# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

## kahless

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/a-...n-libertarian/

_Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999,_




> .....For a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian.
> 
> Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.
> 
> Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie Islam’s radicalness.
> 
> The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.
> ...
> Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.
> ...

----------


## enhanced_deficit

In the process we may have to sanction ourselves also.  Can you think of any bigger supporter of Islamic Jihad in recent decades than US based neocons?
Reagan was founding father of Afghan Islamic Jihad  against Russian infidels. Afghan and some old Russian States populations are still reeling from effects of extremist Jihadi books printed by Univ of Nebraska and shipped to Russian territoroes paid for by US tax payers.
Trump has even claimed that Obama was founding father of ISIS Islamic State Jihad in Syria that was supported by our closest allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Fallacious argument.






Relational



*Terrorism's Christian Godfather* 


 
Vaetan / AP
George Habash March 11, 1979

Checking in for a flight has never been the same since 1967

9/11 was to punish U.S. for Israel policy: Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir.

----------


## ClaytonB

It would be so convenient if our problems were the fault of some evil enemy plotting without and within to use extreme violence and terror to destroy us. Unfortunately, this simply isn't the case. America's problems are the result of Americans' way of life - our beliefs, attitudes and behavior.

Aggression - including violent aggression - is always wrong and destructive. Unfortunately, American foreign policy is hugely aggressive. To justify ourselves, we focus on the aggression of non-Americans - Muslims, Somalis, Chinese, Koreans, and so on - in order to turn the focus off ourselves.

We need to pull the plank out of our own eye before lecturing the rest of the world about the specks of dust in their eyes. Bring American troops back home, shut down the 700+ overseas US military bases and stop squandering trillions of dollars on military adventurism to expand the US empire. That's the obviously correct solution. But since that solution doesn't fit with the war-mongering agenda of the power-worshiping neocons, we're going to talk about Muslim violence instead.

----------


## kahless

> In the process we may have to sanction ourselves also.  Can you think of any bigger supporter of Jiahd in recent decades than US based neocons?
> Reagan was founding father of Afghan Islamic Jihad  against Russian infidels. Afgahns and people are still reeling for extremist Jihadi books printed by Univ of Nebraska and shipped to Russian territoroes paid for by US tax payers.
> Trump has even claimed that Obama was founding father of ISIS Islamic State Jihad in Syria that was supported by our closest allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Fallacious argument.


 @ClaytonB

For those that use that as an excuse, that ship has already sailed and there is no turning back the clock.  I really do not feel like martyring my people with the risk of Muslim immigration due to government actions that were outside of my control in the first place.

Even if the US never ventured outside our own borders the problem would still exist since according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.

----------


## acptulsa

Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war.  Perish the thought.

He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage.  And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet.  Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us.  Something like that.

Don't believe me?  Ask him!

Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!

----------


## Champ

I've seen a lot of prominent libertarians and anarchists on both sides, yelling and screaming over this issue like crazy. Some have even lost their standing in libertarian circles because of this issue.  Everyone is sure they have the answer and it's a case closed issue, but it seems like the debate is really just starting.  This topic will be sure to continue to divide the libertarian movement, and those that don't agree with someone's opinion will be called fake libertarians or not libertarian enough.  It's sad, but at the same time, I think discussion regarding any issue should always be on the table.

----------


## Raginfridus

Why the rush to ban Muslims and not Jews? Is it because you prefer formalized, State-sanctioned terrorism over the luck-o-the-draw kind?

----------


## ClaytonB

> For those that use that as an excuse, that ship has already sailed and there is no turning back the clock.  I really do not feel like martyring my people with the risk of Muslim immigration due to government actions that were outside of my control in the first place.
> 
> Even if the US never ventured outside our own borders the problem would still exist since according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.


Perhaps that is true. All the same, we should do things the right way. First, bring our troops home. Not only will that reduce the amount of blowback in the form of new terrorists and extremists recruited as a result of US actions (even well-justified actions!), it will also bolster the amount of at-home security that is available to address problems with our borders and other security problems arising from terrorism and other "21st-century threats".

Serial killers invariably have messed-up belief systems that motivate and justify their violence. Free societies accept that there will be people with messed-up beliefs ... but it's the _actions_ that count. We cannot stop all violence without some kind of AI-all-seeing-eye, as in _Minority Report_ - even then, it will not be 100% stopped. So, unless we're prepared to become tagged and monitored like cattle, we have to accept that there is always some risk of danger in life. Personally, I'd rather be free and accept the immensely tiny risk that I could be killed in a terrorist incident, than to be poked, prodded and monitored by an omnipotent, busy-body State in exchange for a false sense of safety.

----------


## Ender

> Perhaps that is true. All the same, we should do things the right way. First, bring our troops home. Not only will that reduce the amount of blowback in the form of new terrorists and extremists recruited as a result of US actions (even well-justified actions!), it will also bolster the amount of at-home security that is available to address problems with our borders and other security problems arising from terrorism and other "21st-century threats".
> 
> Serial killers invariably have messed-up belief systems that motivate and justify their violence. Free societies accept that there will be people with messed-up beliefs ... but it's the _actions_ that count. We cannot stop all violence without some kind of AI-all-seeing-eye, as in _Minority Report_ - even then, it will not be 100% stopped. So, unless we're prepared to become tagged and monitored like cattle, we have to accept that there is always some risk of danger in life. Personally, I'd rather be free and accept the immensely tiny risk that I could be killed in a terrorist incident, than to be poked, prodded and monitored by an omnipotent, busy-body State in exchange for a false sense of safety.


Exactly.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

@kahless 


If you argue that yesterday US gov/US based neocons supporting and arming Islamic Jiahdi ISIS militants in Syria and today US gov opening borders to resulting Syrian war refugees increases risks for US and argue for admission controls, that argument can be logically defended. But the way the title is framed, sounds collectivist.

If  issues with Jewish or Catholic or Mexican Christians or Biblical Christian belief systems were introduced to you that are extremely violent themed or encourage what in modern America is very anti modern "liberties", will you next call for  "Jewish ban" or "Catholic ban" or "Mexican Christians ban" or "Biblical Christina ban" ?

More importantly, do you think the above author would support importing Christians of Arab/Palestinian races to US or Israel  over muslims?  If answer is yes, I would concede the argument completely.



Related

Ilana Mercer on libertarians who supposedly 'loathe' Israel

----------


## kahless

> Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war.  Perish the thought.
> 
> He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage.  And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet.  Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us.  Something like that.
> 
> Don't believe me?  Ask him!
> 
> Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!


I did not write the article, but would like to hear the opinions of the open borders libertarians here and if we can do so without the personal attacks that would be great.  What this writer has posted has come up time and time again in this forum but we never hear you or anyone back their opposition to it with facts. Instead you go right into personal attack mode as demonstrated in this thread with your reply, without really making a logically argument to counter what this author has posted.

I take people as individuals so there is no hate in my heart for anyone.  If you are Muslim you are more than welcome to post and that includes you acptulsa.

----------


## Ender

> Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war.  Perish the thought.
> 
> He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage.  And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet.  Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us.  Something like that.
> 
> Don't believe me?  Ask him!
> 
> Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!


I'd rep you again, if I could.

