Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 154

Thread: Over Three Million Illegal Immigrants Voted in 2016 Election

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    If you actually believe in the why of voting, if you believe people deserve a voice in their government, if you believe all that stuff the Founding Fathers said about all men being created equal with inalienable rights and about government being by the consent of the governed, there is no logical or moral reason you can oppose illegal immigrants voting. Indeed, immigrants could freely enter into the country and vote for nearly the first 100 years of America's history. This idea of "illegal" people being shut out from having a voice in business and government is the very opposite of the humanistic Enlightenment ideals that the country was founded upon. It is, in retrospect, un-American.
    This is likely one of the more intellectually dishonest things I've read in a while. Either that or just ignorance as far as a grasp on history and where the traditional American philosophy of governance is concerned. But I have to get ready to head out the door for a bit. I'll be back later.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-30-2016 at 06:49 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post

    It just seems rude and entitlement-mentality to barge into someone else's country and demand things from them.
    Exactly. I wouldn't do it to another country, and we hope they wouldn't do it to us.

    But you have lefties who not only don't see anything wrong with that, but actually promote it.

  4. #93
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...methinks helmuth's 'evidence' amounts to a bunch of allegations made by stinking radio republicans, etc. republican media cheerleaders...

    ...gee, i wonder why the stinking republicans don't jump on jill stein's petition to recount...i believe they could 'petition to intervene' and they could submit any/all their 'evidence' of 'illegal voting'...but no...instead, it seems the stinking republicans for whom helmuth apologizes are behaving in the same fashion as would people guilty of voter fraud...

    ...imagine that!...republican scumbags, guilty of systematic voter fraud themselves, screaming and pointing their fingers at others...why it's unheard of, helmuth!...
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 11-30-2016 at 07:01 PM.

  5. #94
    Trump said it was so.

  6. #95
    States like California distribute drivers licenses to undocumented aliens, which can lead to illegal voter registrations, Bill O'Reilly reported Wednesday.
    Retired ICE Special-Agent-In-Charge Claude Arnold said that there is a very high demand for counterfeit documents like a drivers license because a large swath of the illegal population wants to work.
    He said there are often several illicit document vendors in neighborhoods with high illegal immigrant populations.


    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/3...ctions?ref=yfp
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    States like California distribute drivers licenses to undocumented aliens, which can lead to illegal voter registrations, Bill O'Reilly reported Wednesday.
    Retired ICE Special-Agent-In-Charge Claude Arnold said that there is a very high demand for counterfeit documents like a drivers license because a large swath of the illegal population wants to work.
    He said there are often several illicit document vendors in neighborhoods with high illegal immigrant populations.


    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/3...ctions?ref=yfp
    Yep. I'm from California, and one time (many years ago) while working a temp job, my social security number was stolen. I found out later that it as being used by someone in Southern California who appeared to be an illegal.

    I'll never understand why anyone would think rewarding dishonest/criminal behavior is a good idea. Well, except for people like Hillary, Obama or Nancy Pelosi. I know why they have no problem with illegal immigration/ voting.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Yep. I'm from California, and one time (many years ago) while working a temp job, my social security number was stolen. I found out later that it as being used by someone in Southern California who appeared to be an illegal.

    I'll never understand why anyone would think rewarding dishonest/criminal behavior is a good idea. Well, except for people like Hillary, Obama or Nancy Pelosi. I know why they have no problem with illegal immigration/ voting.
    Even the legal numbers are not that legal. My brother in law obtained a SS number but he has retired and went back to Mexico. Now me and two(maybe more) other family members are using his SS number. obviously j/k

