Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 450 of 619

Thread: Some Thoughts on Immigration

  1. #421
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I am all for your sentiment to "just do it yourself; don't whine to the government"! I do have to admit that it's not particularly practical or realistic or applicable to reality as it exists. You're saying, "I accept that there's too many cockroaches in the house, but at the same time I hate the government (my exact same position!); so my position is that each of us should take care of them individually." And yet, it is illegal to do so. This "Terminix," which really is acting as a reverse-Terminix, importing and dumping off a million cockroaches a year into the house, has declared itself a monopoly. If anyone were to implement your suggestion and take matters into his own hands, he would be imprisoned or killed.

    You yourself are not implementing your suggestion.

    And yet, you call others cowards for likewise not implementing it. You call them cowards for deciding, just like you, to not go vigilante.

    I don't know that failing to go rogue and become a vigilante shows a lack of courage. There's more than one way to wage a war.
    Have you ever been to the Ozarks?

    There is no need for any "vigilantism".....

    When Terminix starts breeding and planting their cockroaches in previously uninfected areas it is in fact acting in Terminix best interest, the concern isn't for the cockroaches or the property owners under contract with Terminix, the concern isn't even for the Terminix exterminators, it's all about upper management and shareholders...

    Simple fact is Terminix profits from cockroaches, if there aren't enough roaches to keep growing the company then the company will supply them. Blaming the roaches is not very intelligent, neither is encouraging or supporting Terminix when they try to keep XYZ Exterminators from using Chlordane even if it's "illegal"......

    The person who really want to be rid of roaches will quietly treat his property with Chlordane and make sure his neighbors have access too because roaches have a way of reappearing (Thanks Terminix).....

    Chlordane will fix the roach problem but it won't fix the Terminix problem, neither will appointing a different CEO.........



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Have you ever been to the Ozarks?
    Yep! And lived there. It's a terrific place!

    There is no need for any "vigilantism".....
    You have repeatedly said that if someone has a problem with immigration policy, he should take care of it his own darn self and stop calling for the policy to be changed. Calling for the policy to be changed is somehow "cowardly". I disagree. More than one way to fight a war.

    And it's tacky to call people cowards for taking the exact same non-actions as you yourself.

    When Terminix starts breeding and planting their cockroaches in previously uninfected areas it is in fact acting in Terminix best interest, the concern isn't for the cockroaches or the property owners under contract with Terminix, the concern isn't even for the Terminix exterminators, it's all about upper management and shareholders...
    No particular disagreement.

    Blaming the roaches is not very intelligent
    Why is it that this chestnut is always trotted out? I'm tired of it. Let me put it to rest: I am not blaming the roaches. I am not "blaming" the immigrants. I am looking at immigration policy critically. That is the same for every other mass-immigration skeptic who has posted on this thread: they are blaming the policy! They are blaming the bad policy! They are saying, simply: "this policy is bad." They are not blaming the immigrants themselves. The immigrants did not make the policy! Congress said come, the people came; who could blame them? We might come too, in their situation.

    Nobody is "blaming the immigrants." We are trying to have an intelligent discussion and debate about policy.

    The person who really want to be rid of roaches will quietly treat his property with Chlordane and make sure his neighbors have access too because roaches have a way of reappearing (Thanks Terminix).....
    So, how is this not calling for taking matters into your own hands (in other words: becoming a vigilante)? Am I not understanding the analogy? I mean, what's more, Chlordane is fatal, yes? So, the Tod Evans Immigration Plan: "Everyone take rifle in hand and kill all illegal immigrants you see."

    Any other plan sounds humane compared to this. Perhaps you could clarify.

  4. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Cockroaches streaming in and infesting the house is not a problem. Cockroaches are a wonderful and beautiful part of ecology. Cockroaches do the work that the domestic creatures refuse to do.
    Can you quote me saying anything that resembles this?

  5. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post

    You have repeatedly said that if someone has a problem with immigration policy, he should take care of it his own darn self and stop calling for the policy to be changed. Calling for the policy to be changed is somehow "cowardly". I disagree. More than one way to fight a war.

    And it's tacky to call people cowards for taking the exact same non-actions as you yourself.
    Changing policy isn't going to accomplish anything, the day to day life of the citizen, the government functionary or the immigrant won't differ one iota in 10 years if you could magically flip "policy" on it's ass.

    I do not address policy, I don't even discuss it beyond pointing out that more government isn't going to fix bad government.

    I will not call on government to fix a problem they caused, if that's "non-action" in your opinion, okay...


