An army of illegal aliens is marching on America

[Danke]

FYF

Republicans have hated on and actively marginalized women, minorities and immigrants for generations now. Who knows what would happen if they just stopped it?

You have been misrepresenting my views, and now the whole Republican Party. Although Republican leaders usually suck as bad as Democrat ones. Their "official" platform is light years better than the Democratic platform.

[dannno]

Any other R candidate would have wiped the floor decisively with Hillary Clinton instead of squeaking by in the electoral college.

LOL..... Completely untrue. The reason Trump won is because he ran a populist campaign, the Republican brand was completely dead.

Rand would have had a good shot because he didn't represent the Republican brand. Cruz and Bush would have been completely slaughtered, Rubio too.

[axiomata]

Minorities and immigrants and women want government to "do more".

Poll after poll after poll shows this.

So of course, they are not going to vote for the party that is perceived as wanting government to do less.

And won't touch any true limited government libertarianism with a 10 foot pole.

Are there any restrictions you'd like to see the government place on the rights and liberties of women and minorities in order to increase your liberties?

Why wouldn't the government be justified in sterilizing minorities and subsidizing the abortion of girls if through a utilitarian argument you could insist that the through those policies, the gross liberty of the rest of us is increased?

I don't expect you to value the liberties of others more than your own. But I don't expect it's too much to ask that you value the principal of liberty more than your individual freedom.

[Danke]

Are there any restrictions you'd like to see the government place on the rights and liberties of women and minorities in order to increase your liberties?

Why wouldn't the government be justified in sterilizing minorities and subsidizing the abortion of girls if through a utilitarian argument you could insist that the through those policies, the gross liberty of the rest of us is increased?

It is a conundrum. Tyranny of the majority we are getting, or...

[axiomata]

It is a conundrum. Tyranny of the majority we are getting, or...

....or agree with Ron Paul that freedom can be popular. And work diligently in convincing those who don't understand the blessings of liberty of its importance. A wall and refuge ban is not very persuasive to that effect.

[Danke]

....or agree with Ron Paul that freedom can be popular. And work diligently in convincing those who don't understand the blessings of liberty of its importance. A wall and refuge ban is not very persuasive to that effect.

Sounds good on paper. But that would be the ideal.

[axiomata]

Sounds good on paper. But that would be the ideal.

No doubt it's an uphill battle, but it's better than turning tail and running downhill.

[johnwk]

Because Ender alleges to not have seen any posts from me about our federal government engaging in unconstitutional activities, does not mean such posts do not exists. In fact, I have a long history in this forum for documenting numerous activities engaged in by our federal government which violate both the text and legislative intent of our federal Constitution. Included in those posts are some of the very subjects Ender alleges to not have seen.

Instead of actually addressing the post Ender quoted from, he uses the forum to engage in an old and tired stupid debating trick creating a false innuendo and then goes on to post an extremely insulting remark which has no basis in fact.

I do not think this forum was created to invite such nonsense which disrupts civil discourse.

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

LOL- all that yelling above w/o answering anything, while calling ME disruptive.

You scream constantly about the Constitution but never acknowledge the fact the Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to create a strong central government.

And as far as this statement:



That's EXACTLY what amuricans said about the Irish:

You just can't control yourself. Can you?





JWK





The unavoidable truth is, our social democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[Swordsmyth]

Are there any restrictions you'd like to see the government place on the rights and liberties of women and minorities in order to increase your liberties?

Why wouldn't the government be justified in sterilizing minorities and subsidizing the abortion of girls if through a utilitarian argument you could insist that the through those policies, the gross liberty of the rest of us is increased?

I don't expect you to value the liberties of others more than your own. But I don't expect it's too much to ask that you value the principal of liberty more than your individual freedom.

Nobody is suggesting anything of the kind, foreigners don't have a right to come here and we have a right to decide how many to let in in order to maintain our rights as best we can.