----------


## acptulsa

> I did not write the article, but would like to hear the opinions of the open borders libertarians here and if we can do so without the personal attacks that would be great.  What this writer has posted has come up time and time again in this forum but we never hear you or anyone back their opposition to it with facts. Instead you go right into personal attack mode as demonstrated in this thread with your reply, without really making a logically argument to counter what this author has posted.
> 
> I take people as individuals so there is no hate in my heart for anyone.  If you are Muslim you are more than welcome to post and that includes you acptulsa.


So, I am now not only for open borders, but Muslim?

'I don't want there to be personal attacks, so I'm not only going to assign belief systems to people without a shred of evidence, but religions too.  Not only without a shred of evidence, but in spite if the existence of evidence to the contrary!  That'll keep things civil!' Yeah, buddy!

Links or you're lying.  Again.  Like you did when you promised to put me on 'ignore'.

You didn't write the article, but you started a thread about it.  You say you want discourse but didn't address a single point I made.  You accuse others of personal attacks but blatantly infer that people are what plenty of evidence suggests they are not.

Are you from the Ministry of Truth?

----------


## CaptUSA

> So, I am now not only for open borders, but Muslim?
> 
> 'I don't want there to be personal attacks, so I'm not only going to assign belief systems to people without a shred of evidence, but religions too.  Not only without a shred of evidence, but in spite if the existence of evidence to the contrary!  That'll keep things civil!' Yeah, buddy!
> 
> Links or you're lying.  Again.  Like you did when you promised to put me on 'ignore'.


Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.

----------


## kahless

> @kahless 
> 
> If you argue that yesterday US gov/US based neocons supporting and arming Islamic Jiahdi ISIS militants in Syria and today US gov opening borders to resulting Syrian war refugees increases risks for US and argue for admission controls, that argument can be logically defended. But the way the title is framed, sounds collectivist.
> 
> If  issues with Jewish or Catholic or Mexican Christians or Biblical Christian belief systems were introduced to you that are extremely violent themed or encourage what in modern America is very anti modern "liberties", will you next call for  "Jewish ban" or "Catholic ban" or "Mexican Christians ban" or "Biblical Christina ban" ?
> 
> More importantly, do you think the above author would support importing Christians of Arab/Palestinian races to US or Israel  over muslims?  If answer is yes, I would concede the argument completely.
> 
> Related
> ...


If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:

- the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
- that members should become jihadists.
- that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
- convert or kill the infidel.

How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?

I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quick to give cover as they currently are doing.

----------


## otherone

> Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.


THIS.
There was nothing "libertarian" about the op. the term has been co-opted.  It's not government's job to assuage fear. This article could easily be welcomed at DU substituting "guns" or "global warming" for "muslim".  These types of people are not libertarians.  They're paleo-pussies.

----------


## kahless

> Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.





> THIS.
> There was nothing "libertarian" about the op. the term has been co-opted.  It's not government's job to assuage fear. This article could easily be welcomed at DU substituting "guns" or "global warming" for "muslim".  These types of people are not libertarians.  They're paleo-pussies.


I did not write the article.  If you disagree with the author could you address specifically your opposition to what she wrote?

Are you saying you want all immigration controls removed?  What is your position in how to handle what she addressed?  thx

----------


## otherone

> I did not write the article.  If you disagree with the author could you address specifically your opposition to what she wrote?
> 
> Are you saying you want all immigration controls removed?  What is your position in how to handle what she addressed?  thx


she didn't say immigration was the problem.  you did.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:
> 
> - the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
> - that members should become jihadists.
> - that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
> - convert or kill the infidel.
> 
> How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?


I think they would honor them by dedicating US space shuttles to their great Islamic Jihadi endeavours and may even compare them to Founding Fathers of America. Big problems happen when we lose track of our management of "infidels" that the violent Islamic Jihad should be directed towards.















> I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quite to give cover as they currently are doing.


If you are framing the question as if the only two choices are "open borders" or "muslim ban"... that can be useful for short term political slogan perhaps but would fail in any indepth debate.  If you or Illana have in the past argued for ending all our foreign militant interventions and stopping military/financial support that enables Israeli occupation of Palestinian Muslims/Christians/Athiests/Agnostics etc, I could support any ban for the heck of it.  

Curiuos, do you now support such mind-our-own-business foreign policy  or have called for such steps in the past?

Israeli champions like Illana have for decades pushed such illogical US tax payers funded policies that are pushing US towards being a fear centric/security centric militarized Police State like Israel. That I think is the bigger issue, the topic of this thread is only about policing control for dealing with one of the many side effects of such anti-libertarian history.

----------


## kahless

> she didn't say immigration was the problem.  you did.


Read the article, she is talking about banning Muslims from entry.  Obviously a ban on Muslim immigration.




> Since humanity has no inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever—stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. not only makes good sense, but doesn’t violate humanity’s natural rights.

----------


## otherone

> Read the article, she is talking about banning Muslims from entry.  Obviously a ban on Muslim immigration.


I read the stupid article. She claims that Islam is a "risk-factor", and it's the government's job to protect your silly ass from it. She claims the "moderate" muslims, like a $#@!ing VIRUS, are DORMANT.  If it's the FEDGOV'S job to ensure you get a good night's sleep, then what should they do about the 3 MILLION ticking time bombs that are Muslim-Americans?

----------


## acptulsa

> What is your position in how to handle what she addressed?  thx


You've been a participant in countless hundreds of threads in this very website where real libertarians have advocated not bombing middle eastern countries, no longer establishing jihadist organizations, and no longer arming at American taxpayer expense terrorist-funding nations like Saudi Arabia, terrorist organizations, and even foreign drug cartels.  You claim your memory works, so clearly you could have found those proposed solutions without starting a thread advocating that targeting people on the basis of their religion is somehow 'libertarian' and bumping the living $#@! out of it.

yrwlcm

----------


## kahless

> I think they would honor them by dedicating US space shuttles to their great Islamic Jihadi endeavours and may even compare them to Founding Fathers of America. Big problems happen when we lose track of our management of "infidels" that the violent Islamic Jihad should be directed towards.


It is done and there is no going back to change it.  So now I believe we are in risk management mode from the fall out but like I said I believe it is a small part of it since there is an inherent problem with Islam, it's government ideological belief system and it's adherent religious but really political activists.




> If you are framing the question as if the only two choices are "open borders" or "muslim ban"... that can be useful for short term political slogan perhaps but would fail in any indepth debate.  If you or Illana have in the past argued for ending all our foreign militant interventions and stopping military/financial support that enables Israeli occupation of Palestinian Muslims/Christians/Athiests/Agnostics etc, I could support any ban for the heck of it.


Not framing it that way, maybe sounded that way due to the level of personal attacks for even suggesting any form of limiting immigration.  I get beaten over the head anytime I post Rand's position on limiting immigration. 




> Curiuos, do you now support such mind our own business foreign policy now or have called for such steps in the past?


Yes, including during the Reagan era, so it has been pretty depressing seeing 3rd party candidates fail to gain enough traction to succeed or non-globalists candidates not get far enough within the two main parties all these years.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Simple solution: shut it (immigration) all down.

$#@! off, country is full.

Give us some time to try and get our $#@! together, if possible.