    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    So, how is this not calling for taking matters into your own hands (in other words: becoming a vigilante)? Am I not understanding the analogy? I mean, what's more, Chlordane is fatal, yes? So, the Tod Evans Immigration Plan: "Everyone take rifle in hand and kill all illegal immigrants you see."Any other plan sounds humane compared to this. Perhaps you could clarify.
    You misrepresent what I've typed, go back and reread if you came away with me shooting immigrants.

    What I actually typed was that without government interference your Bud Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked and other folks like Erowe/Sola could import whomever they liked.

    This immigration/welfare issue isn't one for the feds, it's not even viable at a state level.

    It's not working now, it hasn't worked in decades and more of the same isn't going to fix anything.

    Now I'd like a sincere apology for misrepresenting what I've typed, accusing me of advocating to shoot immigrants was blatantly dishonest and obviously intentional.


    If you in fact actually did live in the Ozarks at some point you should have noticed that old homes treated with Chlordane existed on the same block as new or untreated homes that housed thriving cockroach colonies. Cockroaches tend to colonize where the environment is conducive to their existence and avoid where it's not. Applying your opinion of either me or immigrants to what I've typed and then twisting your conclusions in order to present that I promote "killing illegal immigrants" is really quite a leap even for you.

    Now maybe after you've apologized you'll share your ideas on how you think government is going to fix government?



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    You misrepresent what I've typed, go back and reread if you came away with me shooting immigrants.
    I asked you to clarify. If you are not for using lethal force against immigrants, then just say so. Instead, you have repeatedly said the opposite. Indeed, in the very next sentence! In the very next sentence, you write:

    What I actually typed was that without government interference your Bud Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked
    So, you are saying anyone who has concerns with excessive illegal immigrants ought to go around shooting them.

    As I say, this is not a practical plan -- obviously not a sane one, in fact. And yet, this is not hyperbole, this is what you have explicitly, word-for-word written. It's right there in black and white.

    I expected that your clarification would be that while Chlordane is fatal to roaches, you did not mean it so literally. That the decentralized individual actions you recommend are somehow less.... bloody. Perhaps just signs in windows saying "No Immigrants" or something. I mean, I don't know what you're thinking. I can't read minds. But you could tell me.

    Instead, your clarification is to distance yourself from those who have a problem with the excessive illegal immigrants. You say: I recommend that they, that anyone who doesn't like immigrants, go shoot people in the head. That's the course they should take. But not me!

    That doesn't quite work, because you're already on record multiple times as being less than enthusiastic about immigrants. So you don't like immigrants, but yet you (presumably!) are not out there at night shooting them all in the head. Liberty Eagle also is not out there shooting them in the head. Nor am I. Nor is Ron Paul. So how come that we're cowards... and you're not?

    I support your decentralized approach to and thinking about this matter, in a general sense. It's very practical. I'd just like for you to be a little more specific about what you think individuals and communities could and should actually do, as opposed to saying, "Well, if they don't like immigrants they can just shoot them."

  8. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I asked you to clarify. If you are not for using lethal force against immigrants, then just say so.
    I don't care one way or the other if you want to use lethal force against anybody.Imigrants get no special consideration.
    Instead, you have repeatedly said the opposite. Indeed, in the very next sentence! In the very next sentence, you write:
    What I actually typed was that without government interference your Bud Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked
    So, you are saying anyone who has concerns with excessive illegal immigrants ought to go around shooting them.
    No, I typed exactly what I meant, there is no reason for you to misrepresent or embellish what you quoted. If I'd meant something other than what I typed I would have typed something different.
    As I say, this is not a practical plan -- obviously not a sane one, in fact. And yet, this is not hyperbole, this is what you have explicitly, word-for-word written. It's right there in black and white.

    My commentary on another posters comments is right there, yes it is! And I still could care less if he chooses to shoot anybody, immigrant or not.

    What I do care about is if he, or you, or anybody else calls on the federal government to bring in or get rid of foreign citizens. The federal government has proved over decades that it is incapable of handling this matter. But I've already addressed this earlier, I'll quote my post in this response.
    I expected that your clarification would be that while Chlordane is fatal to roaches, you did not mean it so literally. That the decentralized individual actions you recommend are somehow less.... bloody. Perhaps just signs in windows saying "No Immigrants" or something. I mean, I don't know what you're thinking. I can't read minds. But you could tell me.
    Making an environment inhospitable requires no further discussion. You have chosen to embellish again.
    Instead, your clarification is to distance yourself from those who have a problem with the excessive illegal immigrants. You say: I recommend that they, that anyone who doesn't like immigrants, go shoot people in the head. That's the course they should take. But not me!
    Okay HH you're completely out of line here! Calling to remove power from government DOES NOT equate to calling for murder. Can you can actually point to a post of mine that a sane person could twist in this manner?
    That doesn't quite work, because you're already on record multiple times as being less than enthusiastic about immigrants. So you don't like immigrants, but yet you (presumably!) are not out there at night shooting them all in the head. Liberty Eagle also is not out there shooting them in the head. Nor am I. Nor is Ron Paul. So how come that we're cowards... and you're not?
    I have called one poster a coward in response to his post, your insinuation that others are included by proxy is ludicrous.
    Again you bring up shooting immigrants in the head? Obviously this fantasy carries some weight in your mind seeing how nowhere else in this thread has anybody mentioned shooting immigrants in the head. Stop misrepresenting what I type, don't add to, don't read between the lines, I'm quite capable of typing exactly what I intend to post, your interpretations are neither required or appreciated.
    I support your decentralized approach to and thinking about this matter, in a general sense. It's very practical. I'd just like for you to be a little more specific about what you think individuals and communities could and should actually do, as opposed to saying, "Well, if they don't like immigrants they can just shoot them."

