Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 431

Thread: Don't Fool Yourself, the Left is Still Winning

  1. #331
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Despite my misgivings, there is still hope.........but you may have to endure without hot showers and electricity for a period.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They chose to adopt it when they were exposed to it, the same way they chose to adopt many other aspects of their culture that they didn't originate.

    You can't really be this dumb.
    Alternatively, it was a reaction to their previous condition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    it is the blacks that turned S. Africa and Rhodesia into extreme communist hellholes.
    What were they before that?

    What sort of country, culture, and environment had the Boers created?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  4. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Alternatively, it was a reaction to their previous condition.
    But others reacted differently to similar conditions so it was a choice unless you want to be the racist and claim that there was something about them that caused them to choose the way they did.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    What were they before that? What sort of country, culture, and environment had the Boers created?
    One somewhere between a typical European society and America, not great but better than most, as I have said repeatedly I wouldn't want to allow too many Boers to immigrate if I had my way but if we are going to allow in refugees then I would rather have them than other more incompatible cultures.
    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. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I agree with almost everything you wrote, however I'm not an anarchist and I'd lump controlling the flow of immigrants in with national defense. In other words I consider immigration control a valid function of government. But like you said, if we end the drug war and welfare, the problem will mostly go away.
    Are you a originalist constitutionalists? National control of defense is clear in the constitution, national control of immigration isn't.

  6. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But others reacted differently to similar conditions
    Did they?


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    it was a choice unless you want to be the racist and claim that there was something about them that caused them to choose the way they did.
    That's what you just said in your own post... that their racial memories caused them to take a different path than 'others.' At least you admit that you are a racist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    One somewhere between a typical European society and America, not great but better than most
    You may consider forced labor, explicit theft and redistribution of land and property by government, and de jure minority rule as 'better than most,' but I would contend that's not a common view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  7. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Did they?
    Yes.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    That's what you just said in your own post... that their racial memories caused them to take a different path than 'others.' At least you admit that you are a racist.
    I did not say that.
    Stop lying.





    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You may consider forced labor, explicit theft and redistribution of land and property by government, and de jure minority rule as 'better than most,' but I would contend that's not a common view.
    That is not an accurate statement of history and it is still better than most.
    In any case if I had my way I would not allow much Boer immigration, too much of any kind of immigrants is a threat 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



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Are you a originalist constitutionalists? National control of defense is clear in the constitution, national control of immigration isn't.
    Article 1 Section 9

    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

  10. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    At least you admit that you are a racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I did not say that.
    Stop lying.

    Swordsmyth, You're expecting far too much from RPF's paid progressive and "supporting member."



    TheCount
    Supporting Member


    Posts
    5,304
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  11. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Swordsmyth, You're expecting far too much from RPF's paid progressive and "supporting member."
    I know not to expect any better, I just won't let him get away with it.
    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

  12. #340

  13. #341
    Jefferson made his position clear, writing that “alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens.”
    This is the only quote provided and it says nothing about whether or not the Federal government can control which "alien friends" are allowed to come here, illegal aliens are NOT "friends" nor are undesirable aliens.

    Jefferson did say THIS which is more to the point:

    "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

    In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:




    • "It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possi- ble in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.







    • "Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of abso- lute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)



    Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:




    • "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)



    There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that, to every liberal law, there were some reasonable limits.
    We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom seekers to come, but without "extraordinary encouragements." (5)
    What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of "free" food, "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards? It is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary. Jefferson would have proposed something better--a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the blessings of liberty to those who desired it, and conservative in its eco- nomic and political common sense.
    Footnotes:
    1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338.
    2. Ibid., pgs. 338-339.
    3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
    4. Ibid., p. 121. 5. Ibid.



    More at: http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is2...security.shtml





    Madison did say this:

    But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

    James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

    And this:

    In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
    When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
    But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
    I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...or-citizenship

    Dr. Ron seems to think it is Constitutional:

    Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


    More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

    Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders and get rid of some incentives for illegals....Ron Paul


    More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

    Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

    https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/
    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. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I did not say that.
    Stop lying.
    Let's break this down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    others reacted differently to similar conditions
    "others" being "cultural marxists"

    Those "cultural marxists" are certain "groups" based upon

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    accumulated choices of a group over the course of history
    Which is

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    passed on to those who grow up among them

    So, according to you, the thing that made them choose the way that they did is their group membership... as determined by you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    unless you want to be the racist and claim that there was something about them that caused them to choose the way they did.
    According to you, only a racist would think that 'there was something about them that caused them to choose the way they did' and... that's exactly what you thought, that their group membership caused them to make the choice that they made.


