Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 155

Thread: New York Times slams 'outrageous' Donald Trump for mocking reporter's disability

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    ^This is the strategy the Soros paid think tank paid posters use to undermine grassroots forums and ensure they are not exposed. devil21 consistently vehemently represents Progressive policies and associates them with Rand. Average Republican voters believe it due to his high post count and find another candidate. When someone calls him on it he accuses them of being a left shill to ensure he is not exposed.

    At some point devil21 will switch support to another candidate or say is not going to vote as part of the strategy to herd people accordingly. He may attack other Paul supporters along the way for the purpose of driving more grassroots supporters from Rand.
    Give it up kahless. Spill the beans. Who are you working for? Who is paying you to push obvious-Hillary-plant-Trump on the Rand Paul forum? I'm going to ask that question every time you post yet another defense of Trump's attempt to undermine the GOP primary so get used to it.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Give it up kahless. Spill the beans. Who are you working for? Who is paying you to push obvious-Hillary-plant-Trump on the Rand Paul forum? I'm going to ask that question every time you post yet another defense of Trump's attempt to undermine the GOP primary so get used to it.
    How do you think what appear as acts of pathetic desperation of using RNC/DNC talking points against Trump and trying to silence discussion help Rand?

    Nothing in my posts could be considered pushing Trump. You just cannot handle an adult discussion on policy positions of other candidates. Doing so and speaking the truth rather than resorting to programmed talking points does not make one a Trump supporter or whomever the candidate is we are discussing.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Only Mexicans are illegal aliens?
    Still deflecting, Sola? haha
    ================
    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

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Give it up kahless. Spill the beans. Who are you working for? Who is paying you to push obvious-Hillary-plant-Trump on the Rand Paul forum? I'm going to ask that question every time you post yet another defense of Trump's attempt to undermine the GOP primary so get used to it.
    Or, you could debate the issues.
    ================
    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

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Still deflecting, Sola? haha
    Having provided him the opportunity to respond to you, you are fully responsible for what he says.
    They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by staerker View Post
    So, no barbed wires and machine guns.

    Simply a big beautiful wall, with no armed enforcement. ?
    Rand's Trust but Verify Act requires a doubled layer fence with 100 percent surveillance capability, goal of 95% apprehension or turn back rate and 100% incarceration until trial for newly captured.

    It lists the areas in the PDF, also refers to the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which required a 700 miles of new and existing fence. I am a little unclear if the areas in Rand's Act add up to the 700 miles listed in his Trust but Verify but you get the point.

    http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MDM13819.pdf
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by staerker View Post
    Having provided him the opportunity to respond to you, you are fully responsible for what he says.
    I find it rather hilarious when those calling themselves libertarians do not understand their own basic tenets.
    ================
    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

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I find it rather hilarious when those calling themselves libertarians do not understand their own basic tenets.
    Really? Because that's exactly what I think about the immigration statists at Lew Rockwell and on this board.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Really? Because that's exactly what I think about the immigration statists at Lew Rockwell and on this board.
    That national sovereignty thing really irritates you, doesn't it?
    ================
    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

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Really? Because that's exactly what I think about the immigration statists at Lew Rockwell and on this board.
    You have a Rand avatar yet consider Rand an immigration statist?
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    You have a Rand avatar yet consider Rand an immigration statist?
    In some respects, yes. Rand isn't a libertarian.

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That national sovereignty thing really irritates you, doesn't it?
    Not particularly, no. But everyone who values freedom should oppose people controls.

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    OK, well that contradicts your position that "nothing" should be done, and your contention that Ron Paul supposedly agrees that "nothing" should be done. Actually he takes a complex, nuanced position on immigration in his book, and he advocates that the government do several things that would not be strictly libertarian and which I'm sure you would not agree with, due to your arguing against them on this forum. Maybe when Ron Paul says it you agree with it, but when anyone else does they're a Nazi? I don't know.
    There's a spectrum between nothing and a whole lot. Bernie Sanders is a good representative of the "whole lot" position. I am at the "nothing" end of the spectrum. And Ron Paul is close enough to me to be practically indistinguishable, while he is very very far from the Sanders end of the spectrum. His position isn't very complex and nuanced. He doesn't want a wall. He doesn't want to deport people. He wants illegal immigrants to be able to stay here and work without citizenship. He doesn't want employers to have any legal obligation to worry about whether the people they hire are illegal immigrants. He doesn't want the government to be able to keep track of us, or legal immigrants, or illegal ones. He doesn't want us to have to take passports with us when we leave the country and come back in, meaning that other people should be able to get in without them too. I agree with him on all of those. The Nazis you mention disagree with him on all of them.
    Last edited by erowe1; 11-28-2015 at 01:05 PM.