    Are you dense?

    My initial response about Spartan-boy shooting people;

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Liberty only comes from lack of oversight and regulation.

    Some here are calling for government to let folks in, others for government to keep folks out.

    I want government out of the way!

    Let foreigners walk/drive or fly in and let Americans deal with them without government intervention.

    If Spartan-boy wants to shoot furriners let him, if you want to hire them to work at your motel then you get 'em here and provide a safe environment for them.

    Stop taking money from working people to enforce or support either position.
    Here's me talking about "taking matters into your own hands";

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Absolutely not.

    I'm advocating that real people, not government agents, take matters into their own hands.

    Do not rely on government to take care of anything, they're inept, incompetent and way too expensive for what ineffectual services they provide.

    The government that was instituted over the USA was instituted to unite armed, independant, self-sufficient men since that time it has grown to usurp that function and is being used to promote dependence of the weak and manipulative.

    As all of us have seen the dependant will swarm like flies to a fresh corpse and at this point they're so thick nothing good can come of it....

    Maggots and carrion eaters come next........

    Good men would have already buried this corpse of a nation and began reeping the crops from fertile ground....
    Here's my response to the use of "coward" by Spartan-boy;

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'm advocating for the only possible peaceful solution, coward.

    Strip the federal government of it's ability to provide social services, strip it's ability to control the borders and return these duties to the counties, not the states but the counties.

    You're the one who keeps insisting that the feds can be bent to your will, I know better.

    Maybe if you suck really well the feds will throw you a bone and permit you to live amongst them where you won't be exposed to the lower classes..
    And here's what I had to say about taking action, notice there's no mention of "policy" in my post;

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    And this is exactly why I keep calling to rip the powers of immigration and welfare away from the feds. They're not able to provide the level of service locals could at 1000 times the cost.

    County by county would be acceptable to me, small enough I can find the bastards who make decisions I don't agree with but large enough to support itself...

    Without federal interference there wouldn't be federal land.

    The people who work don't need the federal government, it's the people who leech that do.

    Now,

    Are you going to apologize for misrepresenting what I've typed or not?

  9. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Are you going to apologize for misrepresenting what I've typed or not?[/B]
    Well before I apologize for misrepresenting you, I want to be sure if I actually have misrepresented you.

    Do you or do not not believe that a world in which Spartan-boy can shoot any immigrants he wants would be a desirable one?

    i.e.

    Are you or are you not saying that that would be a good thing?

    You see, you seem to support "no government interference". To quote you: "I want government out of the way!" And you say that in a world "without government interference your Bud[sic]* Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked." So you can see my confusion, I trust. Call me dense if you like, but it seems like you are saying that you would prefer a world in which there is no government interference, and in which all the Spartan-boys of the world can shoot anyone they like. This very well may be a misrepresentation. Just let us know one way of the other.

    In the meantime, since it seems very important to you, I will apologize that you feel misrepresented, since that was not my intention to have you feel that way. I think you're great and A-OK. I just want to get a more clear idea of your views.

    * American Spartan is not my "bud", except to the extent I have a general affinity with all the Ron Paul fans and freedom-valuers on RPF. I do not know him at all.

  10. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I am all for your sentiment to "just do it yourself; don't whine to the government"! I do have to admit that it's not particularly practical or realistic or applicable to reality as it exists. You're saying, "I accept that there's too many cockroaches in the house, but at the same time I hate the government (my exact same position!); so my position is that each of us should take care of them individually." And yet, it is illegal to do so. This "Terminix," which really is acting as a reverse-Terminix, importing and dumping off a million cockroaches a year into the house, has declared itself a monopoly. If anyone were to implement your suggestion and take matters into his own hands, he would be imprisoned or killed.

    You yourself are not implementing your suggestion.