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Even the legal numbers are not that legal. My brother in law obtained a SS number but he has retired and went back to Mexico. Now me and two(maybe more) other family members are using his SS number. obviously j/k
    Hm. So in other words, one Mexican obtains a SS number, works for...oh, I don't know..let's say a landscaper for a couple years. He sends his dollars home and turns them into pesos via western union at three or four times the value, buys what equates to a small mansion down there, then he sends his brothers or cousins to the sates, they all shack up in the same place and they work for the same employer using the same SS number as the other one who went back to mexico, then the new guys repeat the process. Is that what yer saying, timbo? Makes sense.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-01-2016 at 02:34 AM.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Hm. So in other words, one Mexican obtains a SS number, works for...oh, I don't know..let's say a landcaper for a couple years. He sends his dollars home and turns them into pesos at three or four times the value, buys what equates to a small mansion down there, then he sends his brothers or cousins to the sates, the yall shack up in the same place and they work for the same employer using the same SS number as the other one who went back to mexico, then the new guys repeat the process. Is that what yer saying, timbo? Makes sense.
    It is worse than what you described. The SS number is not tied to an employer. You can show up anywhere and when asked do you have a valid SS number you say YES! a check is run, it checks out and that's it. I have not idea why IRS does not check how many income sources are being reported by a single SS number.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    It is worse than what you described. The SS number is not tied to an employer. You can show up anywhere and when asked do you have a valid SS number you say YES! a check is run, it checks out and that's it. I have not idea why IRS does not check how many income sources are being reported by a single SS number.
    Yep. I knew that. I just wanted to be clear if that was what you were getting at. My main question is where do they get the SS number. If it's stolen, like lily was saying about hers, then surely it'd be reported stolen. I wonder if they maybe get "borrowed" or reted out. It's gotta be something like that. Snd yeah, that;s a good question about the IRS. Since a alot of the times, it's a coupel family menmbers, I wonder if only one uses it and the other one just stays on the down-lo while on the work site.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yep. I knew that. I just wanted to be clear if that was what you were getting at. My main question is where do they get the SS number. If it's stolen, like lily was saying about hers, then surely it'd be reported stolen. I wonder if they maybe get "borrowed" or reted out. It's gotta be something like that.
    Dude, you are so dense it is sad. The SS number is legal. The person who "owns" it(the number was originally issued to) may or maybe not be in US. Nobody checks for that. Read my original post.

  14. #102
    And alot of times, employers will house them in a group. So that's a way to stay low, too.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-01-2016 at 02:54 AM.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Dude, you are so dense it is sad. The SS number is legal. The person who "owns" it(the number was originally issued to) may or maybe not be in US. Nobody checks for that. Read my original post.
    No, that's not the only way it works. Have you ever known of an employer who has done it? I won't say that I have or haven't. But I know what I'm talking about. Yours isn't the only way it's done.

    Anyway. I just learned something about you.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-01-2016 at 02:59 AM.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    No, that's not the only way it works. Have you ever known of an employer who has done it? I won't say that I have or haven't. But I know what I'm talking about. Yours isn't the only way it's done.

    Anyway. I just learned something about you.
    Obviously this is not the only way, it is just an example. You can share your method.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Obviously this is not the only way, it is just an example. You can share your method.
    Nah, I'm going to bed, man. It's late.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You ignored most of what I said. But I'll respond to a few of your points.

    We have laws for a reason. That includes immigration laws. If you think we shouldn't have borders, that anyone at all should be allowed to vote in our elections, then you need to first work to change those laws. And you'll probably have to get others on board with your idea, but first work toward changing the damn law.

    Until then, you are advocating for law-breaking. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's not fair to the TONS of immigrants who do it the right way - by going through the legal process - to reward those who thumb their nose at our laws and at the other immigrants who do things honestly.

    Now you have another thing in common with Hillary. And most lefties, who agree with rewarding those disregard for the law.




    There's a difference between basic human rights, constitutional rights... and privileges. You are acting as if voting is a basic human right. Is that what you think?

    You say you're not a globalist, but the only way your thoughts above work in a practical sense is to have no borders.... one government for all. So you are contradicting yourself.

    Do you consider yourself an anarchist?
    I ignored most of what you said because it wasn't relevant.

    I can tell that you have little understanding of American history. So I'll start at the beginning.