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    You have a Rand avatar yet consider Rand an immigration statist?
    Is there any doubt about it? Rand himself has been very forthright and consistent from his senate run until now that he's a statist. In Ron's case I think it's much more likely that in his heart he is not one.

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Is there any doubt about it? Rand himself has been very forthright and consistent from his senate run until now that he's a statist. In Ron's case I think it's much more likely that in his heart he is not one.
    If you're the example of a non-statist, with your open borders mantra and utter hate for the country and its founding principles, then call me the opposite of you all day long.
    ================
    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

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    If you're the example of a non-statist, with your open borders mantra and utter hate for the country and its founding principles, then call me the opposite of you all day long.
    Can you quote anything hateful I have ever said about the country and its founding principles?

    And yeah, I don't think you ever ran the risk of having someone think you weren't a statist.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Can you quote anything hateful I have ever said about the country and its founding principles?
    I'll be sure and point it out to you next time you do it.

    By the way, your advocacy of the illegal alien overrun of our country's borders is not exactly love of country.

    And yeah, I don't think you ever ran the risk of having someone think you weren't a statist.
    Yeah, I want the government to adhere to the Constitution. Such a travesty. lol
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 11-28-2015 at 01:17 PM.
    ================
    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

  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I'll be sure and point it out to you next time you do it.
    Since I've never done it before, why did you say it?

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    By the way, your advocacy of the illegal alien overrun of our country's borders is not exactly love of country.
    Can you quote me advocating an illegal alien overrun of our country's borders? I struggle to understand what that even means.



    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yeah, I want the government to adhere to the Constitution. Such a travesty. lol
    The only issue you care about is immigration. And on that you don't want the federal government to adhere to the Constitution. I do though.

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    Step 1: Trump discusses policy in a manner that sparks controversy by not using the Progressive rules of political speech.
    Being rude for the sake of being rude is not "discussing policy."

    It does, however, provide entertainment for the people who watch the Jerry Springer style reality TV garbage that made Trump famous.

    ...which, at bottom, is all this candidacy is: entertainment.

    Step 2: Kahless discusses the merits of the policy Trump was discussing.
    Step 3: Paultards go nuts falsely accusing Kahless of endorsing ALL of Trump's policies and ignoring his past positions.
    Nah, we're always talking about Trump's past positions.

    ...such as his past positions on immigration that directly contradict his current positions on immigration.

    ....or his past (/current) positions on everything else (socialized medicine, corporate bailouts, etc), which are simply horrifying.

    Step 4: Kahless tries to explain to Paultards the specifics off the policy and how it compares to Rand's policies, differences and similarities.
    What is the difference between Rand and Trump's policies on immigration?

    I ask this of **********s all the time; they rarely give an answer, with any answer given being wishful thinking (cherry-picking from Trump's many absurd and contradictory statements). For instance, they'll say that Trump wants to deport the illegals. Well, he did say that, but he also said he wants to bring all of them back in thereafter, except those with criminal records (while he previously opposed Romney's much more moderate "self-deportation," implying that he's altogether full of $#@!).

    But ********** don't care!

    ********** like un-PC!



    Step 6: Paultards are as dumb as ever, continuing to help leftists effectively destroying Rand's chances for the Republican nomination.
    I guess you've failed to convince us how promoting Trump and his anti-libertarian policy positions helps Rand's chances, or our cause generally.

  23. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Since I've never done it before, why did you say it?
    Because it's true.

    Can you quote me advocating an illegal alien overrun of our country's borders? I struggle to understand what that even means.
    Are you just being obtuse? You constantly advocate for open borders.

    The only issue you care about is immigration. And on that you don't want the federal government to adhere to the Constitution. I do though.
    Bull$#@!. You want open borders.
    ================
    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

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That national sovereignty thing really irritates you, doesn't it?
    As has been explained to you repeatedly, national sovereignty does not require restricted immigration.

    Sovereignty is about which entity has the ultimate decision-making power within a given geographical area.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with how said entity chooses to use said decision-making power.

    As long as it is the US government (and not, say, the Canadian government) which is making the ultimate decisions within the territory of the US, the US is sovereign.

    Whether the US government chooses to use this power to restrict immigration or not is irrelevant.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-28-2015 at 02:06 PM.

  25. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    As has been explained to you repeatedly, national sovereignty does not require restricted immigration.