    And yet, you call others cowards for likewise not implementing it. You call them cowards for deciding, just like you, to not go vigilante.

    I don't know that failing to go rogue and become a vigilante shows a lack of courage. There's more than one way to wage a war.
    Yeah the whole "Do what I want to do but not willing to do or you are a "coward" bit is very funny..

    How can he not understand you import more marxst, you get more marxism, you do not allow them in, and you reduce the existing stock. Loved your New Zealand post about it.

  11. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Do you or do not not believe that a world in which Spartan-boy can shoot any immigrants he wants would be a desirable one?
    I'm okay with counties authorizing the shooting of anyone deemed undesirable. As long as Spartan-boy plied his shooting trade within those counties I have no objection.

    Now pay attention!

    The other side of this scenario is that counties could forbid shooting anybody.

    Counties could mandate caring for the unproductive or immoral, just as they could forbid their presence under penalty of said shooting...

    There are too many differing views about right/wrong, moral/immoral, acceptable/unacceptable people/behavior for the country to live under a set of rules that forces homogenization under the barrel of a gun.

    Spartan-boy has stated that he wants to bring the force of government to bear against immigrants and there are many others who feel the same way, these people should have counties where they can bring the force of the government they pay for to bear.

    Others want counties where everybody from everywhere is welcome with open arms, they too should have their counties in which they write and enforce the laws.

    Big dollar counties could hire/support surrounding ones so long as they came to agreement..

    I don't foresee counties where people of Spartan-boys ilk would shoot trespassing immigrants on site but it is possible one could exist for a while...

    The division of the populace along economic/political/racial and geographical lines is going to come to a head eventually if the federal government is permitted to continue undertaking ventures people strongly disagree with.

    State government today oversees a larger population than the federal government did when it was instituted, many counties populations exceed those of the early states.

    A federal government that taxes and disburses has the power to force homogenization, there are too many people with differing ideas for that to work.

    After all that, you were looking to pin me down on which type of county I'd choose to live in, at least that what your query sounded like....

    I would choose to ply my trade and raise my kid in a county inhabited by folks of like mind, that would not include shooting immigrants on site.

    [edit]

    Thank you for the apology.

    I have not advocated shooting anybody.
    Last edited by tod evans; 11-27-2015 at 05:50 PM.

  12. #430
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Yeah the whole "Do what I want to do but not willing to do or you are a "coward" bit is very funny..

    How can he not understand you import more marxst, you get more marxism, you do not allow them in, and you reduce the existing stock. Loved your New Zealand post about it.
    Go back and read, twas you that began the "coward" vernacular, up until that point my posts to you consisted of not crying for more government.

  13. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'm okay with counties authorizing the shooting of anyone deemed undesirable. As long as Spartan-boy plied his shooting trade within those counties I have no objection.
    Well, I guess I am a bit more of a moral absolutist, because I would have a problem with that. I think that kind of wildly disproportionate response amounts to unjustified murder, and that is always wrong.

    That said, we're pretty similar in our approach for practical purposes, because even though I would absolutely be strongly morally opposed to that county's actions, doesn't mean I'd be calling for other counties to invade it and force it to stop, any more than I think the US should be invading Pakistan and forcing its government to stop... oh, I can't even choose a specific outrage -- to stop being horrible, corrupt and oppressive in basically every way.

    Anyway, you clarified very well, thank you. I understand your point of view much better now, and maybe others do, too. You are arguing for policy to be set on the county level, which seems much more civilized and reasonable than "policy" being arbitrarily set by each individual, which would (IMO) amount to vigilantism and a chaotic, blood-soaked situation.

    The other side of this scenario is that counties could forbid

    Counties could mandate...

    these people should have counties where they can bring the force of the government they pay for to bear.

    Others...they too should have their counties in which they write and enforce the laws.
    You're all about counties. More decentralization -- I am all for that!

    Plus, even though you're not willing to condemn shooting immigrants, you do seem to at least think it's an undesirable outcome:
    I don't foresee counties where people of Spartan-boy's ilk would shoot trespassing immigrants on site but it is possible one could exist for a while...
    ...which is probably why you raised it in connection with American Spartan. Connect a person you find unacceptable with an outrageous proposal most people will find unacceptable. Makes sense.

    But for the record: American Spartan never said anything about shooting people (I don't think!). You did. And he has now repeatedly disavowed that proposal in horror, as any decent normal person would.

    After all that, you were looking to pin me down on which type of county I'd choose to live in, at least that what your query sounded like....
    No, I did not understand your proposal was all about counties going through a reasonable legal process, and not random individual rogue anti-immigrant snipers just... going for it.

    I would choose to ply my trade and raise my kid in a county inhabited by folks of like mind, that would not include shooting immigrants on sight.