    Do I advocate disobedience to unjust laws? Absolutely. Refusing to obey an unjust law is what is required to maintain human liberty. Think of it as personal nullification. (If you don't know what nullification is, read the writings of Thomas Jefferson.) You are nullifying the unjust laws of nation by refusing to follow them. Edicts that are not obeyed have no power. This is the essence of revolution. When many people nullify unjust laws and a government still insists on enforcing them, that is when rebellions begin. You know, such as the rebellion we call the American Revolution. Law is only good when it respects natural rights. When it does not it must needs be discarded.

    When you worship law more than you do liberty, there is tyranny. You described perfectly why America is in such bad shape today, because people like you advocate for and enforce unjust laws on the populace and demand obedience to that which is wrong simply because it is legal. Legality is irrelevant to justice.

    If you think that is Left vs. Right thing, then you're a fool. Liberty is a human thing. This idea that you can divide it up along party lines is exactly how they control you.

    Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

    Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

    I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 12-01-2016 at 01:47 PM.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I ignored most of what you said because it wasn't relevant.

    I can tell that you have little understanding of American history. So I'll start at the beginning.

    Do I advocate disobedience to unjust laws? Absolutely. Refusing to obey an unjust law is what is required to maintain human liberty. Think of it as personal nullification. (If you don't know what nullification is, read the writings of Thomas Jefferson.) You are nullifying the unjust laws of nation by refusing to follow them. Edicts that are not obeyed have no power. This is the essence of revolution. When many people nullify unjust laws and a government still insists on enforcing them, that is when rebellions begin. You know, such as the rebellion we call the American Revolution. Law is only good when it respects natural rights. When it does not it must needs be discarded.

    When you worship law more than you do liberty, there is tyranny. You described perfectly why America is in such bad shape today, because people like you advocate for and enforce unjust laws on the populace and demand obedience to that which is wrong simply because it is legal. Legality is irrelevant to justice.

    If you think that is Left vs. Right thing, then you're a fool. Liberty is a human thing. This idea that you can divide it up along party lines is exactly how they control you.

    Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

    Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

    I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.

    You'd do well to educate yourself on what consent actually means in the framework of our Constitututional Republic.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-01-2016 at 02:15 PM.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.
    Are you one of those "Global Citizens" who are all the rave?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-01-2016 at 02:36 PM.

  22. #109
    Come on, Pierz. Talk to me, brother.

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You seem to have a very strange definition of established fact.
    I said "Multiples" I didnt say what the multiple was.

    But this idea that 3 million illegals voted is more relevant and semi-truthful as any issue the media has in the top ten.
    BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
    Rand Paul 2010

    Booker T. Washington:
    Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
    fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I ignored most of what you said because it wasn't relevant.

    I can tell that you have little understanding of American history. So I'll start at the beginning.

    Do I advocate disobedience to unjust laws? Absolutely. Refusing to obey an unjust law is what is required to maintain human liberty. Think of it as personal nullification. (If you don't know what nullification is, read the writings of Thomas Jefferson.) You are nullifying the unjust laws of nation by refusing to follow them. Edicts that are not obeyed have no power. This is the essence of revolution. When many people nullify unjust laws and a government still insists on enforcing them, that is when rebellions begin. You know, such as the rebellion we call the American Revolution. Law is only good when it respects natural rights. When it does not it must needs be discarded.

    When you worship law more than you do liberty, there is tyranny. You described perfectly why America is in such bad shape today, because people like you advocate for and enforce unjust laws on the populace and demand obedience to that which is wrong simply because it is legal. Legality is irrelevant to justice.

    If you think that is Left vs. Right thing, then you're a fool. Liberty is a human thing. This idea that you can divide it up along party lines is exactly how they control you.

    Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

    Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

    I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.
    Way too many straw men crammed into one long, condescending post. And you continue to not answer direct questions, so obviously this is not a two-way conversation...you want to talk at me, while ignoring almost everything I say.

    The funny thing is, you deny being a globalist, but everything you're talking about is in direct opposition to borders and immigration laws. Why not just embrace that you're a globalist, like Obama, Hillary, GW Bush, etc?

