Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 288

Thread: Do you support unlimited immigration into US

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If the group decides to restrict immigration for some reason having nothing to do with a threat, they are justified in doing so, or not?

    If so, then, once again, you're setting up this nationalism as a principle, in opposition to liberal principles.

    ...contra merely a means to a liberal end (like preventing violence etc).
    What purpose would not involve some kind of threat?
    Are you suggesting that a nation might do so on a whim?
    I have never called for us to do so as a whim.

    In any case only members of the group would have a right to argue against such an irrational ban since the group and it's leaders have a right to be irrational with the groups property and membership as far as any outsiders are concerned since the outsiders don't have a right to enter the territory or join the group that would be violated, group members have a right to have the group managed for their maximum benefit and therefore would have a right to complain about such capricious decisions.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    What purpose would not involve some kind of threat?
    Are you suggesting that a nation might do so on a whim?
    I have never called for us to do so as a whim.

    In any case only members of the group would have a right to argue against such an irrational ban since the group and it's leaders have a right to be irrational with the groups property and membership as far as any outsiders are concerned since the outsiders don't have a right to enter the territory or join the group that would be violated, group members have a right to have the group managed for their maximum benefit and therefore would have a right to complain about such capricious decisions.
    Instead of letting him answer what kind of consequences is he talking about, now you will have to explain what kind of threat.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Instead of letting him answer what kind of consequences is he talking about, now you will have to explain what kind of threat.
    He still has to explain what kind of consequences if he wants to make an argument against a restriction or ban, and he has to answer what purpose would not involve some kind of threat.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He still has to explain what kind of consequences if he wants to make an argument against a restriction or ban, and he has to answer what purpose would not involve some kind of threat.
    I hope you are right. An $#@! painting themselves into a corner is fun to watch.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    What purpose would not involve some kind of threat?
    Are you suggesting that a nation might do so on a whim?
    I have never called for us to do so as a whim.
    Keeping out X people, not because they present a threat, but just because they don't like them (their looks, their religion, their food, whatever).

    This would be within their rights in your view, no?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  7. #96
    Yes.

    I agree with this website's stated mission.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Keeping out X people, not because they present a threat, but just because they don't like them (their looks, their religion, their food, whatever).

    This would be within their rights in your view, no?
    You are a disappointment. What are the "consequences" you were talking about? Are you going to explain it or do we have to pretend you didn't say it?

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Yes.

    I agree with this website's stated mission.

    You seem to be in the minority nowadays.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    You seem to be in the minority nowadays.
    We need more trolls.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Keeping out X people, not because they present a threat, but just because they don't like them (their looks, their religion, their food, whatever).

    This would be within their rights in your view, no?
    Their looks or their food are whims, their religion might present a threat.
    Even racists have never wanted to keep people out simply because of their looks or their food, they have claimed that people who happen to look a certain way or eat certain food also present some kind of threat.
    Religion affects people's fundamental world view and philosophy and therefore can present an extreme threat in some cases and can be argued to be a threat by some in any case.

    That said if a group decided to ban the immigration of some or all people on a whim it would be within their rights as far as outsiders go, it would be left to group members to argue that their leaders were failing in their duty to manage the group to the best advantage of the group but even then it wouldn't be a case of rights being violated.
    Last edited by Swordsmyth; 02-09-2018 at 10:43 PM.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Yes.

    I agree with this website's stated mission.
    Which doesn't include open borders.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Their looks or their food are whims, their religion might present a threat.
    Just to be clear, do you think a current, non-immigrant citizen's adherence to a religion should be considered an internal threat such that the government should suppress it?
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Just to be clear, do you think a current, non-immigrant citizen's adherence to a religion should be considered an internal threat such that the government should suppress it?
    Does the religion you have in mind believe in human sacrifice?

    Don't insult my intelligence with this kind of shallow trap, either specify a religion or don't bother.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which doesn't include open borders.
    The site mission Ideals include:
    "Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.
    "Free and honest markets: Individuals can exchange in trade without restriction and should be honest in their dealings."
    Also part of the site mission is this core liberty principle:
    "You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit."