    If you were to admit that it was possible for them to make any other choice other than the choice that they made, then your entire worldview would fall apart.




    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is not an accurate statement of history
    Which part?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    and it is still better than most.
    Again, forced labor, disenfranchisement, and government redistribution of wealth is 'better than most.' To you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  15. #343
    So when can we expect the left to start losing?
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  16. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    ...
    The exact same copypasta for the umpteenth time, filled with selective out-of-context quotes which mean nearly the opposite when read in full. Some of them are quite clearly about naturalization and not immigration, even from first glance at the quote. Here's some more context.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    So when can we expect the left to start losing?
    When supposed conservatives stop electing leftists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  19. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Let's break this down.



    "others" being "cultural marxists"
    "Others" referred to cultural non-marxists.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Those "cultural marxists" are certain "groups" based upon

    Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
    accumulated choices of a group over the course of history


    Which is

    Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
    passed on to those who grow up among them







    So, according to you, the thing that made them choose the way that they did is their group membership... as determined by you.
    You have it all wrong as usual, before their culture included marxism there was nothing in their culture that would significantly influence their choice when exposed to marxism, they made the choice on their own, they then pass marxism on to their children as part of their culture.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    According to you, only a racist would think that 'there was something about them that caused them to choose the way they did' and... that's exactly what you thought, that their group membership caused them to make the choice that they made.
    That isn't what I said as I explained above.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    If you were to admit that it was possible for them to make any other choice other than the choice that they made, then your entire worldview would fall apart.
    Nope, some of them didn't choose marxism but they lost the cultural battle, it is possible for their descendants to change their culture but it rarely happens so we don't want to let too many of them come here.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Again, forced labor, disenfranchisement, and government redistribution of wealth is 'better than most.' To you.
    Most cultures throughout the world have done those things and much worse.
    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. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "Others" referred to cultural non-marxists.
    Works either way. One group had something about it which the other didn't, and that caused a certain choice to be made. Which you said would be racist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You have it all wrong as usual, before their culture included marxism there was nothing in their culture that would significantly influence their choice when exposed to marxism, they made the choice on their own, they then pass marxism on to their children as part of their culture.
    A marxist revolution overrides all previous culture, and that single generation's choice is then forever passed on? Is that a good summary of what you've said? That sounds very different than all of your previous statements, such as this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    [culture] comes from the accumulated choices of a group over the course of history and is passed on to those who grow up among them.

    Also, if their culture was able to change from non-marxist to marxist
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    there was nothing in their culture that would significantly influence their choice when exposed to marxism
    Then why couldn't the opposite happen?


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Most cultures throughout the world have done those things and much worse.
    That's not what you said.

    Also, lol, "cultures" did a thing. Collectivist, as always.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  21. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Works either way. One group had something about it which the other didn't, and that caused a certain choice to be made. Which you said would be racist.
    No, one group CHOSE differently than the other, what part of free will don't you understand Mr. Racist?




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    A marxist revolution overrides all previous culture, and that single generation's choice is then forever passed on? Is that a good summary of what you've said? That sounds very different than all of your previous statements, such as this:
    No, that is a horrible summary of what I said, any successful cultural change overrides any former cultural element opposed to it, the generation involved passes its choice on to the next which passes it on to the next etc. until another successful cultural change changes things again, that is how culture works and does not conflict with anything I said.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Also, if their culture was able to change from non-marxist to marxist


    Then why couldn't the opposite happen?
    It could but culture doesn't change very often, until it does we must protect ourselves.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    That's not what you said.
    It is, I said that even if we accept your charges against the Boers they were still better than most, most cultures have done those thing and worse and the Boers were better than most about other cultural factors as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Also, lol, "cultures" did a thing. Collectivist, as always.
    Groups do lots of things, you are the one who accused "the Boers" of doing bad things.
    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

  22. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    Jefferson did say THIS which is more to the point:

    "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28
    Considering that quote is about succession and excluding citizens from the territory it couldn't be farther from on point. But you knew that and you just posted it without its continuation to serve your propaganda purposes.