----------


## kahless

> You've been a participant in countless hundreds of threads in this very website where real libertarians have advocated not bombing middle eastern countries, no longer establishing jihadist organizations, and no longer arming at American taxpayer expense terrorist-funding nations like Saudi Arabia, terrorist organizations, and even foreign drug cartels.


We have beaten that aspect to death and I believe we are somewhat in agreement about some of that.  That is however not the issue that is being discussed in this thread.  




> You claim your memory works, so clearly you could have found those proposed solutions without starting a thread advocating that targeting people on the basis of their religion is somehow 'libertarian' and bumping the living $#@! out of it.


We never get that far because people like you destroy the ability to have any form of reasonable discourse without personal attacks and derailing.

----------


## otherone

> Simple solution: shut it (immigration) all down.
> 
> $#@! off, country is full.
> 
> Give us some time to try and get our $#@! together, if possible.


Tourism too. Still don't trust those sneaky Japs. Don't even get me started on those car-bombing Micks.

----------


## afwjam

See this is that trump/paleocon bs I cannot get behind, total dead end. I don’t think Ron Paul could get behind it now either. As some have pointed out, sounds like doublespeak when they justify more government for their social goals and call it libertarian. I’m not sure why it’s here, it limits the coalition from expanding in the ways we need to to for the real libertarian philosophy to grow. Is there seriously not some sort of Trump forum? I don’t want to do more things collectively I want to do less. “A whole lot less a whole lot sooner” is what I would say. Why don’t we build a coalition around this, for example being anti-war has a lot of support among the people and seems to be politically homeless. Ending prohibition has a lot of support and evidence and seemingly no political home. Regulations and subsidies benefiting big businesses and banks. End the fed. Let’s do less together, not more. Please.

less collective spending and less government.

----------


## Ender

> If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:
> 
> - the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
> - that members should become jihadists.
> - that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
> - convert or kill the infidel.
> 
> How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?
> 
> I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quick to give cover as they currently are doing.


Learn about real Islam and stop listening to haters.

The Bible is much more violent than the Quran.
Jihad means personal victory over oneself- it NEVER meant war on others until the WoT brought it about.
The Quran ALWAYS maintained that the People of the Book be protected. These were the Christians and Jews. 

St Francis of Assisi was always allowed in the sheiks tents during the Crusades because he was trusted and kept his word. 

Suleiman the Magnificent, of the Ottoman Empire, was one of the greatest leaders in history. He protected the People of the Book and was also deeply into the arts and educating all.

The prime problem with Muslims "terrorists" today is the US WoT; this is a fake war to steal land and resources. If it were happening to Americans, we would be the so-called terrorists.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> It is done and there is no going back to change it.  So now I believe we are in risk management mode from the fall out but like I said I believe it is a small part of it since there is an inherent problem with the Islam, it's government ideological belief system and it's adherent religious but really political activists.


Some discussions  tend to get bit excited but I would oppose personal attacks on anyone for bringing up a topic for discussion or for having differing views. In the end,  vast vast majority here have similar objectives but differ on the ways to get there. 

Curious,  where do you stand on our  Mexican Christian brothers and sisters coming over to help us with some tasks? Do you support or oppose the Wall?

What is your view on US military support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, ISIS etc?   This is not past history but current affairs.

----------


## kahless

> See this is that trump/paleocon bs I cannot get behind, total dead end. I don’t think Ron Paul could get behind it now either. As some have pointed out, sounds like doublespeak when they justify more government for their social goals and call it libertarian. I’m not sure why it’s here, it limits the coalition from expanding in the ways we need to to for the real libertarian philosophy to grow. Is there seriously not some sort of Trump forum? I don’t want to do more things collectively I want to do less. “A whole lot less a whole lot sooner” is what I would say. Why don’t we build a coalition around this, for example being anti-war has a lot of support among the people and seems to be politically homeless. Ending prohibition has a lot of support and evidence and seemingly no political home. Regulations and subsidies benefiting big businesses and banks. End the fed. Let’s do less together, not more. Please.


The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?

As far as why is it here, well even Rand supports limits on immigration.  

TWEET/VIDEO: Paul: "Maybe we should stop certain countries from sending people here for awhile. It's not like you have a right to move to our country."

----------


## acptulsa

> You've been a participant in countless hundreds of threads in this very website where real libertarians have advocated not bombing middle eastern countries, no longer establishing jihadist organizations, and no longer arming at American taxpayer expense terrorist-funding nations like Saudi Arabia, terrorist organizations, and even foreign drug cartels.  You claim your memory works, so clearly you could have found those proposed solutions without starting a thread advocating that targeting people on the basis of their religion is somehow 'libertarian' and bumping the living $#@! out of it.
> 
> yrwlcm





> We never get that far because people like you destroy the ability to have any form of reasonable discourse without personal attacks and derailing.


I say we have answered that question literally hundreds and hundreds of times already, and you have participated in many of those threads already, and your response is, 'We never get that far'?




> The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system.


You've read the Quran, have you?  I suppose you'd care to quote verses from it that support this contention?




> TWEET/VIDEO: Paul: "Maybe we should stop certain countries from sending people here for awhile. It's not like you have a right to move to our country."

----------


## kahless

> Nor do I want to pay to feed or house any.


Yet the people that say that here like myself and a few others are in the minority in a supposedly libertarian forum. It is always 100% US intervention is to blame, without recognizing what is done is done, absolutely no concern for jihadist immigration, the US victims or potential US victims, no concern of a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and anyone that says anything otherwise is considered "hate" or a "Trump" supporter.

It is the biggest freaking scam that has been going on in this forum for over two years.  Libertarians, Paul activists, what a lie, if they were actually they would be concerned about the welfare state and at least some concern about jihadists, yet zero concern.  They certainly would not be bashing Rand's comments and platform on immigration like we keep seeing or organized attacks to shutdown any discussion from real activists posting articles and issues.

----------


## tod evans

> At least them good ol' boys get some decent pizza out of it.


How finely does one have to grind a Guinea in order to make pizza?

----------


## otherone

> How finely does one have to grind a Guinea in order to make pizza?


Don't know. Most pizza is made by Dominicans around here.

----------


## tod evans

> Don't know. Most pizza is made by Dominicans around here.


I *ass*umed that pizza in NY was still made by Guineas.........

----------


## Krugminator2

> . I don’t think Ron Paul could get behind it now either.


If that is the case, why did Ron Paul introduce legislation to limit immigration from the Middle East every session then?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

----------


## Krugminator2

> Japan's freedom score is higher than the US.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...rld/2017/japan


You aren't saying anything. You are citing a left wing group that hates freedom. That group's definition of freedom is Glenn Greenwald's. PORTUGAL is rated as rated as the most free. https://freedomhouse.org/report/free.../2017/portugal

They rate Singapore  a 51 and Portugal and Japan almost 100. I can tell Singapore is a lot more libertarian either of those countries.

Here is a better list. Singapore 2 USA  17. Japan 40 Portugal 77    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

----------


## AZJoe

> The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system.


And yet there exists Muslim libertarians: http://www.muslims4liberty.org/  . Doesn't matter about the individual's beliefs , accomplishments, background must ban those libertarians. 