    I don't have a problem with the concept of global government, in and of itself. But the reality is, it will never work except under God Himself... so advocating for no borders now is playing into the hands of the satanic sociopaths currently running this world, because that is exactly what they want, the New World Order.

    So you are not only agreeing with Hillary, Obama, and the Republican neocon globalists, but you are being a useful tool for them, with your anti-borders, "illegals should be allowed to vote" talk, because that's their goal too. Even if its for different reasons.

  25. #112
    Trump's baseless assertions of voter fraud called 'stunning'

    Without putting forth any evidence, the president-elect says he actually won the popular vote.



    Donald Trump on Sunday used his platform as president-elect to peddle a fringe conspiracy theory to justify his loss of the popular vote, claiming without evidence that millions of people voted illegally Nov. 8.

    Trump’s tweets marked an unprecedented rebuke of the U.S. electoral system by a president-elect and met with immediate condemnation from voting experts and others. And they offered a troubling indication that Trump’s ascension to the highest political office in the United States may not alter his penchant for repeating unproven conspiracy theories perpetuated by the far right.

    “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump wrote on Twitter. There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim and PolitiFact ruled it false.

    Several hours later, he added more specifics, but again without any evidence: “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California — so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias — big problem!”

    Election law experts quickly rejected Trump’s claims as far-fetched.

    “There’s no reason to believe this is true,” said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California, Irvine. “The level of fraud in U.S. elections is quite low.”

    Hasen added, “The problem of noncitizen voting is quite small — like we’re talking claims in the dozens, we’re not talking voting in the millions, or the thousands, or even the hundreds.”

    David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, agreed that widespread fraud was unlikely.

    “We know historically that this almost never happens,” he said. “You’re more likely to get eaten by a shark that simultaneously gets hit by lightning than to find a noncitizen voting.”

    A source close to the president-elect said he felt piqued by the Wisconsin recount demand of Green Party nominee Jill Stein, in which Hillary Clinton’s campaign has said it will participate, so he hit back. Even though he’s won and it shouldn’t matter, he isn’t letting it go, the source said.

    Another adviser said Trump genuinely believes “that the Democratic establishment will try to steal” his victory. So his goal is to hold their feet to the fire.

    The claims of voter fraud appear to have gained traction in conservative circle after Infowars, the conspiracy theory-laden website, published an article on Nov. 14 under the headline, “Report: 3 million votes in presidential election cast by illegal aliens.”

    The story cites an analysis by Gregg Phillips, who claims to be the founder of a voting app named VoteStand and who was previously associated with Newt Gingrich’s Winning Our Future super PAC. Phillips has declined to provide any evidence to PolitiFact or reporters to support his assertions of fraud. But he tweeted Sunday evening that he would “release a comprehensive research study to the public, Attorney General [nominee Jeff] Sessions and all interested parties.”

    Radio host Alex Jones, who runs Infowars, has faced criticism for promoting unsubstantiated — and often bizarre — conspiracy theories, including that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which resulted in the death of 20 children, is a hoax, and that Hillary Clinton is a “demon from Hell.”

    Trump called Jones just days after the election to thank him for his support.

    It’s not insignificant that Trump’s tweet also successfully shifted the media narrative away from negative stories about Trump’s many conflicts of interest. The New York Times published a front-page investigation into the conflicts on Sunday.

    The president-elect has a long history of pushing debunked conspiracy theories, including the false claim that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States and that the presidential election would be “rigged” by global elites to assure Hillary Clinton’s victory.

    Hillary Clinton now leads the popular vote by about 2.2 million votes, though Trump won the Electoral College by beating Clinton in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin.

    Trump said Sunday on Twitter that he could have won the popular vote.

    “It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4 ... states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!” he wrote.

    To bolster his claims, Trump has cited a 2014 blog post in The Washington Post by the authors of a disputed study that estimated that “6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.” That study has faced intense scrutiny from election experts, with one analyst telling factcheck.org earlier this year, “Their finding is entirely due to measurement error."