[Swordsmyth]

....or agree with Ron Paul that freedom can be popular. And work diligently in convincing those who don't understand the blessings of liberty of its importance. A wall and refuge ban is not very persuasive to that effect.

Freedom will never be popular if we allow hordes of socialists to hijack our culture and politics.
The best way to make freedom popular is to enact it so that people everywhere can see it's fruits, that will be hard enough to do because of statist Americans, letting them send for reinforcements won't help.

[dannno]

....or agree with Ron Paul that freedom can be popular. And work diligently in convincing those who don't understand the blessings of liberty of its importance. A wall and refuge ban is not very persuasive to that effect.

When double the amount of immigrants want bigger government compared to non-immigrants, it sounds like you are creating a lot of extra work for yourself.

[Danke]

Freedom will never be popular if we allow hordes of socialists to hijack our culture and politics.
The best way to make freedom popular is to enact it so that people everywhere can see it's fruits, that will be hard enough to do because of statist Americans, letting them send for reinforcements won't help.

I think the Patriots in the 1700's would have gotten further with the Redcoats if they worked diligently in convincing them who don't understand the blessings of liberty of its importance.

[undergroundrr]

You have been misrepresenting my views,

I don't think so. We disagree on whether citizens should have nukes, governments should have nukes, or both should have nukes.

The only other thing I can think of is that you wouldn't support my transporting an illegal alien across public property to my private property. Am I wrong about that?

and now the whole Republican Party. Although Republican leaders usually suck as bad as Democrat ones. Their "official" platform is light years better than the Democratic platform.

Totally agree about the platform. Nobody reads the platform and it certainly doesn't get implemented. Leadership rhetoric (except for Rand Paul) and even grassroots rhetoric are the public face of the Republican party.

[nobody's_hero]

Amen. So the rest of what you're saying is you'd rather let the world go to hell in a hand-basket because you're jaded.

The "brown people and women genetically want free stuff more than white men so f em" thing is low-IQ trumpspeak and doesn't belong in your brain.

I had a much lengthier and thought-out post but lost it due to some 'security token error' when submitting.

I'm gonna pull this example out again simply because the issue is a hot topic in the country today, and relatable:

Just 14% of foreign-born Hispanics support the right to keep and bear arms.

14%. That's beyond pathetic.

Now, you might want to dance around the fact that this is a pretty significant difference in demographics, possibly for fear of being labeled a racist like the rest of us are, constantly, both outright and underhanded, whenever we point to the 800lb gorilla in the room. But, I've always been one to call a spade a spade, and it's pretty obvious to me that this is more than a "marketing issue." It's a life-experience issue. You grow up cared for by the state, you will tend to love the state. Background counts for a lot and as far as I can see, no one is standing at the border vetting political beliefs before letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the country.

Someone who has just hitched rides in closed boxcars and trekked across deserts, jungles, and slums to get here from impoverished Latin American countries is more likely to steal your canteen than sit down at the border in the middle of the Sonoran Desert and have a nice logical chat about the philosophy of liberty before coming in.

But, if you don't believe me, go stand in the checkout line at Dollar General and every time someone whips out an EBT card to buy the family sized bag of Cheetos and a case of Coca Colas, be sure to inform them that liberty is more important than free lunch and hand out a few flyers for the libertarian candidate of your choice. Those people aren't nearly as desperate for basic necessities as those who would ride in the back of 130 degree cargo trucks to try to get to America and you still can't sell liberty to them at a rate fast enough to tip the scales. But I trust it will be no challenge for a marketing guru such as yourself to win over those voters for the cause. That is, if the issue is marketing, and not the product being marketed itself.

[Danke]

I don't think so. We disagree on whether citizens should have nukes, governments should have nukes, or both should have nukes.

I don't think citizens should have nukes because of many problems of possessing them. Safe storage being one of them. If one is misused, mishandled or accidentally detonates, the effects would kill me. Government, I wish they didn't have them, but don't know how we can reverse that clock. Already out of the bag.