    It continues:
    we have most abundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we may enjoy in peace and safety, without permitting a few citizens, infected with the Mania of rambling & gambling, to bring danger on the great mass engaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. in your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to chuse; 1. licentious commerce, & gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many: or 2. restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all.   if any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture.
    "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)
    Let's see how this one ends...

    If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….”
    So ya, we shouldn't be subsidizing immigration.


    Madison did say this:

    But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

    James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)
    So this clause is primarily about slavery and the migration term was used to appease those opposed to acknowledging the concept of humans as property to be imported.

    Malefactors are felons. They can be restricted.



    And this:

    In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
    When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. ....
    Naturalization is not immigration. We can discuss who should be naturalized after you acknowledge that the originalist constitutional position that the constitution did not expressly delegate the power to restrict immigration to the federal government.

  23. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Considering that quote is about succession and excluding citizens from the territory it couldn't be farther from on point. But you knew that and you just posted it without its continuation to serve your propaganda purposes.

    It continues:



    Let's see how this one ends...



    So ya, we shouldn't be subsidizing immigration.
    It says that after the secession "We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."


    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    So this clause is primarily about slavery and the migration term was used to appease those opposed to acknowledging the concept of humans as property to be imported.
    In order to avoid calling slaves property that the slave owners had a right to they made it about all migration of all persons, some intended it for all persons as the next quote admits.

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Malefactors are felons. They can be restricted.
    Only if all migration can be restricted, which it can.

    I note that you tried to ignore these:

    Dr. Ron seems to think it is Constitutional:

    Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


    More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

    Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders and get rid of some incentives for illegals....Ron Paul


    More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

    Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

    https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/
    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

  24. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It says that after the secession "We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
    Where does it say after secession? It says we may exclude this class of citizens, which they would not be after secession. The disease portion is an analogy in reference to establishing leper colonies.

    In order to avoid calling slaves property that the slave owners had a right to they made it about all migration of all persons, some intended it for all persons as the next quote admits.
    Some may have interpreted it to include felons and freed blacks. What quote admits it is intended for all persons?

    Madison clearly admonishes your interpretation in Federalist 42.

    Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.

    Only if all migration can be restricted, which it can.
    It can only where required for national defense. That authority is expressly delegated elsewhere. Disease, felons, and terrorists can be restricted based on such a justification.


    Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

    https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/
    Interesting idea. Note the author rejects federal authority being established in other clauses. I'm not sure if I want international law establishing the extents of federal powers.

  25. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Where does it say after secession? It says we may exclude this class of citizens, which they would not be after secession. The disease portion is an analogy in reference to establishing leper colonies.
    You think that the federal government has the power to deport citizens because they don't like them?
    The only way they could be excluded is after the secession.



    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Some may have interpreted it to include felons and freed blacks. What quote admits it is intended for all persons?

    Madison clearly admonishes your interpretation in Federalist 42.

    Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.
    He refuses to debate the effect, that may mean that he didn't intend it but it doesn't refute it.



    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    It can only where required for national defense. That authority is expressly delegated elsewhere. Disease, felons, and terrorists can be restricted based on such a justification.
    National defense would also include excessive immigration, especially if it originated from cultures hostile to liberty.



    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Interesting idea. Note the author rejects federal authority being established in other clauses. I'm not sure if I want international law establishing the extents of federal powers.
    Congress is given power “To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations”, it would be domestic law to implement "natural law, custom, and international agreements", the first two are not "international law"and would include the power to restrict excessive immigration.
    Last edited by Swordsmyth; 08-04-2018 at 06:57 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



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Are you a originalist constitutionalists? National control of defense is clear in the constitution, national control of immigration isn't.
    I'm looking at it more from a logical perspective. Suppose a group of libertarians decide to create their own libertarian island nation. I think it would be a logical function of government to have some sort of process to screen who comes on the island. For example if a boat with a bunch of guys with ski masks and machine guns show up, I'd think the island govt would not want to allow them ashore.

    That being said I'm not one of those who blame everything on immigration. It's a tiny part of the problem. The bigger part is removing socialism in house.

  28. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I'm looking at it more from a logical perspective. Suppose a group of libertarians decide to create their own libertarian island nation. I think it would be a logical function of government to have some sort of process to screen who comes on the island. For example if a boat with a bunch of guys with ski masks and machine guns show up, I'd think the island govt would not want to allow them ashore.
    A "true libertarian" would say that kind of aggression just wouldn't happen without you deserving it for meddling in their affairs. A "true libertarian" would say you have to wait for the aggression to happen before you can do anything.