So much for Kahless' claim that , "I take people as individuals .."

----------


## Ender

> You aren't saying anything. You are citing a left wing group that hates freedom. That group's definition of freedom is Glenn Greenwald's. PORTUGAL is rated as rated as the most free. https://freedomhouse.org/report/free.../2017/portugal
> 
> They rate Singapore  a 51 and Portugal and Japan almost 100. I can tell Singapore is a lot more libertarian either of those countries.
> 
> Here is a better list. Singapore 2 USA  17. Japan 40 Portugal 77    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking


Does Cato make you happier?




> The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Australia (6), Canada (6), the United Kingdom (6), Finland (9), and the Netherlands (10). The United States is ranked in 23rd place.


They also ranked Japan higher than Singapore:




> Other countries rank as follows: Germany (13), Chile (29), France (31), Japan (32), Singapore (40)

----------


## AZJoe

> As far as why is it here, well even Rand supports limits on immigration.


Again with the logical fallacy scope shifts. Supporting limits on immigration is not the equivalent of a broad collectivist ban all on 2 billion individuals who may subscribe to any of the very many myriad Muslim belief systems regardless of the individual's personal achievements, background and beliefs. 
Even a temporary halt on select countries is not a blanket Muslim ban. 
There is nothing Rand has said that supports what is advocated in the Original Post.

----------


## CaptUSA

Up next...  the “libertarian” case for torture and rendition.

----------


## Ender

> And yet there exists Muslim libertarians: http://www.muslims4liberty.org/  . Doesn't matter about the individual's beliefs , accomplishments, background must ban those libertarians. 
> 
> So much for Kahless' claim that , "I take people as individuals .."


Exactly!

----------


## AZJoe

> according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.


This is where the writer of the Original Post fails greatest both factually and logically. 
With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts. 
What the Original Post neglects to recognized, is the fact the perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to a small sub-sect of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc. 
The Wahhabi/Salafi also happens to be based out of Saudi Arabia, funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia. They also happen to be funded and armed by Washington for its geopolitical objectives. 
A more logical argument by the Original Post would be a ban on Wahhabi/Salafi and Saudis. A ban on all Muslims is the equivalent of a blanket ban on all Christians based on the acts of the IRA in during twentieth century.

When you consider there are 2 billion Muslims in the world,  proportionally (and likely in absolute numbers) there are far more Americans involved in terrorists acts (drone assassinations, bombing civilians, invading nations, regime change, creating funding and arming terrorists organizations, etc.). The belief system behind these terrorists acts happens to be the neocon philosophy. It is also the neocons' policies that have been creating, arming, funding and using these Wahhabi/Salafi terror organizations.

----------


## kahless

> And yet there exists Muslim libertarians: http://www.muslims4liberty.org/  . Doesn't matter about the individual's beliefs , accomplishments, background must ban those libertarians. 
> 
> So much for Kahless' claim that , "I take people as individuals .."


You take a minority of people from a small website and with a broad brush paint all Muslims for holding that belief.  So much for you taking people as individuals.

I in fact do for the most part take people as individuals but also believe in self preservation. When polls show 70-90% or more from a specific region support an authoritarian belief system as a form of government and jihad as a way of life to get there, it is wise to consider screening or limiting entry from those regions.  Like Rand said you do not have an automatic right to come here.

----------


## Ender

> Your interpretation? You see quotes like that above is why I had asked you in the past whether you are a Muslim or Muslim activist.  
> 
> Here is what I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this not concern you?


Does this concern you?




> Numbers 31
> 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
> 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
> 31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
> 31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
> 31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
> 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
> 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
> 
> ...

----------


## kahless

> Does THIS concern you?


No, since that is not a guide for people today on how to live and behave or a government belief system pretending to be a religion.

While Sharia and this is a cause for concern.




> “Fight against those who do not obey Allah and do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29
> 
> “Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191
> 
> “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4
> 
> “Oh you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them find harshness in you.” 9:123
> 
> “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow Him are merciful to one another but harsh to the disbeliever.” 48:29
> ...


If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:

- the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
- that members should become jihadists.
- that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
- convert or kill the infidel.

I would be just as apt to support limiting immigration from that region as well.

----------


## kahless

> There is nothing Rand has said that supports what is advocated in the Original Post.


You should listen closely to what he is saying here without saying Muslim.

TWEET/VIDEO: Paul: "Maybe we should stop certain countries from sending people here for awhile. It's not like you have a right to move to our country."

----------


## kahless

> The funny thing is that if this website followed the philosophy of the OP and the thread starter, this sort of statist ideology would be closed off to people on this website. But here we are with this statist user freely promoting his statist ideology on this site


Eye rolls from a Che Guervra supporter I wear with a badge of honor.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Thinking out of the box to tackle this complicated muslim refugees/population invasion issue... how about muslims refugees from Iraq, Syria, Benghazi or other lands where US militant freedom projects have been heavily active be placed as next door neighbors to every American who supported Iraq freedom racial revenge attack that was based on lies and unleashed major wave of mideast displacements/massive migrations?  Of cousre after making sure the incoming refugees from war zones are vetted and are moderate Islamists.

*Is the ongoing Surge of Police State in America a Surge of Karma?*
Ongoing Surge of Police State in America has any relation to 80% of   Americans supporting invasion of Iraq based on lies and then electing   another dubious politician who surged  war policies that resulted in   surge of civilian deaths/raids on homes of people occupied with funding   from American taxpayers?




Kahless, btw do you see Obama as first Muslim President of US?






Semi-Related

*Hands up, Don't shoot*

----------


## kahless

> You just painted all Muslims with the same broad brush that you accuse GunnyFreedom of- and anyone who opposes you gets painted by your "you must be a Muslim" brush.


The difference here is I backed his up with quotes proving it.  In your case, again, I said this to you every time you accuse me it of that it was not an accusation but rather put as a question.  Now it is a belief and here is how I backed it up.

Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.

1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.  

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.  You direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up it always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases you make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state.  Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 6, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , demeaned in some manner or some other personal attack.

No reasonable individual would discuss the issue in this manner unless they are a Muslim political activist.

----------


## kahless

> Thinking out of the box to tackle this complicated muslim refugees/population invasion issue... how about muslims refugees from Iraq, Syria, Benghazi or other lands where US militant freedom projects have been heavily active be placed as next door neighbors to every American who supported Iraq freedom racial revenge attack that was based on lies and unleashed major wave of mideast displacements/massive migrations?  Of cousre after making sure the incoming refugees from war zones are vetted and are moderate Islamists.
> 
> *Is the ongoing Surge of Police State in America a Surge of Karma?*
> Ongoing Surge of Police State in America has any relation to 80% of   Americans supporting invasion of Iraq based on lies and then electing   another dubious politician who surged  war policies that resulted in   surge of civilian deaths/raids on homes of people occupied with funding   from American taxpayers?
> 
> Kahless, btw do you see Obama as first Muslim President of US?


It was how he was raised. It was obvious he was no fan of Christians while in office and his beliefs are responsible for further destabilizing the Middle East in favor of radical Islam.

----------


## Raginfridus

> Tourism too. Still don't trust those sneaky Japs. Don't even get me started on those car-bombing Micks.


Last time we let the gooks in, they took our jobs.