    Sovereignty is about which entity has the ultimate decision-making power within a given geographical area.
    And if you allow unfettered illegal immigration, those making the decisions will change. Is this something you can comprehend?

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with how said entity chooses to use said decision-making power.

    As long as it is the US government (and not, say, the Canadian government) which is making the ultimate decisions within the territory of the US, the US is sovereign.

    Whether the US government chooses to use this power to restrict immigration or not is irrelevant.
    If there are no borders, there is no national sovereignty.

    And of course you must realize that Ron Paul doesn't agree with the crap you are dishing.

    You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

    I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don`t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position.
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty
    ================
    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

  26. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Are you just being obtuse? You constantly advocate for open borders.
    That's not what you said. You said advocating an illegal alien overrun of our country's borders.

  27. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    And of course you must realize that Ron Paul doesn't agree with the crap you are dishing.
    Here's Ron Paul's immigration plan:
    1. Do not build a wall.
    2. Do not deport illegal immigrants.
    3. Allow illegal immigrants to live and work in the USA without punishment.
    4. Do not punish people for hiring illegal immigrants.
    5. Do not require Americans to have a passport to leave and re-enter the country (thus meaning that others won't need one to enter either).
    6. Do not keep track of who's in the country, whether legally or not.


    I support it 100%.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    And if you allow unfettered illegal immigration, those making the decisions will change. Is this something you can comprehend?
    ...which does not constitute a loss of sovereignty.

    If a mere change in personnel in DC constituted a loss of sovereignty, then the US loses sovereignty every 2 years.

    But of course that's absurd. It is the US government as a whole which is sovereign, not the individual politicians who hold office temporarily.

    If there are no borders, there is no national sovereignty.
    no immigration restrictions =/= no borders

    The basic function of borders is to define jurisdiction: on this side, the US government rules, on that side, the Canadian government.

    This does not change because people cross said border.

    And of course you must realize that Ron Paul doesn't agree with the crap you are dishing.
    He's not openly for free immigration, yes I realize that.

    Assuming that's his genuine opinion, it's an area where we disagree.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-28-2015 at 03:08 PM.

  30. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post



    What are you going to believe, Tronald's lame seventh-grade bully excuse, or your own lying eyes?
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by francisco View Post
    What are you going to believe, Tronald's lame seventh-grade bully excuse, or your own lying eyes?
    You mean the same reporter that co-wrote this article about Ron Paul when he was effectively the front-runner in December 2011.

    Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us...e-support.html

    You mean the same reporter and newspaper that is falsely debunking claims of people celebrating in NJ after the 9/11 attacks? He also has a few tweets on Carson making the same claim.



    They are going to get away with it because it is so long ago but the fact is I clearly remember watching the local news in NYC running with that story. I do not remember it showing thousands of people celebrating like Trump claims so I am guessing in typical Trump fashion he is exaggerating. I am betting both Carson and Trump probably saw the same coverage I and million other people did here in NY.

    So the NYT and this reporter is trying to take down Trump over the 9/11 claims and now they are going to use his disability to take it a step further. (which Trump of course did not help himself in that matter).
    Last edited by kahless; 11-28-2015 at 04:56 PM.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.

  32. #148
    ^^^which is all irrelevant

    That the guy is a lying bastard doesn't mean that Trump wasn't mocking his handicap (which he obviously was).

    ...not that I really give a $#@!, myself.

    But it is amusing that he denied it: kind of runs contrary to the mythology of him as an unapologetic truth teller.

  33. #149
    Just to clear things up, just because I feel that erowe is not exactly representing Ron Paul's view in a completely full and accurate and unbiased way, here is his view as set forth in Liberty Defined:

    IMMIGRATION


    There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders. The Constitution, common sense, and the philosophy of freedom offer a principled alternative to these two rash options.

    It’s best to try to understand why immigration is such a hot-button issue for most Americans. There are many reasons why the politics of immigration are so emotionally charged. The most telling reason is related to economic concerns and violence; immigrants, it is said, take jobs from American working people; federal mandates require states to provide free medical and educational benefits to illegals; a weak economy exaggerates the economic consequences of legal and illegal immigration.

    The political motivations are important contributing factors as well and are the concerns of many Americans. It is assumed that all immigrants, including illegals, will benefit liberals and Democrats at the voting booth. Evidence exists that some illegals do vote and they don’t vote for Republicans. Illegals are counted in the census, creating a situation where they can statistically add up to several congressional districts. Texas, for instance, gained four new seats after the 2010 census was completed and this was, to a large degree, a reflection of our immigration policies.