    [edit]

    Thank you for the apology.

    I have not advocated shooting anybody.
    You have answered my question. Well then I think I did misrepresent your view, it turns out, and I apologize again for that.

    Part of it was that I am dense: I didn't know what Chlordane was, and imagined from the context it was some sort of nasty poison you sprayed on and around roaches to make them die horrible deaths, like the Raid neurotoxin one sprays into hornet's nests, or like the Trojan Horse chemical ant traps. Looking it up, it turns out it's a passive protectant -- the roaches don't all convulse on the floor and die, they just all go away and don't come back. In other words, it's not fatal to the roaches. So, if you would have explained that, or I would have known, I would have realized that yes, what you were saying was more akin to "No Immigrant" signs and refusal to hire and rent and things like that, and not to mass slaughter.

  14. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    But for the record: American Spartan never said anything about shooting people (I don't think!).You did. And he has now repeatedly disavowed that proposal in horror, as any decent normal person would.
    [edit]

    Here's the first mention of "shooting" that I could find in the dialog between Spartan-boy and myself, and I haven't found anywhere he disavowed the proposal in horror, would you be so kind as to point that out for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Take the first shot then.
    Government only has one tool and it's guns.

    Calling for government to "keep people out" only happens by force of law...

    Just as government mandating that states take in X number of refugees only happens by force of law..

    Any time the federal government mandates or prohibits some behavior it is by force of law..

    By reducing such legislation down to counties one is far more likely to find a set of laws he can live under whether those laws suit somebody 1500 miles away or not.
    Last edited by tod evans; 11-28-2015 at 08:03 AM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Yes, the native white populace has gotten significantly better politically, significantly more libertarian and conservative in the last three decades. The Soviet Union collapsed. Socialism was discredited. The native whites (which was 90% of the natives) shifted libertarian-conservative.
    Why have you chosen the last three decades, I wonder. Could it be because the political behavior of white people in the proceeding ~150 years tells exactly the opposite story? White Americans (for instance) take for granted government activities which would have been anathema to even their relatively recent ancestors. I would attribute this change first and foremost to democracy itself (over time, there's a kind of Darwinian process driving politicians toward ever more intervention, on behalf of voters and the donor class), and also the left's long march through the institution. I'm not sure how this can be accounted for in your model, however, where the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic.

    And with regard to the collapse of communism, what's your argument exactly? Russia became more white, so communism collapsed? Aside from being something of a non sequitur (no voting during the Soviet era, so...?), I'm fairly certain that the white population of Russia's been declining proportionally since well before 1989. Or is the argument that Russian whites, who had previously instituted the most horrific regime in human history, eventually improved (though again, with no voting, what's the mechanism here?). Again, that would seem to undermine your claim that the problem is genetic.

    And [New Zealanders] were far further along the socialist path than us. Before 1980, they were totally socialist. And yet they were able to do a complete U-turn to become one of the most radically libertarian places around. That could have been us! That could have been America! And it still could be, if only we weren't saddled with 25% of Mexico, millions and millions from Central America, millions and millions from Asia, one and a half million Arabs, etc.
    There are far more examples of overwhelmingly white societies moving in the opposite direction since 1989.

    ..most of Europe, for instance.

    Greece, greatest basket case on the continent, is more than 95% European today.

    None of the PIIGS are less than 90% European.

    New Zealand looks like an exception, not the rule.

    In short, Helmuth, your theory appears to be internally inconsistent, and based on a cherry-picking of the facts.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-28-2015 at 04:24 AM.

  17. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Why have you chosen the last three decades, I wonder.
    I don't think you wonder. Because if you or anyone sincerely wondered about this for more than ten seconds, you would come to the conclusion that the last three decades is the time during which immigration has been the most relevant, when we have seen the most rapid influx in history, and that the title of this thread contains the word "Immigration" and so maybe that is what we're discussing. No, I do not think you "wonder" about this. I think that, like the rest of your post, you are just writing it for rhetorical effect because you are so strongly pro-unlimited-and-nondiscriminatory-immigration you want to crush and discredit any arguments against that by any means necessary.

    Is that pretty much it? Did I sum it up?

    I'm not sure how this can be accounted for in your model, however, where the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic.
    I do not have a "model" in which "the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic". You have invented a view for me which I have never come even close to stating anything like, and, lo and behold, that view is very easy for you to knock down as incorrect. There is a name for this fallacy, when it is a fallacy. But you are smart enough that I think you did it intentionally.

    And the entire rest of your post is devoted to knocking down that fictional view you created.

    "Bother! He got me," you are saying. Am I right?