    Immigration restrictions restrict trade and prevent citizens from living in the manner of their choosing in terms of freedom of association. Protectionist tariffs are equally blatantly against the stated site mission.

    I certainly don't think you should be banned as a result. But the policies you proselytize are counter to the mission of the site as stated.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Does the religion you have in mind believe in human sacrifice?
    Okay, so say the religion has a holy text in which its deity has directed adherents to kill other people, what should be done?
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    The site mission Ideals include:
    "Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.
    "Free and honest markets: Individuals can exchange in trade without restriction and should be honest in their dealings."
    Also part of the site mission is this core liberty principle:
    "You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit."

    Immigration restrictions restrict trade and prevent citizens from living in the manner of their choosing in terms of freedom of association.
    That is a ridiculous stretch of a generality, you might as well claim that the incarceration of violent felons violates a right to associate with them or that it is a violation of the same right to prevent me from inviting China to establish a military base on my property.


    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Protectionist tariffs are equally blatantly against the stated site mission.
    The only time protectionist tariffs are warranted is when other countries engage in trade warfare against us, in which case they are not a violation of anyone's rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    I certainly don't think you should be banned as a result. But the policies you proselytize are counter to the mission of the site as stated.
    LOL
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Okay, so say the religion has a holy text in which its deity has directed adherents to kill other people, what should be done?
    Again, don't insult my intelligence with these childish traps.
    Specify a religion or at least a currently advocated practice of it's adherents.

    The 1st amendment specified "Congress shall make no law" because the founders new that throughout history there were religions that advocated practices that violated the life, liberty and property of others and the states were to retain the power to prohibit them.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #108
    Temporary Ban


    Blog Entries
    110
    Posts
    5,109
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    This.

    Moreover, the question was "Do I support unlimited immigration to the US".
    The answer is no. In order to "support" it I would need to be actively working toward unlimited immigration. I would need to be encouraging people to move here.
    So the question - AS ALWAYS - sets up a false choice here.
    Either you're in favor of a wall, border checks 100 miles inside the actual border, etc etc,
    or you're actively asking everyone in the world to move here.

    I'm not in favor of everyone moving here - only the people who want to.
    And not like I haven't done this a hundred times here already, but now is when I try to move the conversation toward the fact that everyone who supports any immigration restrictions at all is BY DEFINITION a living document constitutionalist.
    You are no better than people who are supportive of Kelo or Gonzales V Raich. You change the clear meaning of words to be what you want them to mean, as opposed to what they actually say.
    Well, said. Freedom has few defenders, even here. All most of these wish to do is force their vision of society on everyone else through violence and the abnegation of human rights. They're Progressives in the truest sense of the word.

  22. #109
    Temporary Ban


    Blog Entries
    110
    Posts
    5,109
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Gibberish.

    The question is one of philosophical support for the lack of limits on immigration and we can control immigration without police state measures and the founders intended the federal government to control immigration.

    See this thread:
    Article 1 Section 9
    Wrong, again.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I would wonder if being consistently wrong would be embarrassing for you. But those who insist on being wrong are probably incapable of being embarrassed by their error.

    I do this mostly so others won't be lead into error by your preponderance of lies.

    Article 1, Section 9 has nothing to do with immigration. It is all about slavery and the slave trade.

    A1 S9 Text: 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 one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
    The context:

    The Slave Trade Clause
    By Gordon Lloyd and Jenny S. Martinez

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, is one of a handful of provisions in the original Constitution related to slavery, though it does not use the word “slave.” This Clause prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of “persons” (understood at the time to mean primarily enslaved African persons) where the existing state governments saw fit to allow it, until some twenty years after the Constitution took effect. It was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states where the abolition of slavery had been accomplished or was contemplated.