    Due to the immensity of this emotionally charged problem, a simple answer under current conditions will not be easily found. In the ideal libertarian world, borders would be blurred and open. It would be something similar to what the Constitution did with the borders between the various states. Civilization has not yet come even close to being capable of such a policy, though it engages some in a theoretical discussion.

    The libertarians who argue for completely open borders for the free flow of goods and people fail to realize that a truly libertarian society would not necessarily be that open. The land and property would be privately owned and controlled by the owners, who would have the right to prevent newcomers from entering without their permission. There would be no government havens or welfare benefits and new immigrants would come only after a sponsor’s permission.

    Under today’s circumstances, with a government-precipitated recession (a depression for those who earn under $30,000 a year) and promises of welfare, obviously some rules are required.

    It’s important to note that the greatest resentment comes from government-mandated free services and a government-created unemployment crisis. Fix these two problems and finding a scapegoat for our economic crisis wouldn’t be necessary.

    A free and prosperous economy always looks for labor; immigrant workers would be needed and welcomed. This need could be managed by a generous guest worker program, not by illegal immigrants receiving benefits for the family and securing an easy route to permanent citizenship and thus becoming pawns of partisan political interests.

    Since Washington will not soon come to its senses and allow for the needed economic corrections to restore a healthy free market economy, we are forced to deal with current conditions, which are rapidly deteriorating.

    Even today with all our government excesses we have millions of people and businesses protected by private security. Dow Chemical has fences and private security guards, as do most of the chemical plants located a few miles from where I live. There are no trespassers and if a problem occurs, the police or sheriff is called.

    But if a rancher on our border wants to stop trespassers on his land, he is forbidden to do so. The Feds don’t even allow the state law enforcement officers to interfere! This, they argue, could lead to violence if an appropriate use of force is not used. Shooting suspected illegal aliens on sight would be a horrendous error and serious people are concerned about it happening.

    At the federal government–maintained borders, where a war is going on, the violence is already out of control and growing. The conditions we have created with illegal trafficking in immigrants is serious, but the recent escalation has involved the drug cartels and border guards, the military, and the police, a consequence of the ridiculous notion that drug prohibition is a sensible social policy.

    Everyone by now should know that our current war on drugs makes no more sense than alcohol prohibition did in the 1920s. One only needs to study the drug trade and corruption ongoing in Afghanistan to see the danger of the war on drugs. The huge profits that can be made are a significant incentive for corruption across the board.
    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws.

    The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn’t going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.
    The toughest part of showing any compassion or tolerance to the illegal immigrants who are very much Americanized is the tremendous encouragement it gives for more immigrants to come illegally and avoid the wait and bureaucracy. Considering what they face at home, they see the risk of sneaking in as being minor compared to the risk of dying in poverty in Central America.

    Some of the resentment by Americans is that many immigrants are “Americanized” rather quickly.

    Most immigrants do not come for handouts; rather, they come for survival reasons and have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.

    Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they “take” are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered. Rarely is this even minimum wage; it’s usually higher. It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than that toward a European illegal immigrant.

    Immigration laws, out of practicality, can never be equally enforced on those who have been assimilated for five to ten or even twenty years as compared to those caught currently coming through our border states in the Southwest. On the immigration issue I have found no one with the wisdom of Solomon. My humble suggestions on what to do follow.


    Restore our economy to a healthy free market with sound money and eliminate deficit-financed government. A vibrant economy will minimize the problems and produce a high demand for both domestic and immigrant labor.

    Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to always take a job—at whatever wage available—must prevail. A healthy economy, absent Federal Reserve–induced recession or depression and inflation, will keep real wages high.

    With free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it legal and easy with a generous visitor work program.

    Enforce the laws now on the books with more border guards; permit states to enforce the law; allow landowners to provide private property security assistance, just as we do every day throughout the United States, and to work with Federal Border Control authorities. Private landowners have a right to post No Trespassing signs on their property to achieve this.

    Do not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.

    Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants. The absurdity that South Texas schools are overburdened with Mexican children going back and forth over the border each day to our public school systems is resented by cash-strapped school districts.

    Bilingualism should always be voluntary and not compelled by law.

    Don’t punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, possibly with a counterfeit identification, strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the Constitution. Determining who is legal or not is a police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.

    Same goes for the Catholic Church. When those who suffer the chaos of immigration and drug wars on the border are helped by the Church, the Church should never be seen as an accomplice to a crime. Let the Church show the compassion that’s required to pick up the pieces of a government-created mess.