    In short, Helmuth, your theory appears to be internally inconsistent, and based on a cherry-picking of the facts.
    Your theory, that you invented for me, that race explains everything in the world, and also that all the problems of the world, including The Problem (which you never define) could be solved by simply having everyone be the right race, yes, that theory appears to be slightly weak. Perhaps to not hold up to close scrutiny.

    Imagine that.

  18. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I don't think you wonder. Because if you or anyone sincerely wondered about this for more than ten seconds, you would come to the conclusion that the last three decades is the time during which immigration has been the most relevant, when we have seen the most rapid influx in history, and that the title of this thread contains the word "Immigration" and so maybe that is what we're discussing. No, I do not think you "wonder" about this. I think that, like the rest of your post, you are just writing it for rhetorical effect because you are so strongly pro-unlimited-and-nondiscriminatory-immigration you want to crush and discredit any arguments against that by any means necessary.

    Is that pretty much it? Did I sum it up?
    No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.

    If you're retreating to the more modest position that immigrants are more leftist than natives upon their arrival, but they (or at least their children) can eventually assimilate (i.e. that the problem is not genetic), then you need not be opposed to immigration at all; you need only be opposed to giving them the franchise right off the boat, as am I.

    I do not have a "model" in which "the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic". You have invented a view for me which I have never come even close to stating anything like, and, lo and behold, that view is very easy for you to knock down as incorrect. There is a name for this fallacy, when it is a fallacy. But you are smart enough that I think you did it intentionally.
    You do. On previous occasions when we've discussed immigration, I've argued that immigrants having leftist political tendencies is not a problem so long as they're not enfranchised until after they've assimilated, to which your retort has always been that they can't assimilate, for genetic reasons. Do I need to dig up some old threads and quote you to yourself, or do you remember this?

    And the entire rest of your post is devoted to knocking down that fictional view you created.

    "Bother! He got me," you are saying. Am I right?

    Your theory, that you invented for me, that race explains everything in the world, and also that all the problems of the world, including The Problem (which you never define) could be solved by simply having everyone be the right race, yes, that theory appears to be slightly weak. Perhaps to not hold up to close scrutiny.

    Imagine that.
    So, you're acknowledging that the racial theory that I'm "falsely" attributing to you is incorrect?

    ....that immigrants can in fact assimilate, and therefore there's no reason to deny them entry, since we can instead simply delay giving them the franchise?

  19. #436
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.
    They do not assimilate in large part, and the support larger goverment more so then whites.



    As for genetics, well their IQs are by and large lower then that of Europeans.


    If you're retreating to the more modest position that immigrants are more leftist than natives upon their arrival, but they (or at least their children) can eventually assimilate (i.e. that the problem is not genetic), then you need not be opposed to immigration at all; you need only be opposed to giving them the franchise right off the boat, as am I.
    Their children do not assimilate at a large enough number at a fast enough rate, then we take in millions more the next year we can not wait 3 generations for them to come around to our point of view politically time to keep them out.


    You do. On previous occasions when we've discussed immigration, I've argued that immigrants having leftist political tendencies is not a problem so long as they're not enfranchised until after they've assimilated, to which your retort has always been that they can't assimilate, for genetic reasons. Do I need to dig up some old threads and quote you to yourself, or do you remember this?
    And how do you control that? How do you determine what constitutes "assimilated?

    More over do prevent leftist from just adding them into the voter ranks? That is right, you cant, and since we can not pervent them from doing so we need to prevent them access to the nation.


    They cant assimilate, its either Genetic, Cultural or both. Look at the South West for proof of this.


    ....that immigrants can in fact assimilate, and therefore there's no reason to deny them entry, since we can instead simply delay giving them the franchise?
    Some of them can, such as people who have shared culture, values, politics, etc. You can not take people from cultures as vastly non compatible such as from the 3rd world and claim "well because the Irish assimilated (they did not do such a good job and it take them more or less 130 years) then the 3rd worlders can as well"

    Its the Lighting Fallacy on steroids.

    They are many reasons to deny them entry, economical, culture, crime, disease, terrorism and at some point they will be able to vote, you only delay the inevitable while we try and prevent that avoidable.

  20. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    That's lumps together all non-whites (including native-born ones).

    Here's a more germane one, focusing on immigrants:



    As for genetics, well their IQs are by and large lower then than that of Europeans.
    FIFY...

    In any event, that's true, but irrelevant to politics.

    The average white, though smarter, is still far too dumb to understand politics, hence they continue to make horrifying stupid decisions.

    Despite a majority of whites saying they want smaller government, ~99% of them vote for more government every election.

    By way of analogy, oak is much stronger than pine, but neither is suitable for constructing submarines.

  21. #438
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's lumps together all non-whites (including native-born ones).