    There is a sense in which the Clause is no longer constitutionally relevant since it expired in 1808. At the time the Constitution was adopted, there was no guarantee whether or when the federal Congress would act to prohibit the importation of slaves. So there is a legitimate inquiry about what took place in the political realm over the 20-year period between the adoption of the Constitution and 1808. During that time period, popular support for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself increased both in the United States and in other countries. There was more support for restricting the slave trade initially than slavery itself in this time period. In the 1790s, Congress passed statutes regulating the trade in slaves by U.S. ships on the high seas. The United Kingdom and other countries also passed legislation restricting the slave trade, increasing international pressure on the United States to likewise curb the practice.

    In December 1806, President Thomas Jefferson’s annual message to Congress anticipated the upcoming expiration of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. His message said, “I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe.” Does it seem odd that a slave owner was supporting this legislation?

    In 1807, the U.S. Congress passed a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves as of the first constitutionally-allowable moment of January 1, 1808. This act was signed by President Jefferson and entered into force in 1808, rendering this part of the Constitution irrelevant except as a historical curiosity.

    This in itself is a fascinating exception to constitutional change, in which a provision came with a built-in expiration date, after which the powers of the federal government would no longer be restricted. Note also that the Clause itself does not grant Congress the power to restrict the slave trade, but Congress presumably used the foreign and interstate commerce powers it had been given in Article 1, Section 8, to do so.

    In an important sense, there is a settled meaning of the Clause: it is no longer relevant in the same sense, for example, that the First Amendment is still constitutionally relevant. But the Clause, although constitutionally inoperative for over 200 years, still remains there for all to see and read. It is in the Constitution. And so the Clause, in a larger sense, has a continuing cultural and political constitutional relevance in the discourse of the morality and profitability of the international trade in human beings.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...inez/clause/43

    The final text of the slave trade provision was designed to disguise what the Convention had done. The clause read: "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 one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    It is important to understand that the clause did not require an end to the trade in 1808. Moreover, it reflected the assumption, held by almost everyone at the Convention, that the Deep South would grow faster than the rest of the nation, and that by 1808 the states that most wanted to continue the trade would have enough political power, and enough allies, to prevent an end to it. Ending the trade would require that a bill pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president. That process would give the supporters of the trade three opportunities to stop such a bill.

    The slave trade provision was a significant factor in the debates over ratification, but its impact was complicated. Opponents of the Constitution, in both the North and the South, roundly condemned the clause. On the other hand, supporters of the Constitution–even those who were ambivalent or hostile to slavery–praised it.

    Northern supporters of the Constitution were at a rhetorical disadvantage in this debate, but they nevertheless had to engage the issue. They developed two tactics. The first, best put forth by James Wilson of Pennsylvania, was intellectually dishonest but politically shrewd. He argued that the slave trade clause would in fact allow for the end of slavery itself. In speeches he made the subtle shift from the "trade" to slavery, and since most of his listeners were not as legally sophisticated as Wilson, he was able to fudge the issue. Thus, Wilson told the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that after "the lapse of a few years... Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders."

    Since Wilson attended all the debates over this clause, it is impossible to accept this statement as his understanding of the slave trade clause. More likely, he simply made this argument to win support for the Constitution. Supporters in Massachusetts and New Hampshire made similar arguments. In New Hampshire, a supporter of the Constitution also argued that the slave trade clause gave Congress the power to end slavery. A more sophisticated response to the trade was to note that, without the Constitution, the states could keep the trade open indefinitely because the Congress under the Articles of Confederation had no power to regulate commerce, but under the Constitution it would be possible, in just twenty years, to end the international slave trade. These arguments led northerners to believe that the Constitution required an end to the trade after 1808, when in fact it did not.

