which side that is.

    This is the way the immigration debate always goes down. I mentioned earlier that I knew exactly what they were going to say. I was taken aback initially by the fact that two anti-immigration proponents had nothing at all to say and chose to stick with base insults, but nevertheless, like clockwork, the anti-immigration "constitutionalists" showed up with their two best arguments.

    I have already insinuated that these are "living document" arguments. There is zero functional difference between these arguments:
    1) "I want Obamacare. It's not explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, and has historically not been considered a power of the federal government, but we're going to do it anyway. To appease the people who might want to follow the Constitution, we are going to twist the meaning of 'commerce among the states' into something quite obviously beyond the original intent, into an idea that is also much better described using more accurate words."

    2) "I want immigration restrictions. It's not explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, and has historically not been considered a power of the federal government, but we're going to do it anyway. To appease the people who might want to follow the Constitution, we are going to twist the meaning of 'invasion' and 'naturalization' into something quite obviously beyond the original intent, into an idea that is also much better described using more accurate words."

    Both are 100% "living document" arguments. That's an unanswerable fact.

    Now notice the response from LibertyEagle at the top of this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    There is nothing to square.
    That is the official response by the anti-immigration element here. "I refuse to answer your concerns. There is nothing to do here. You are wrong."
    Now, side C reader, I ask you: is this an appropriate justification for a gigantic arm of the US federal government? "Go away kid, you bother me"?

    Side C reader, at this point it is forehead-smackingly obvious that the anti-immigration side simply has no argument. They want what they want and are unwilling to discuss why what they want is even justified.

    I show up in these anti-immigration threads whenever possible and I make these arguments ad nauseum, and I have never been refuted in any fashion more meaningful than "I'm defining what invasion means, and it means washing your dishes".

    So I leave it up to you, side C reader. Consider the arguments. Make your decision.
    The side with a coherent position will accept you with open arms no matter what your previous position. Most of us were on the wrong side of this issue, before we actually thought about it.
    Last edited by fisharmor; 09-18-2013 at 08:24 AM.
    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.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabowery View Post
    individual sovereigns who voluntarily enter into mutual insurance company that holds territory against trespass
    Is that really what you propose? Something people voluntarily enter?

    And for those of us who don't voluntarily enter your company, and who don't mind having brown people around us, you would just let us go on welcoming Mexican immigrants here?

  14. #43

    Default

    Even without the common sense argument regarding the nature of sovereignty's relationship to territory I previously outlined, Article 1, Section 8's very first sentence states:

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year (1808) one thousand eight hundred and eight
    The mendacious traitors who are trying to destroy the nation will now argue:

    But that doesn't explicitly state that Congress, after 1808 shall prohibit any migration.
    To which, my reply is simply this:

    When do we convene a Grand Jury to indict these traitors, thence to try, convict and hang them?

    Until then, we don't have a legitimate government.
    Last edited by jabowery; 09-18-2013 at 10:57 AM.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    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.
    Unfortunately he seems much weaker on immigration than 2008ish Ron Paul. He's really not that far off from Rubio who really tanked in popularity on the right after the whole immigration bill debate. So far he has been able to say the right things but he has backed a path to citizenship and said he could see himself supporting the Senate bill-essentially the same bill that Rubio took a beating for supporting.

    The fact is that working class Americans care about immigration.

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Get a load of this guy!
    Count the green bars, genius.
    Not even taking into consideration any argument you might offer to the subject of the thread, I find that statement embarrassing and without any weight (other than in the club here at RPF).
    Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 09-19-2013 at 05:20 AM.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Not even taking into consideration any argument you might offer to the subject of the thread, I find that statement embarrassing and without any weight (other than in the club here at RPF).
    The herd mentality among the anti-liberty "libertarians" is, predictably, an overriding consideration in their thinking. Depart from the Austrian School catechism and you might be excommunicated from The Body of Ron Paul or something.

    Get a load of this gem in response to my quite reasonable assertion that one of them would have murdered Andrew Jackson if Jackson had challenged them to a duel:
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Hold on a sec. Have your references to Andrew Jackson really been made on the assumption that people here liked him? Seriously?
    I mean, we can hear an argument that, perhaps, it would have been "justifiable homicide", but to bring up what "people here like.."? *retch*
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  18. #47

    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.
    We could stop it tomorrow, with a net loss of government.

    But "we" don't have the stomach for that.

    So we keep playing the system's game, which is rigged to always favor the house.

    Meanwhile we've gambled away the mortgage and the kid's college fund, all to build a slave state.

    LOL @ Democracy.

  19. #48

    Default

    This entire debate is stupid. We have an out of control government that has murdered millions, dictated that the murder of tens of millions could not be stopped by anyone, steals a third or more of what each person earns, declares war on its own people for the substances they put into their bodies and locks them in cages, police strip searching people on the side of the road without getting a bullet put into their brains, a population of sheep that waves their flags and "Supports the troops for fighting for their freedom" while all this crap goes on, a program of mass theft that is euphemistically called "Entitlement programs", our God-given right to bear arms are being threatened, and we're seriously sitting here debating whether Andrew Jackson was a good President (For the record, I don't believe he was) and who can or cannot cross the imaginary border? And here we are using no true scotsmen fallacies and strawmen to discredit each other... over immigration?

    I want one good answer for why the heck I should care. If I hear "Because they're going to take their jobs" I'll tell you you're a statist central planner and that's that. If you want to tell me there's some kind of a "Right to immigration" I'll say "Fine, but there is no right to vote or collect welfare" and that's that.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    We could stop it tomorrow, with a net loss of government.
    I'm all for the net loss of government. But I don't think that would hamper immigration.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    If you want to tell me there's some kind of a "Right to immigration" I'll say "Fine, but there is no right to vote or collect welfare" and that's that.
    A sure-fire litmus test of an anti-liberty "libertarian" is they will not include, with every statement about the right to freely immigrate, that before that should be allowed the welfare state must first be eliminated. Oh, they'll occasionally fess up when confronted with their mendacity, as I have just done here, but then they'll go right back to preaching both "no welfare" and "open borders" without any priorities.

    Sheer, unadulterated treason.
    Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

  22. #51

    Default

    Viva la tyranny.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  23. #52

    Default

    Obama Knew This: Latinos Like Obamacare


    Jonathan Alter’s recent book The Center Holds recounts President Obama’s attempt to mobilize Latino voters in 2012 after early focus groups were discouraging. They revealed that “Latinos liked the president personally but didn’t think he was effective. … They were largely unfamiliar with achievements like the auto bailout and the health care bill …” How to respond? Not, it turns out, by talking about immigration reform:

    “The best way out of that hole was to educate Latino voters about Obamacare, which was immensely popular when Latinos learned the details. The pitch was much more direct than in Obama’s English-language media. Certain families, the Spanish-language ads said, “will receive economic help from the government to pay for quality [health] insurance. If the election was partly about the role of government in America life, Chicago was betting that Latinos favored a big role.

    The bet was hugely successful, of course, which raises the question: Are Latino voters “natural Republicans,” as we’re often told … or natural Californians? The answer is pretty obvious (as almost any Democratic campaign strategist will admit, at least after a few drinks).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





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
  •