The solution is obvious: withdraw from the Middle East. That means ALL "rebuilding" money and armaments deals with every country in the region. All deniable and black ops stop. All troops and ships returned to their stateside division (or however that works). 6 all of it. Then trim the agencies and military. Review past contracts for all malfecience. Pardon every MIC criminal who accepts the walk of shame. Pulverize every one that bitches and refuses their one opportunity to leave their agency/dept chair in shame with exactly nothing. Then talk about more stringent immigration bans, or dissolving the CIA completely - whichever's the cause of "homegrown" terror. Otherwise homicidal Muslims will deny their faith for their cause and use fake visas and passports from friendly nations to accomplish murder in the states. Nothing at all will change here or abroad.

----------


## Ender

> The difference here is I backed his up with quotes proving it.  In your case, again, I said this to you every time you accuse me it of that it was not an accusation but rather put as a question.  Now it is a belief and here is how I backed it up.
> 
> Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.
> 
> 1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.  
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.  You direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.
> ...


UH.... you are really pulling the BS strings big time now.

You have absolutely NO argument for your Muslim hate so you ALWAYS back it up with calling anyone who challenges you, a Muslim.

And all your little numbers have never been brought up. 

I stand with Ron Paul.

1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
2. Help countries we have destroyed.
3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed. 
5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
6. Get rid of entitlements.

Here are a few of RP's tweets over Trump's ridiculous Aug Afghan speech:




> Planned in Afghanistan? What about Saudi Arabia??
> What's wrong with rapid exit? We just marched in we can just march out.
> So far very discouraging. Sounds like pure neocon foreign policy.
> The promoters of war win. The American people lose. #Afghanistan
> Remember: there was no al-Qaeda until our foolish invasion of Iraq based on neocon lies.
> The American people deserve to know when we are going to war and MUST give you permission through their representatives in Congress!
> Emphasis on Pakistan just means the war going to be expanded!
> Emphasis on military alliance with India may well lead to more vicious war between nuclear states Pakistan and India. Smart?
> Terrorism is one thing, but what about massive collateral damage? Killing civilians creates more terrorism. Round and round we go.
> ...


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...t-neocon-trump

----------


## kahless

> UH.... you are really pulling the BS strings big time now.
> 
> You have absolutely NO argument for your Muslim hate so you ALWAYS back it up with calling anyone who challenges you, a Muslim.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!  You just responded exactly how I posted you would respond when you could have addressed these point by point.

You again:




> Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.
> 
> 1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.  
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.  You direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.
> 
> 4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up it always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.
> ...

----------


## afwjam

> If that is the case, why did Ron Paul introduce legislation to limit immigration from the Middle East every session then?
> 
> https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488
> 
> https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217


Saudi Arabia? Thats where you want to ban immigrants from, kinda makes sense, but Is that what trump is doing or on offer from any neocon? I think Ron Paul was trying to highlight the hipocracy of our relations with the saudis, remember the hijackers came in from Saudi Arabia on student visas. I think there would be simpler ways to deal with the Saudis, or not deal with them...

----------


## Ender

> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!  You just responded exactly how I posted you would respond when you could have addressed these point by point.
> 
> You again:


You'd make a great politician- everything that comes out of your mouth is made-up or an outright lie.

My response again:




> I stand with Ron Paul.
> 
> 1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
> 2. Help countries we have destroyed.
> 3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
> 4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed.
> 5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
> 6. Get rid of entitlements.

----------


## kahless

> You'd make a great politician- everything that comes out of your mouth is made-up or an outright lie.
> 
> My response again:


Those are not the points I posted.  Here again is how you reply to this topic below.  You could very well address each one of these points to put it to rest.  I even added some room so you can reply and refute it if you believe anything I posted here is a lie.

You again:




> Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.
> 
> 1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.  
> 
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.  You direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.
> ...


EDIT:  okay you at least addressed #6.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Saudi Arabia? That’s where you want to ban immigrants from, kinda makes sense, but Is that what trump is doing or on offer from any neocon? I think Ron Paul was trying to highlight the hipocracy of our relations with the saudis, remember the hijackers came in from Saudi Arabia on student visas. I think there would be simpler ways to deal with the Saudi’s, or not deal with them...


He didn't just say Saudi Arabia. He said he would limit immigration to all countries that are state sponsors of terror and countries not cooperating with US anti-terrorism efforts. Iran, Sudan, and Syria would also make the cut. https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm And Palestine would likely be also be included if such legislation passed.

----------


## Ender

My of my very favorite writers, the late great Will Grigg on the subject of Muslim hate.




> "Crush the Seed of Ishmael": A "Final Solution" to the "Muslim Problem"
> 
> By William Norman Grigg
> 
> Pro Libertate Blog
> 
> October 11, 2014
> 
> We have reached a point in our nations descent into psychotic tribalist fear where people of stature and apparent sobriety unabashedly use the expression final solution when discussing the existence of Muslims.
> ...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> My of my very favorite writers, the late great Will Grigg on the subject of Muslim hate.


Wanting to control who we allow into OUR territory (to one degree or another) is NOT the same as wanting to destroy people in their territory.

I don't know if we want a total ban but it is within our rights to enact one.

----------


## Ender

> Wanting to control who we allow into OUR territory (to one degree or another) is NOT the same as wanting to destroy people in their territory.
> 
> I don't know if we want a total ban but it is within our rights to enact one.


The above article is about the treatment of American Muslims and NOT immigration.

----------


## kahless

> ...


So which one of these is a lie Ender?  At least now you finally removed #6 from the list with the mention of entitlements but in your last post again you went back to refocusing again entirely on US intervention.  

Your posting history:

1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.


2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.


3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. He refocuses the conversation back on #1.


4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up you always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.


5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases you make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.


6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 6, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , demeaned in some manner or some other personal attack.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The above article is about the treatment of American Muslims and NOT immigration.


And this thread is about immigration, you are attempting to confuse the two, I was pointing out that your article was irrelevant, reducing or cutting off entirely the number of muslims that we let in has nothing to do with how we treat those who are here or whether we go "on crusade" to destroy those overseas.

----------


## Ender

> And this thread is about immigration, you are attempting to confuse the two, I was pointing out that your article was irrelevant, reducing or cutting off entirely the number of muslims that we let in has nothing to do with how we treat those who are here or whether we go "on crusade" to destroy those overseas.


Apparently you haven't read the thread, as it is mostly about how evil Muslims are and how they want to set up Sharia law.

----------


## Ender

> So which one of these is a lie Ender?  At least now you finally removed #6 from the list with the mention of entitlements but in your last post again you went back to refocusing again entirely on US intervention.  
> 
> Your posting history:
> 
> 1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.
> 
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> ...


I know you have reading difficulty but here are the answers again:

I stand with Ron Paul.

1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
2. Help countries we have destroyed.
3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed.
5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
6. Get rid of entitlements.

----------


## Ender

> I know you have reading difficulty but here are the answers again:
> 
> I stand with Ron Paul.
> 
> 1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
> 2. Help countries we have destroyed.
> 3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
> 4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed.
> 5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
> 6. Get rid of entitlements.