    Upper South supporters of the Constitution, such as James Madison, also made the argument that a ban on the trade was impossible under the Articles, and thus the Constitution, even if imperfect, was still a good bargain. Deep South supporters, like General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, simply bragged that they had won a great victory–as indeed they had–in protecting the trade for at least twenty years. In summing up the entire Constitution, Pinckney, who had been one of the ablest defenders of slavery at the Convention, proudly told the South Carolina House of Representatives: "In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but on the whole, I do not think them bad."

    http://abolition.nypl.org/essays/us_constitution/3/

    Clause 1. 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 one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years.


    https://www.shmoop.com/constitution/...section-9.html
    Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808.

    http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-9

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a ridiculous stretch of a generality, you might as well claim that the incarceration of violent felons violates a right to associate with them
    No disagreement about not wanting violent felons around. That's not the topic here.

    You've been arguing for excluding individuals based on a statistically derived probability that they might become violent felons due to cultural factors. Is that accurate?
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    No disagreement about not wanting violent felons around. That's not the topic here.

    You've been arguing for excluding individuals based on a statistically derived probability that they might become violent felons due to cultural factors. Is that accurate?
    I have been arguing for the limited acceptance into our group of those who are extremely likely to erode our liberty because we don't have a way to read minds in order to allow in only the liberty oriented ones.

    The crime problem is just an additional reason to be cautious since we can't read the minds of those who come from high crime rate societies in order to only allow in the honest ones.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Wrong, again.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6582233
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The crime problem is just an additional reason to be cautious
    Okay, so that's secondary. Your primary goal is to sway election results for more victories by Republican Party candidates. Am I being accurate?
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Okay, so that's secondary. Your primary goal is to sway election results for more victories by Republican Party candidates. Am I being accurate?
    As usual you are not, my primary goal is to prevent Demoncrats from swaying election results by importing foreign socialists to destroy my freedom.

    It wouldn't matter if the foreigners voted Republican, they would vote for the worst wing of the party and ruin any chance we have of reforming it.

    We have big enough problems with our own people we don't need to import people with a worse ratio of statists who are more extreme than most of ours to doom any attempt at converting our populace to liberty.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which doesn't include open borders.
    It does.

    This was right near the top of the site's mission page:
    Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    It does.

    This was right near the top of the site's mission page:
    That is a ridiculous stretch of a generality, you might as well claim that the incarceration of violent felons violates a right to associate with them or that it is a violation of the same right to prevent me from inviting China to establish a military base on my property.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a ridiculous stretch of a generality, you might as well claim that the incarceration of violent felons violates a right to associate with them or that it is a violation of the same right to prevent me from inviting China to establish a military base on my property.
    Trolls never give up.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a ridiculous stretch of a generality, you might as well claim that the incarceration of violent felons violates a right to associate with them or that it is a violation of the same right to prevent me from inviting China to establish a military base on my property.
    I salute your efficiency.

    So what you're shooting for is something more like this:

    "Liberty: You should be free to lead your life mostly in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from mostly doing the same."

    Am I being accurate?
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    I salute your efficiency.

    So what you're shooting for is something more like this:

    "Liberty: You should be free to lead your life mostly in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from mostly doing the same."

    Am I being accurate?
    The site's mission page is correct, the problem arises when interpreting what prevents others from "equally doing the same", some people seem to think that coming to our country and voting for bigger government doesn't prevent me from living my life in a manner of my choosing, I think it does.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The site's mission page is correct, the problem arises when interpreting what prevents others from "equally doing the same", some people seem to think that coming to our country and voting for bigger government doesn't prevent me from living my life in a manner of my choosing, I think it does.
    Nobody has ever advocated immigrants voting without a naturalization process... which by the way actually is authorized in the constitution.
    Again, you engage in false choices. Either you are in favor of everyone who comes here having and equal vote, or you must support random gestapo shakedowns.
    Even if I didn't think voting was retarded I wouldn't support that.
    Problem is, voting IS stupid. It's clearly axiomatic that any system of governance that requires you to be a racist dickhole in order to have a chance of actually working is unworthy of a free people.
    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.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 618
    Last Post: 02-08-2018, 02:58 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-08-2013, 08:52 PM
  3. POLL: Do you support the new AZ immigration law?
    By bchavez in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 04-27-2010, 07:43 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2010, 07:24 AM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 12:11 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
  •