The only other thing I can think of is that you wouldn't support my transporting an illegal alien across public property to my private property. Am I wrong about that?

No, but that is a "gotcha question."

How will you guarantee me my property will not be stolen by your actions?

[nobody's_hero]

I think the Patriots in the 1700's would have gotten further with the Redcoats if they worked diligently in convincing them who don't understand the blessings of liberty of its importance.

It was a marketing issue.

[Anti Federalist]

Are there any restrictions you'd like to see the government place on the rights and liberties of women and minorities in order to increase your liberties?

Yes, restrictions on voting. No voting at all for first generation immigrants. No voting for government employees. No voting for anybody receiving direct government payments.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, restrictions on voting. No voting at all for first generation immigrants. No voting for government employees. No voting for anybody receiving direct government payments.

@axiomata please note that AF intends these restrictions to apply to whites and men who fall into the designated categories.

[nobody's_hero]

Yes, restrictions on voting. No voting at all for first generation immigrants. No voting for government employees. No voting for anybody receiving direct government payments.

Now we are discussing utopia, lol.

[Raginfridus]

Yes, restrictions on voting. No voting at all for first generation immigrants. No voting for government employees. No voting for anybody receiving direct government payments.

No voting for anybody but land-owning men over the age of 40 w/families. Seriously.

All bills proposing new laws must be unanimously approved or the sponsors are executed. Then after a period of three years, the law is sunset, and must be voted on again, for it to become law for seven years extra. After that, the law is sunset again. A law can only become so three times.

[Danke]

No voting for anybody but land-owning men over the age of 40 w/families. Seriously.

Define "land-owning". We both know that it doesn't really exist, but could get better with your proposition.

[Raginfridus]

Define "land-owning". We both know that it doesn't really exist, but could get better with your proposition.

I need to look into the history of that, but right noe I say anybody who owns the land they use as their address. No mortgage.

[Danke]

I need to look into the history of that, but right noe I say anybody who owns the land they use as their address. No mortgage.

And no property tax?

"Minnesota State Constitution ( Article 1, Sec. 15) grants us the right to have the American Dream of a homestead under an allodial title. That simply means that there are no “superiors” that can take away that right."

But...they do it anyway.

[johnwk]

The only other thing I can think of is that you wouldn't support my transporting an illegal alien across public property to my private property. Am I wrong about that?


.

I think more to the point is the question of allowing foreigners to enter our country without any regulations designed to preserve the general welfare of the United States.


JWK






There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now there is an infestation of ticks and fleas who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex and Lotto tickets.

[Raginfridus]

And no property tax?

"Minnesota State Constitution ( Article 1, Sec. 15) grants us the right to have the American Dream of a homestead under an allodial title. That simply means that there are no “superiors” that can take away that right."

But...they do it anyway.

Good question. Utopias are hard. This was explained to me in a way that made sense by an expat on yootoob some years ago. He used goegraphy a lot; can't think of his channel's name, and none of his videos appear in my history or likes, so I wonder if he wasn't scrapped. If you want a demotist government, the best form is one restricted to the least amount of people, with the most skin in the game, should the country fail or better yet, prosper. It wasn't about making heaven on earth, but what government could thrive the longest where. So i guess he wasn't very utopian. Which is why I gave him 2 hours of my time once.

[undergroundrr]

Just 14% of foreign-born Hispanics support the right to keep and bear arms.

14%. That's beyond pathetic.

Arrrghh! Another out-of-context Stephchart!

Read your own chart. It nearly triples for US Born Hispanics. This is despite their immigrant moms and dads (supposedly) hammering them to grab all the guns from gringo. Why is that? Marketing maybe? or maybe so they can shoot Republicans? I don't know.

FYI, I don't give a crap about statistics anyhow. Pew studies have become the New Testament of race realists and neocons alike. But lets look at the stupid Pew reports -

60% of conservatives favor gun rights but with some limits on gun ownership. In other words, conservatives are by and large for gun control. Meanwhile, 64% of liberals say they support gun control but that most people should still be able to own guns, within limits.