7. The personal attacks are from YOU.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Apparently you haven't read the thread, as it is mostly about how evil Muslims are and how they want to set up Sharia law.


There is still a difference between how to treat those already here and how many to let in going forward, this thread is about the latter.

----------


## Ender

> There is still a difference between how to treat those already here and how many to let in going forward, this thread is about the latter.


Just read kahless's posts- you'll figure it out.

----------


## AuH20

Keeping out an overtly religious based community with incompatible values is common sense.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Question was : Kahless, btw do you see Obama as first Muslim President of US?




> It was how he was raised. It was obvious he was no fan of Christians while in office and his beliefs are responsible for further destabilizing the Middle East in favor of radical Islam.


Poll: 46% of GOP thinks Obama is Muslim

Ok,  but question was direct about  adult Obama who was in the White House for 8 years. Do you agree with 46% of GOP who saw Obama as a Muslim or you disgaree with them? 


As far as I know, even Hillary was able to give a direct answer to such a simple question.

----------


## tod evans

> Keeping out an overtly religious based community with incompatible values is common sense.


Most Yankees have values that are incompatible with mine....

Come to think about it there's a large number of 'religious' folk right here in the Bible belt who, I as a Christian, am pretty much incompatible with too...

----------


## AuH20

> *Most Yankees have values that are incompatible with mine....
> 
> Come to think about it there's a large number of 'religious' folk right here in the Bible belt who, I as a Christian, am pretty much incompatible with too...*


If you can think of a reasonable precept to expel them, let me know. But as a starting point, Muslims in this day and age should be kept out. The low hanging fruit first.

----------


## Ender

> If you can think of a reasonable precept to expel them, let me know. But as a starting point, Muslims in this day and age should be kept out. The low hanging fruit first.


Same thing the Nazis said about the Jews.

History definitely repeats itself.

----------


## kahless

> Question was : Kahless, btw do you see Obama as first Muslim President of US?
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: 46% of GOP thinks Obama is Muslim
> 
> Ok,  but question was direct about  adult Obama who was in the White House for 8 years. Do you agree with 46% of GOP who saw Obama as a Muslim or you disgaree with them? 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, even Hillary was able to give a direct answer to such a simple question.


That was meant as a yes.

----------


## nikcers

> If you can think of a reasonable precept to expel them, let me know. But as a starting point, Muslims in this day and age should be kept out. The low hanging fruit first.


Divide and conquer starts with low hanging fruit too, you wouldn't know nothing about that though would you?

----------


## AuH20

> Divide and conquer starts with low hanging fruit too, you wouldn't know nothing about that though would you?


Paying for the liberty haters to propagate on our dime is akin to putting a noose over one's neck. It's simple arithmetic. With the current mode of government, aside from abolishing it, there is no other option.  We already see how hostile the domestic population is after the years of brainwashing, never-mind the introduction of foreigners with no skin in the game.

----------


## nikcers

> Paying for the liberty haters to propagate on our dime is akin to putting a noose over one's neck. It's simple arithmetic. With the current mode of government, aside from abolishing it, there is no other option.  We already see how hostile the domestic population is after the years of brainwashing, never-mind the introduction of foreigners with no skin in the game.


Don't use the nanny state as a reason to push divide and conquer tactics. If you don't like the nanny state then end the nanny state. Be honest about it and change the foreign policy that is creating all of these immigrants. Dont tell me we gotta fix the windows before we  stop breaking the $#@!ing windows.

----------


## AuH20

> Don't use the nanny state as a reason to push divide and conquer tactics. If you don't like the nanny state then end the nanny state. Be honest about it and change the foreign policy that is creating all of these immigrants. Dont tell me we gotta fix the windows before we  stop breaking the $#@!ing windows.


Welfare state isn't coming down anytime soon. Past foreign policy disasters nor backward cultures can't be remedied. Walls need to go up and maybe we'll all survive this coming madness.

----------


## nikcers

> Welfare state isn't coming down anytime soon. Foreign policy disasters nor backward cultures can't be remedied. Walls need to go up and maybe we'll all survive this madness.


Warfare state is what I am talking about, you are the one straw manning the welfare state destroying all of those countries and then putting up our walls is the political equivalent of throwing a live grenade at our political enemies.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Paying for the liberty haters to propagate on our dime is akin to putting a noose over one's neck. It's simple arithmetic. With the current mode of government, aside from abolishing it, there is no other option.  We already see how hostile the domestic population is after the years of brainwashing, never-mind the introduction of foreigners with no skin in the game.


We really just need pre-crime, am I right?!  You know, to find the “liberty-haters”!!   Or we can just use their religion.  Because we all know, everyone who has a religion is exactly the same as everyone else who shares that religion!

And you think you understand liberty?  YOU want to protect liberty?!

----------


## kahless

> Just read kahless's posts- you'll figure it out.


Still using the same posting methodology I see.  The fact that you continue on this path and fail to refute your posting history below once confronted, why not just admit you are a Muslim immigration activist?   I doubt it would change your ability to post here but at least be honest about it.




> Your posting history:
> 
> 1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.
> 
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.
> ...

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> That was meant as a yes.


Ok cool. That might be a productive view under the current circustances. 

Silverlining here may be that American voters will think harder next time before supporting elective freedom invasion of countries like Iraq that did not attack us...  having seen the result of last Iraq invasion that resulted in son of an African Muslim man running America for last 8 years as liberal punishment for Iraqi freedom. 

Syria/Benghazi freedom interventions have already brought in many more Muslim refugees. Saw  Drudge headline yesterday that Muslims have surpassed Jewish population in the US now. Hopefully Trump would avoid Bush's blunders. Won't be surprised if aftermath of a future major Iraq like US freedom war resulted in son of an Arabic Islamic man running America in another ironic twists to spreading our freedoms.

All the wars supporters could be surprised to hear this annoucement in future.
Ladies and gentlemen, please stand up for  *historic President  Al Assad Syriani Hussein Libyani*  who has refused to take oath using Bible.





Related

*Muslims to soon beat out Jews in U.S. population - Washington Times*
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-us-population...
4 days ago 

Kerry says U.S. will take Syrian refugees

The fall of Assad is inevitable, US to air strikes agaisnt Syria. Sen John McCain

West will pay for 'supporting al-Qaeda in Syria', Assad warns

----------


## ds21089

Not sure how collectivism would be considered a libertarian ideology.




> Simple solution: shut it (immigration) all down.
> 
> $#@! off, country is full.
> 
> Give us some time to try and get our $#@! together, if possible.


^^ This. Just as how we shouldn't be in so many countries fighting wars for them as our own falls apart (though there's many other reasons we shouldn't be), we cant be taking in more people until we're in a better position, regardless of religion. If you are poor and struggling to make ends meet, are you going to adopt a kid and put them in that situation on top of the added financial strain to yourself?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Emotions after high profile acts of violence can cause many people to throw "libertarian" ideas out the window. Fear is powerful emotion.  But rationally, there is plenty evidence that any single group does not have monopoly over horrible acts of violence.

OP argument is weak even if it may appeal to some natural instincts. Recent events like largest mass killng in Las Vegas and today in Texas make such narratives even harder to defend.



*Devin Kelley*

Kelley received a diploma from New Braunfels High School​. [2]​ He is a veteran of the US Air Force​ where he worked with logistics and supply [2]​.