    Trump’s critics have argued that Clinton's popular vote victory raises questions about whether Trump has a solid mandate to govern.

    Trump took to Twitter earlier Sunday, before making assertions of voter fraud, to bash the Clinton campaign’s decision to participate in the Green Party’s call for a recount. “The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated & demoralized Dems,” he tweeted Saturday.

    While there is no evidence of such fraud, Clinton’s campaign agreed to participate “in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.”

    The Obama administration has taken pains to bolster trust in the electoral system, with a senior administration official saying recently that the election results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

    Presidential historians said Trump’s comments have little precedent.

    “Trump is the first winning candidate to question the legitimacy of the process that gave him the White House,” said Timothy Naftali, a history professor at New York University.

    Princeton historian Julian Zelizer noted that in 1876, both candidates for president — Samuel J. Tilden, the Democrat, and Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican and eventual winner — claimed voter fraud. “But in that case, there was evidence of fraud and corruption in certain areas,” he wrote in an email.

    “In this case, we see the victor making blanket accusation of fraud to delegitimize 2.5 million votes,” Zelizer said. “Given there is no evidence to support the claim, this is simply stunning and troubling as a sign as to what he will do as president.”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...clinton-231860
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Instead of pandering to Global citizens (Illegal Mexicans,etc.), Trump is going to give a few crumbs to Muricans in the midwest. A very cheap price.

    The media, the dems, the cuckservatives are totally pissed that the GOP could win national elections with the electoral college when it appeared just a few weeks ago that Trump was going to commit suicide on this issue.
    Last edited by RandallFan; 12-01-2016 at 02:49 PM.
    BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
    Rand Paul 2010

    Booker T. Washington:
    Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
    fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Way too many straw men crammed into one long, condescending post. And you continue to not answer direct questions, so obviously this is not a two-way conversation...you want to talk at me, while ignoring almost everything I say.

    The funny thing is, you deny being a globalist, but everything you're talking about is in direct opposition to borders and immigration laws. Why not just embrace that you're a globalist, like Obama, Hillary, GW Bush, etc?

    I don't have a problem with the concept of global government, in and of itself. But the reality is, it will never work except under God Himself... so advocating for no borders now is playing into the hands of the satanic sociopaths currently running this world, because that is exactly what they want, the New World Order.

    So you are not only agreeing with Hillary, Obama, and the Republican neocon globalists, but you are being a useful tool for them, with your anti-borders, "illegals should be allowed to vote" talk, because that's their goal too. Even if its for different reasons.
    I love the absolute hypocrisy of your post.

    I directly respond to you and you can't even come back with anything. So you just carry out ad hominen attacks and then denounce what you apparently can't even come up with moral, logical, or philosophical reasons to oppose. You can't actually tell me how it is constitutional or morally consistent with the concepts of liberty to shut millions of people out of the legal process and assert absolute dominance over their lives and property without their consent and against their will. But it makes sense why you can't explain it constitutionally or morally because such laws are neither constitutional nor moral.

    But thank you for proving my original point. National government or globalist government, it doesn't matter. You're all oppressive tyrants. You all deny basic human rights in favor of power and domination.

    You keep comparing me to Obama and Clinton, yet you are the one exactly like them. You are the one asserting the right to regulate the lives and property of nonviolent people exercising their natural rights simply because you do not approve of how they live or where they live. As you believe the solution to any problem is to legalize government assault of a group of people "for the common good' you are the Leftist.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    You'd do well to educate yourself on what consent actually means in the framework of our Constitututional Republic.
    I know exactly what it means. Do you? Here, let me help:

    Consent of The Governed:

    "A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/con...f-the-governed

    And I'm not a citizen of anything. Nation-states or globalist states both are violations of human liberty as much as the state is defined as being founded on violence (The State being the organization which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory) violate the basic core concepts of libertarianism, natural rights, and human liberty.