  29. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    What were they before that?

    What sort of country, culture, and environment had the Boers created?
    I don't agree with their methods but remember this:

    Rhodesia was called the "Breadbasket of Africa".
    South Africa had the highest standard of living in Africa.
    Blacks immigrated to both countries so it was at least better than where they came from.

    I've said many times I believe the answer is some sort of system where only net taxpayers can vote. As I recall you're against that.

    So what's your solution in South Africa or Zimbabwe?

  30. #356
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    People wouldn't care as much if it was 1880 and we weren't literally paying for these people to propagate.

  31. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    A "true libertarian" would say that kind of aggression just wouldn't happen without you deserving it for meddling in their affairs. A "true libertarian" would say you have to wait for the aggression to happen before you can do anything.
    Yeah but those "true libertarians" don't understand that "assault" is also a form of initiating force:

    "Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm. This definition recognizes that placing another person in fear of imminent bodily harm is itself an act deserving of punishment, even if the victim of the assault is not physically harmed. This definition also allows police officers to intervene and make an arrest without waiting for the assaulter to actually strike the victim."

  32. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Rhodesia was called the "Breadbasket of Africa".
    Yes, because they conscripted rural blacks into forced labor at farms which were built upon land which had been appropriated from those same blacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    South Africa had the highest standard of living in Africa.

    Blacks immigrated to both countries so it was at least better than where they came from.
    Both of these arguments apply to theocratic Middle Eastern monarchies. Should we ennoble them and their achievements?

    Also, obviously life there wasn't so great that those blacks were willing to keep being ruled and enslaved by others, otherwise they wouldn't have revolted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I've said many times I believe the answer is some sort of system where only net taxpayers can vote. As I recall you're against that.
    Yes, because that both enshrines the concept of disenfranchisement and gives the chosen few voters the ability to change that voting standard whenever and however they please. This is precisely what happened in Rhodesia and South Africa; whenever there was any danger of a significant number of blacks being able to vote, they simply raised the required level of annual income to disenfranchise them again. Because the ability to reach that level of annual income was determined by receiving government land grants and government education in skilled trades, the government could set what might seem on the surface to be a fair standard, but then use other tools of government to prevent 'undesireables' from being able to meet that standard in meaningful quantities.

    In the case of using tax payments as a basis for determining voting rights, there could be endless gerrymandering of the tax code to either force people into paying a tiny amount of taxes in order to ensure that they could vote, or advocating tax subsidies and credits which would disenfranchise others. For example, an increase in the tax credit for each child in the case of more than 3 or 4 children in the household would disproportionately disenfranchise minorities under such a system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    So what's your solution in South Africa or Zimbabwe?
    Stay out of it.

    I see their problems as a reaction to periods of harsh foreign and minority rule. They're teenagers having a tantrum; they will learn from their own mistakes at some point and grow up. But the more that 'adults' seek to meddle in their affairs, insulate them from the consequences of their actions, or force them into making 'good' choices, the longer this puberty will last.
    Last edited by TheCount; 08-04-2018 at 11:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  33. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    People wouldn't care as much if it was 1880 and we weren't literally paying for these people to propagate.
    The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. The Alien Contract Labor laws were passed in 1885 and 1887.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  34. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Yes, because they conscripted rural blacks into forced labor at farms which were built upon land which had been appropriated from those same blacks.
    So you think the main reason South Africa and Rhodesia were productive was due to slavery? That doesn't even pass the smell test. There's tons of dirt poor countries that have had slaves.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I see their problems as a reaction to periods of harsh foreign and minority rule. They're teenagers having a tantrum; they will learn from their own mistakes at some point and grow up. But the more that 'adults' seek to meddle in their affairs, insulate them from the consequences of their actions, or force them into making 'good' choices, the longer this puberty will last.
    Do you think only "native" people should live in any particular area? What about black people in Europe? If you're against foreigners wouldn't you also be against immigration?
    Last edited by Madison320; 08-04-2018 at 01:09 PM.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 09:40 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-16-2011, 11:17 PM
  3. Winning over the left and others... a tool
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 07:51 PM
  4. Comprehensive strategy for winning the Left
    By a2planet2 in forum Success Strategies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 03:39 AM

Posting Permissions

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