In 2013, he briefly volunteered as a teacher's at Kingsville FBC, teaching 4-6 year old children about the Bible​. [2]​

*Sutherland Springs Mass Shooting*

On November 5, 2017, at around 11:30 a.m. local time, Kelley allegedly  walked into the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX and  opened fire killing at least 25 people. [3]​ [5]​ [7]​

Kelley  apparently died following a short police pursuit. It was not   immediately clear whether he was killed by officers or if his wounds   were self-inflicted. [3]​ [7]​                            
https://everipedia.org/wiki/devin-kelley-1/

----------


## kahless

Removed bad source.

----------


## timosman



----------


## Thor

> 


"African carps" - good summation.

----------


## Thor

> This is where the writer of the Original Post fails greatest both factually and logically. 
> With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts. 
> What the Original Post neglects to recognized, is the fact the  perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to a small  sub-sect of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi - which includes the  various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc. 
> The Wahhabi/Salafi also happens to be based out of Saudi Arabia, funded,  promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia. They also happen to be funded  and armed by Washington for its geopolitical objectives. 
> A more logical argument by the Original Post would be a ban on  Wahhabi/Salafi and Saudis. A ban on all Muslims is the equivalent of a  blanket ban on all Christians based on the acts of the IRA in during  twentieth century.
> 
> When you consider there are 2 billion Muslims in the world,   proportionally (and likely in absolute numbers) there are far more  Americans involved in terrorists acts (drone assassinations, bombing  civilians, invading nations, regime change, creating funding and arming  terrorists organizations, etc.). The belief system behind these  terrorists acts happens to be the neocon philosophy. It is also the  neocons' policies that have been creating, arming, funding and using  these Wahhabi/Salafi terror organizations.






And as for the ban not being "Libertarian" .... For reference:

https://www.lp.org/platform/




> *3.1 National Defense*
>  We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to *defend the  United States against aggression*. The United States should both avoid  entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for  the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
> 
> *3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights*
> 
>  The defense of the country requires that we have adequate  intelligence to detect and to *counter threats to domestic security*. This  requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties  of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be  suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that  legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject  to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret  classifications to keep from the public information that it should  have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the  law.



_"This  requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties  of our citizens."_  Civil liberties do not extend to those that wish to exterminate Liberty and Freedom.  Civil liberties are reserved for those who want to follow the NAP.  Otherwise extending civil liberties to those who wish to destroy the very premise that granted them those civil liberties is just *suicide by stupidity*.  *Islam is NOT compatible with Liberty, by any stretch of the imagination.  Islam is about compliance, control, and obedience.
*
Example: 






As well as: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/....html?src=vidm  (that one was an eye opener.  Animals)

There are more videos.

*It is a fools errand to welcome someone into your home, giving them a key, when they wish to exterminate you through time and slow conquest. An abusive spouse, a thief, or a government entity hell bent on spying and forced compliance.  Part of the defense of Liberty and Freedom must mean we also defend against a political movement/ideology/aggression - veiled as a religion - that is the antithesis of Freedom and Liberty.  If you do not see that, then you are no defender of Freedom and Liberty.  But an accomplice to the demise of Freedom and Liberty.

*And yes, we should get out of the middle east (and most other places for that matter.)  Should have a long time ago.

----------


## CaptUSA

> [B]It is a fools errand to welcome someone into your home, giving them a key, when they wish to exterminate you through time and slow conquest. An abusive spouse, a thief, or a government entity hell bent on spying and forced compliance.  Part of the defense of Liberty and Freedom must mean we also defend against a political movement/ideology/aggression - veiled as a religion - that is the antithesis of Freedom and Liberty.  If you do not see that, then you are no defender of Freedom and Liberty.  But an accomplice to the demise of Freedom and Liberty.


Um...  Yeah...  You don't know what "liberty" means.  

"When THEY wish to exterminate you..."  They?!  Are you really suggesting that there is no diversity of opinion in the Muslim world?!  So if _some_ of them mean you harm, it means that ALL of them mean you harm?!  And since _some_ of them commit violence, you feel justified in using pre-crime to exclude them all?!  Well, I'm pretty sure you can apply that to, oh I don't know, EVERY religion in the world!  So yeah, you either do what AF suggests or you treat people as individuals - with their own free will and freedom of thought.

I take it you don't have any Muslim friends.  Or maybe you think they secretly wish you dead and are just waiting for the right time.  "Liberty" is an individual state of being - not a group state of being.  You may not understand this, but your _means_ ensure that your ends will never be achieved.

----------


## otherone

> *It is a fools errand to welcome someone into your home, giving them a key, when they wish to exterminate you through time and slow conquest. An abusive spouse, a thief, or a government entity hell bent on spying and forced compliance.  Part of the defense of Liberty and Freedom must mean we also defend against a political movement/ideology/aggression - veiled as a religion - that is the antithesis of Freedom and Liberty.  If you do not see that, then you are no defender of Freedom and Liberty.  But an accomplice to the demise of Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> *And yes, we should get out of the middle east (and most other places for that matter.)  Should have a long time ago.


Smells an awful lot like Antifa rhetoric.

----------


## Thor

> Um...  Yeah...  You don't know what "liberty" means.


                            a                                       *:*the power to do as one pleases      
                                             b                                       *:*freedom from physical restraint      
                                             c                                       *:*freedom from arbitrary or despotic control      
d                                       *:*the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges      
                                             e                                       *:*the power of choice      

And Islam is counter to those points.




> "When THEY wish to exterminate you..."  They?!  Are you really suggesting that there is no diversity of opinion in the Muslim world?!  So if _some_ of them mean you harm, it means that ALL of them mean you harm?!  And since _some_ of them commit violence, you feel justified in using pre-crime to exclude them all?!  Well, I'm pretty sure you can apply that to, oh I don't know, EVERY religion in the world!  So yeah, you either do what AF suggests or you treat people as individuals - with their own free will and freedom of thought.


You didn't watch the first video did you?




> I take it you don't have any Muslim friends.  Or maybe you think they secretly wish you dead and are just waiting for the right time.  "Liberty" is an individual state of being - not a group state of being.  You may not understand this, but your _means_ ensure that your ends will never be achieved.


No muslim friends.  No desire.  

And the group state of being protects the individual state of being to exist, as long as it is protected.  Fail to protect it, and it is lost for all.  The group and the individual.

----------


## Thor

> Smells an awful lot like Antifa rhetoric.


LOLz

----------


## kahless

> Smells an awful lot like Antifa rhetoric.


Quite the opposite.  One the main planks Antifa has been protesting is against vetting of immigrants entering the US, against the 5 Muslim majority country immigration restrictions, nor any restrictions on refugees, ICE targeting illegals, against deportation and against anti-Sharia protests.  Ultimately they support open borders and are a pro-Muslim activist organization among other things.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Welfare state isn't coming down anytime soon. Past foreign policy disasters nor backward cultures can't be remedied. Walls need to go up and maybe we'll all survive this coming madness.


If you hate the welfare state then you should love open immigration. Racial and ethnic diversity is one of the big reasons the American welfare state is so small as compared to Europe, Asia, and everywhere else.