    Here's a more germane one, focusing on immigrants:


    That you for proving my point for me.


    FIFY...

    In any event, that's true, but irrelevant to politics.

    The average white, though smarter, is still far too dumb to understand politics, hence they continue to make horrifying stupid decisions.

    Despite a majority of whites saying they want smaller government, ~99% of them vote for more government every election.

    By way of analogy, oak is much stronger than pine, but neither is suitable for constructing submarines.
    No it is very relevant, we have more then enough stupid or uneducated people, we do not need any more.

    Well they vote for the candidates that are running. Do not plan them their is not a party that is viable to be elected and cause real change/improvement.

  22. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Well they vote for the candidates that are running. Do not plan them their is not a party that is viable to be elected and cause real change/improvement.
    Ron Paul was running (twice), why so few votes for him from these genetically-libertarian whites?

    The LP has been running every cycle since the 70s - never got more than ~1%. Why?

  23. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Ron Paul was running (twice), why so few votes for him from these genetically-libertarian whites?

    The LP has been running every cycle since the 70s - never got more than ~1%. Why?
    The party establishment changed the rules in order to keep him out as they knew he could not be controlled.

    Because they lack funding. That is why, then you have to figure in the tens of million of immigrants/their kids who if not for the 1965 immigration act would not be here and voting solidly Dem.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    The party establishment changed the rules in order to keep him out as they knew he could not be controlled.
    So how would having fewer non-white voters prevent this from happening?

    Because they lack funding.
    Why aren't the genetically-libertarian whites funding them then? They fund the GOP and the Dems.

  26. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So how would having fewer non-white voters prevent this from happening?
    That is inner party conflict with the Neo cons who are aging out and the Patriots, we will win in do time.

    How would fewer non whites voters effect this? Well they would not be voting for the Dems if we do not let them into the nation to begin with.


    Why aren't the genetically-libertarian whites funding them then? They fund the GOP and the Dems.
    Because they know we can not work outside of the 2 party system for the time being. They are funding "outsiders" that are working within the GOP much to the hatred of the GOPe

  27. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    That is inner party conflict with the Neo cons who are aging out and the Patriots, we will win in do time.
    1. To which race do the Republican establishment, and its corporate sponsors, mostly belong?

    2. Who did these patriots vote for last cycle?

    How would fewer non whites voters effect this? Well they would not be voting for the Dems if we do not let them into the nation to begin with.
    So, instead of Obama, we get Romney?

    Could you explain to me the policy differences between the two?

    Because they know we can not work outside of the 2 party system for the time being. They are funding "outsiders" that are working within the GOP much to the hatred of the GOPe
    Jeb Bush donations = $127 million
    Rand Paul donations = $15 million

    By this measure, the whites, the one's with the money anyway, are for more government, not less.

  28. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    1. To which race do the Republican establishment, and its corporate sponsors, mostly belong?

    2. Who did these patriots vote for last cycle?
    Largely the ruling class, so White and mostly Neo cons Whites.

    The lesser of two evils, which was so Milquetoast millions of voters stayed home.

    His proof that "moderates" do not win.



    So, instead of Obama, we get Romney?

    Could you explain to me the policy differences between the two?
    On what subject? He difference some what on immigration and gun rights (albeit his record on the later is less then flattering.

    Jeb Bush donations = $127 million
    Rand Paul donations = $15 million

    By this measure, the whites, the one's with the money anyway, are for more government, not less.
    Jeb is a Neo Con cuck who thinks even now he can be elected, He cant and wont. GWB was the last hurrah of the Ne Con Branch, they are either controlled opposition or people who do not want win and make gains in restoring Liberty.

    No, just Neo Cons as any such action would harm them or their donor class.

  29. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Largely the ruling class, so White and mostly Neo cons Whites.
    So how will deporting non-whites prevent the white ruling class from pushing for more government?

    On what subject? He difference some what on immigration and gun rights (albeit his record on the later is less then flattering.
    So that's it?

    If we allow the immigrants in, we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with poor gun rights.

    If we keep them out...we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with moderate gun rights.

    ...that's what this is all about?

    (and, incidentally, Romney was terrible on gun rights when he was Gov., his sudden change was just pandering to the GOP base, and they were dumb enough to buy it)

    Jeb is a Neo Con cuck who thinks even now he can be elected, He cant and wont. GWB was the last hurrah of the Ne Con Branch, they are either controlled opposition or people who do not want win and make gains in restoring Liberty.
    ...and a large majority of whites voted for George W. Bush, so how would deporting the non-whites have made any difference?