    Being accused of being a globalist for believing "all men are created equal" is such a joke and just demonstrates how much these supposed defenders of the Constitution are complete ignorant of basic American ideals of liberty and what the Constitution actually allows.

  30. #116
    Why even post the OP? It's just ridiculous assertions supported by zero evidence.

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    [
    The funny thing is, you deny being a globalist, but everything you're talking about is in direct opposition to borders and immigration laws.\
    How does being opposed to borders an immigration laws make someone a globalist?

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I love the absolute hypocrisy of your post.

    I directly respond to you and you can't even come back with anything. So you just carry out ad hominen attacks and then denounce what you apparently can't even come up with moral, logical, or philosophical reasons to oppose. You can't actually tell me how it is constitutional or morally consistent with the concepts of liberty to shut millions of people out of the legal process and assert absolute dominance over their lives and property without their consent and against their will. But it makes sense why you can't explain it constitutionally or morally because such laws are neither constitutional nor moral.

    But thank you for proving my original point. National government or globalist government, it doesn't matter. You're all oppressive tyrants. You all deny basic human rights in favor of power and domination.

    You keep comparing me to Obama and Clinton, yet you are the one exactly like them. You are the one asserting the right to regulate the lives and property of nonviolent people exercising their natural rights simply because you do not approve of how they live or where they live. As you believe the solution to any problem is to legalize government assault of a group of people "for the common good' you are the Leftist.
    That's hilarious, because you were the one who ignored most of what I said.... twice. And now you're doing it again. Yet you want me to address everything you say. Stop ignoring what I'm saying, and then maybe we can have a two-way conversation.

    Let me try asking you a yes or no question, because I can see that you are slippery. If you are against borders, and want everyone in the world to have the same exact constitutional rights (which sounds great, I'm not disagreeing with you on that) then do you think that is possible the way the world is now, with nation states? Yes or no?

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    How does being opposed to borders an immigration laws make someone a globalist?
    Think about it.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I know exactly what it means. Do you? Here, let me help:

    Consent of The Governed:

    "A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/con...f-the-governed

    And I'm not a citizen of anything. Nation-states or globalist states both are violations of human liberty as much as the state is defined as being founded on violence (The State being the organization which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory) violate the basic core concepts of libertarianism, natural rights, and human liberty.

    Being accused of being a globalist for believing "all men are created equal" is such a joke and just demonstrates how much these supposed defenders of the Constitution are complete ignorant of basic American ideals of liberty and what the Constitution actually allows.
    No, silly goose. You don't know what it means. Mainly because you don't know what We The People means. Or maybe you do and you just don't like it because of a thing or something. So you have Consent of The Governed all fudged up. You can't take Consent of The Governed out of its intended context and make it what you wanna. That won't work. Consent is a very important term. It's a moral duty to provide it or refuse it, really.

    Here read this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6197351

    It'll be good for you once the old light bulb stars blinkin. Now, I put that thread there just for these very situations because we don't want to look silly of our own doing if we don't have to.

    I have a couple more of around here but you have to go through that one first for everything to click. A place for everything and everything in its place kinda thing.

    But thanks for that dictionary.com link. That kind of reminded me of the time a guy gave me a dictionary link to learn what freedom and liberty meant. Now that wat was a hoot. As if a dictionary defines principles. HelloOoOoooo.

    And, no, I'm pretty sure I've read most of Locke's works. So I'm good on him. I've read the founding documents...The Declaration...this and that and this and that...gosh, I read alot of different guys' writings and musings now that I think about it.


    Speaking of voting, I see that you didn't vote in our community poll. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.ph...do=showresults

    You should totally vote in the poll.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-01-2016 at 08:26 PM.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Do you really support rounding up 12 million illegal immigrants and deporting them?
    By jllundqu in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 332
    Last Post: 03-05-2016, 09:17 AM
  2. Rick Perry gives $33 million tuition assistance to illegal immigrants in Texas colleges
    By r3volution in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2011, 07:37 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 08:19 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 10:43 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
  •