What in the world is the difference? (Strangely I found out that nearly everybody in this thread believes in a more infringed second amendment than I do.)

The survey you're talking about "asked U.S. adults what is more important — protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership."

This is a stupid, dumb, idiotic phrasing of the question that doesn't make any sense in English. Who knows how it translates in the field? No matter which way they answered, this doesn't indicate that even ONE PERSON actually said they don't "support the right to keep and bear arms."

Your assertion that a first generation immigrant is likely to wind up on the wrong side of the Nolan Chart makes my point about marketing. Even before they get here, they know who's for them and who's against them. When Republicans act like they like Hispanics again (and it helps if you actually do like them), that will start to change.

[Danke]

(Strangely I found out that nearly everybody in this thread believes in a more infringed second amendment than I do.)

Owning nukes? What else have nearly everybody here said that you disagree WRT arms?

[euphemia]

But I don't expect it's too much to ask that you value the principal of liberty more than your individual freedom.

If you look at the Constitution, you will see that liberty is for the individual, not for special interest groups. The principle of liberty is the principle of individual liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

Arrrghh! Another out-of-context Stephchart!

Read your own chart. It nearly triples for US Born Hispanics. This is despite their immigrant moms and dads (supposedly) hammering them to grab all the guns from gringo. Why is that? Marketing maybe? or maybe so they can shoot Republicans? I don't know.

FYI, I don't give a crap about statistics anyhow. Pew studies have become the New Testament of race realists and neocons alike. But lets look at the stupid Pew reports -

60% of conservatives favor gun rights but with some limits on gun ownership. In other words, conservatives are by and large for gun control. Meanwhile, 64% of liberals say they support gun control but that most people should still be able to own guns, within limits.

What in the world is the difference? (Strangely I found out that nearly everybody in this thread believes in a more infringed second amendment than I do.)

The survey you're talking about "asked U.S. adults what is more important — protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership."

This is a stupid, dumb, idiotic phrasing of the question that doesn't make any sense in English. Who knows how it translates in the field? No matter which way they answered, this doesn't indicate that even ONE PERSON actually said they don't "support the right to keep and bear arms."

Your assertion that a first generation immigrant is likely to wind up on the wrong side of the Nolan Chart makes my point about marketing. Even before they get here, they know who's for them and who's against them. When Republicans act like they like Hispanics again (and it helps if you actually do like them), that will start to change.

"US born Hispanics" includes those whose families have lived here for centuries, it isn't just children of immigrants, even if it was they are below the average and below 50/50, we are having enough trouble from US citizens in general, we don't need more people with worse politics.

[nobody's_hero]

Your assertion that a first generation immigrant is likely to wind up on the wrong side of the Nolan Chart makes my point about marketing. Even before they get here, they know who's for them and who's against them. When Republicans act like they like Hispanics again (and it helps if you actually do like them), that will start to change.

Well, I'd get cracking with the liberty classes. You may not put much stock in the stats, but if you're wrong you've got 82 people voting against you versus 14 who aren't. Best start winning people over.

Forget the immigration for a moment and go try that Dollar General EBT experiment I mentioned. It shouldn't be too hard to conduct. If the dollar stores in your area are anything like mine, there should be no shortage of customers buying things with other people's money.

At best, you will have someone politely, perhaps impatiently listen to your spiel about the fundamental principles of liberty and property ownership, and why wealth redistribution is immoral, and then they'll likely throw your libertarian party campaign flyer in the trash on the way out the checkout line. At worst, you'll have some morbidly obese welfare queen and her herd of ill-disciplined brats run you out of the store.

No cheating. All you can offer them is freedom. No handouts. No pandering. No perks. Tell them that if you can count on their political support, that you will promise not to give them anything tangible in return.

If you can convince one person to cut their EBT card up, you might be on to something.