  30. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So how will deporting non-whites prevent the white ruling class from pushing for more government?
    Well they will not have tens of millions of imported welfare voters to back their decisions not dilute the election outcomes.
    Plus we will not have to expend the goverment to care for the increases that adding tens of millions of welfare voters will cause.



    So that's it?

    If we allow the immigrants in, we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with poor gun rights.
    If we allow in immigrants who favor big goverment and control we will end up with a solid Democratic rule which will mean infringements on the 2nd Amendment, which without will mean that Americans will be helpless against an out of control goverment or rampant criminally.

    Never mind the possibility of race based conflict should whites lose the majority statues and are disarmed as they are in South Africa.

    If we keep them out...we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with moderate gun rights.
    Wrong, If we keep them out, they can not vote against us. Its just that simply. without tens of millions of imported voters the left will lose and the Neo Con right will die its rightful death.

    ...that's what this is all about?
    Its about protect our rightful ownership over our nation, culture, Liberty and future and not having it usurp by tyrants and given to the 3rd world hordes who have no right or claim to it.

    (and, incidentally, Romney was terrible on gun rights when he was Gov., his sudden change was just pandering to the GOP base, and they were dumb enough to buy it)
    Clearly, but he was not out to destroy it like the Boy King is.

    Romney defeat did more good, as it showed the Cuckservative"middle of the road" does not work, it never did.

    You are seeing the birth of the "New Right" which will destroy the left.


    ...and a large majority of whites voted for George W. Bush, so how would deporting the non-whites have made any difference?
    That was the past, the last hurrah of the Neo Cons, they are nothing more then a dying faction as they should be.

    How it would have effected us? Easy, fewer non whites means fewer Democratic Voters/Welfare Voters.

  31. #447
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Wrong, If we keep them out, they can not vote against us. Its just that simply. without tens of millions of imported voters the left will lose and the Neo Con right will die its rightful death.
    The Neocons get their support almost exclusively from white Americans. Without Hispanic voters neocon McCain probably would have won in 2008.

    Its about protect our rightful ownership over our nation, culture, Liberty and future and not having it usurp by tyrants and given to the 3rd world hordes who have no right or claim to it.
    Prove that you have a right to it. Were all of your ancestor here in 1787?

    Clearly, but he was not out to destroy it like the Boy King is.

    Romney defeat did more good, as it showed the Cuckservative"middle of the road" does not work, it never did.

    You are seeing the birth of the "New Right" which will destroy the left.
    If every minority votes Democrat you need 69% of white voters for a Republican victory in 2016. That number gets higher every year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...form.html?_r=0
    Stop believing stupid things

  32. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    The Neocons get their support almost exclusively from white Americans. Without Hispanic voters neocon McCain probably would have won in 2008.
    Come again?


    Prove that you have a right to it. Were all of your ancestor here in 1787?
    That is not how it works, you have to prove to me that I do not have a right to this nation, culture, Liberty, in clear violation to the words of the founds "To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity"

    Ah, here we go, that classic "You are the descendants of immigrants so you can not bar others from coming in". Wrong we so very clearly can.



    If every minority votes Democrat you need 69% of white voters for a Republican victory in 2016. That number gets higher every year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...form.html?_r=0
    Which is why we are cutting off the voter importing spigot IE mass immigration.

    With that one act we can stop the demographic slide.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Come again?
    I said it pretty clearly.

    That is not how it works, you have to prove to me that I do not have a right to this nation, culture, Liberty, in clear violation to the words of the founds "To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity"

    Ah, here we go, that classic "You are the descendants of immigrants so you can not bar others from coming in". Wrong we so very clearly can.
    I'm just saying I'm glad that my German ancestors weren't stopped from entering the US in the late 19th century because of Germany's authoritarian government.

    Which is why we are cutting off the voter importing spigot IE mass immigration.

    With that one act we can stop the demographic slide.
    I think you mean "slow."
    Stop believing stupid things

  35. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post


    I'm just saying I'm glad that my German ancestors weren't stopped from entering the US in the late 19th century because of Germany's authoritarian government.
    So because if your past we need to risk our Liberty and future...Why?

    At some point you need to close the gates and say "no more" well that time is here and that is what we are doing, and all the teary eyed stories, or revisionism, or Romanticism, name calling or cliches is not going to stop from happening.


    I think you mean "slow."
    Now, we will also deport either by force or attrition the illegals here as well as use the Sailer strategy.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sa...o-save-america

    That and a booming economy, Whites will bounce back.

Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on Nelson Mandela? Thoughts on the movie?
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 08:53 PM
  2. Thoughts on Illegal Immigration & Birthright Citizenship
    By srps2233 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 03:01 PM
  3. Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration
    By gaazn in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: Illegal immigration, is Pauls stance effective?
    By Lord Xar in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

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