    End the drug war. The deteriorating economic conditions and the mess with immigration invite the violence of the drug lords and corrupt officials on both sides. It’s time to break up the coalition of the religious drug warriors and the drug dealers who fight any effort to decriminalize drugs. It’s time to treat all drugs the way we treat alcohol and cigarettes, substances that kill millions more than hard drugs do. The drug war is deadly and allows drug lords to make a lot more money than legalized drugs ever would. The drug war and the illegal immigration across our southern borders cannot be separated.

    Immigrants who can’t be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship—no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a “green card” with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be condemned by the welfare left as being too harsh and condemned by the confused right as being too generous. It will be said that it will create a class of second-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits—a much better option than deportation.

    Those immigrants, legal or illegal, who incite violence or commit crimes of violence should be prosecuted under the law and lose their right to stay in this country.

    The police should not be prohibited from determining an individual’s citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime. This is far different from stopping anyone anytime and demanding the individual present documentation of a legal status. That invokes the principle of “reasonable cause,” not reasonable suspicion.

    This solution is far from perfect, but solutions to government-induced problems are never easy. Since our economic problems have been the major contributing factor, all other solutions come up short. Maximum freedom for everyone is the best way to go in solving any of our problems.

    Another concern I have with the immigration issue is that the strong border protection proponents are as interested in regulating our right to freely exit the country as they are in preventing illegal entry. No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport. Our government keeps tabs on our every move, which involves a lot more than looking for drug dealers, illegal immigrants, or stopping a potential terrorist.

    Financial controls have been growing since the 1970s, and as the financial crisis worsens, not only will our coming and going be closely monitored, so will all our financial transactions.

    Taking your money out of the country physically or electronically is strictly regulated by the eagle eyes of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and, you would never guess, the IRS as well. Violations of currency transaction laws, even when not associated with any criminal activity, are severely punished. Expatriation is frowned upon. Currency controls—limits on all overseas transactions and purchases—are commonplace in a faltering economy with a falling currency, which we will have to deal with one day.

    A tight border policy to keep certain people out is one thing, but tight border control to limit our ability to leave when we please is something else. America is already working on an electronic financial curtain, which I predict will steadily get worse. The leaders of neither the Republican nor the Democratic party can expect to protect our civil liberties when times get tough: Both support illegal wars; both support Patriot Act suppression of our privacy; both strongly endorse the multitrillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. Neither party will protect our right to vote with our feet and take our money with us. The right of a citizen to leave the country anytime with his wealth and without government interference is a sharp dividing line between a free society and a dictatorship.

    We must be vigilant when the cry is for closed borders, since such a policy may turn out to be more harmful to us than those who come here illegally. The Patriot Act did great harm to the liberties of the American people, and that sacrifice has not made us safer. Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of “suspicion” is dangerous, even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a “threat,” without charges ever being made. The Real ID, supported by those demanding stricter control of our borders, was rejected by many because it was eventually seen as a step toward a national ID card.

    There’s no reason to assume that any single group of hardworking Americans won’t accept the principles of a free society. That’s what most immigrants seek regardless of the color of their skin. Why shouldn’t they be open to the arguments of defending private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and especially a foreign policy designed for peace rather than perpetual war?

    Some conservatives and Republicans, in my view, insult many minorities by appealing for their votes only by trying to outdo the Democrats with giveaway programs. Why shouldn’t a strong message of personal liberty, self-reliance, and economic opportunity be appealing to immigrants as well as lifelong citizens? With the total failure of the welfare state and our foreign policy, it will become more evident that the door is wide open for the solutions that a free society provides.

    ~~~

    As you can see, there's a lot of nuance there. There's a lot of back and forth. A lot of 'there's this, but on the other hand that.' The sentence that sums it up the best: "On the immigration issue I have found no one with the wisdom of Solomon."

    The contrast is stark (to me) if you read it with the rest of the book. If you're just going along, all the other topics take a pretty plumb-line libertarian stance, and the rationale for the stances is pure reason, libertarian-style. The topic on immigration is less hard-core and less satisfying. I was not really happy with it as an open-borders "the more the merrier" guy, but I also am not completely happy with it now as I look at immigration with a more skeptical eye. It seems to be trying to stake out a middle-of-the-road path.

    In any case, I do not think that a fair four-word summary of the above would be "government should do nothing." Erowe does.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 12-01-2015 at 09:21 PM.

  34. #150
    That's how you kill a thread. Drop a 5000 word post.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast


Posting Permissions

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