> Conservative and libertarian critics of immigration like to cite Milton Friedmans observation that [y]ou cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state, which co-blogger Ken Anderson recently endorsed. The fear is that, given relatively open borders, immigrants from poor countries will flock to wealthy ones and undermine their economies by consuming huge amounts of welfare benefits.
> 
> The greater ethnic diversity of the US is one of the main reasons why we have a smaller welfare state than most European nations.
> 
> I am a great admirer of Friedman and his scholarship. But he was not an expert on immigration, and, as far as I can tell, he never systematically studied the evidence on the impact of immigration on political support for the welfare state. That evidence overwhelmingly shows that ethnic heterogeneity greatly reduces support for welfare state spending because voters are less willing to support welfare programs if they believe that a large percentage of the money is going to members of a different racial or ethnic group.
> 
> I cite some of the relevant studies in a recent article in the International Affairs Forum on Immigration (pg. 43). The research shows that this effect holds true even in a strongly left-wing country like Sweden. This book by political scientists Donald Kinder and Cindy Kam presents the evidence for the United States (and to a lesser extent, several European countries). Historically, the greater ethnic diversity of the US is one of the main reasons why we have a smaller welfare state than most European nations; the evidence on that point is summarized in a well-known study by Edward Glaeser and Alberto Alesina. Because people are most likely to support welfare programs when the money goes to recipients who are like us, immigration actually undermines the welfare state rather than reinforces it. Even if the new immigrants themselves vote for expanded welfare state benefits (which is far from always a given), their political impact is likely to be offset by that of native-born citizens who are generally wealthier, more numerous, and more likely to vote and otherwise participate in politics.
> 
> This feedback effect creates a difficult dilemma for liberals and leftists who support immigration but also want to expand the welfare state. Paul Krugman calls the welfare-immigration tradeoff an agonizing issue for liberal Democrats. But for libertarians and other supporters of economic liberty, immigration is a win-win game. It is both an important exercise of economic freedom in its own right, and has the secondary effect of constraining the welfare state.
> ...

----------


## CaptUSA

> a                                       *:*the power to do as one pleases  _unless yer a mooslim_ 
>                                              b                                       *:*freedom from physical restraint  _unless yer a mooslim trying to cross a government border_ 
>                                              c                                       *:*freedom from arbitrary or despotic control _unless it's to keep us safe from the boogeymen trying to kill us - then government, hell yes!_ 
> d                                       *:*the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges _yeah, but only for certain people, amirite?_ 
>                                              e                                       *:*the power of choice  _but only approved choices - not to choose a different God to pray to!_ 
> 
> And Islam is counter to those points.


FTFY


(And seriously? you have no desire to make friends with someone because they have a different religion?  so glad you judge the individual based on their personality.  )

----------


## PierzStyx

> Quite the opposite.  One the main planks Antifa has been protesting is against vetting of immigrants entering the US, against the 5 Muslim majority country immigration restrictions, nor any restrictions on refugees, ICE targeting illegals, against deportation and against anti-Sharia protests.  Ultimately they support open borders and are a pro-Muslim activist organization among other things.


It is true that Antifa want more open borders. But then they're also fools. It is why they're Antifa. They don't understand that open borders would destroy the welfare state.

But otherone was correct that Thor was spouting Antifa rhetoric. The Antifa are against immigration bans. But they are not for Islam. The hard core of the Anmtifa are all devout Socialists and Communists. And not in the mamby-pamby Obama way either. They're full blown Marxists and hate all religion, seeing religion itself as their enemy that needs to be wiped out. Thor's fallacious characterization of Islam is exactly what Antifa believe about all religion. Their "defense" of Muslims now is merely a convenience as a way to oppose Trump and his fascist cronies in the Alt. Left. Given time and power, Antifa will turn on Muslims just like everyone else. And creating laws that will allow the State to target and eliminate people for their religion -such as Islam- now only plays into Antifa's long term goals, laying the foundation to go after Christianity tomorrow. Thor is therefore spouting propaganda that only strengthens Antifa's long term goals.

----------


## Thor

> FTFY


FIFY

a                                       *:*the power to do as one pleases  _unless yer goal is to stop others from doing as they please_ 
                                             b                                       *:*freedom from physical restraint  _unless yer a mooslim trying to remove freedom and liberty from others_ 
                                             c                                       *:*freedom from arbitrary or despotic control _no matter the source, especially when your religion tells you gain that control_ 
d                                       *:*the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges _yeah, but only for certain people, amirite? Yes you are, it is for anyone and everyone who wishes that enjoyment be maintained for all to cherish.  Keyword is POSITIVE enjoyment.  Islam is NOT positive._ 
                                             e                                       *:*the power of choice  _but only approved choices - not to choose a different God to pray to!  Not if that god you want to pray to tells you to go out and conquer non-believers, stone apostates, implement a law world wide that demands obedience, subjugation, and compliance._

Again, islam is counter to the original definition of Liberty.  Islam is not congruent with the thinking of Liberty.  Perhaps you misunderstand Liberty?  

Just because Liberty allows one the freedom to worship whatever god they want, does not give those who would violate the NAP and who have a goal of control and removal of freedom and liberty, the rights to use the very same tool of freedom and liberty to their advantage to therefore take away freedom and liberty.  Extending those rights to those who wish to remove your rights is like supplying a plethora of advanced weapons, with training on how to use them, to your known enemy before a battle.  Only an idiot would do that.

Would you allow a confirmed and confessed child rapist to babysit your kids?  You are taking away their Liberty if you don't.




> (And seriously? you have no desire to make friends with someone because they have a different religion?  so glad you judge the individual based on their personality.  )


I don't hang out in circles where muslims hang out.  That is not to say I have not met and interacted with many.  Many are very nice...  but the religion, like most, is flawed and as a follower of a flawed religion, then I see no commonality to which a friendship can be based.  Just like I am not good friends with evangelical christians.  I find most dedicated followers of religions (any) to not be people I want to hang out with.  However, with Muslims, the premise of Islam is a far bigger problem than any other religion.  Just about every other religion wants to live and leave in peace and co-exist.  Except 1 religion.  As the buddhist monk in the video above so succinctly put it, African carp.

Speaking of videos, which of the ones I posted did you watch?

----------


## Thor

> But otherone was correct that Thor was spouting Antifa rhetoric. The Antifa are against immigration bans. But they are not for Islam. The hard core of the Anmtifa are all devout Socialists and Communists. And not in the mamby-pamby Obama way either. They're full blown Marxists and hate all religion, seeing religion itself as their enemy that needs to be wiped out. Thor's fallacious characterization of Islam is exactly what Antifa believe about all religion. Their "defense" of Muslims now is merely a convenience as a way to oppose Trump and his fascist cronies in the Alt. Left. Given time and power, Antifa will turn on Muslims just like everyone else. And creating laws that will allow the State to target and eliminate people for their religion -such as Islam- now only plays into Antifa's long term goals, laying the foundation to go after Christianity tomorrow. Thor is therefore spouting propaganda that only strengthens Antifa's long term goals.


Again LOLz

----------


## CaptUSA

> Just because Liberty allows one the freedom to worship whatever god they want, does not give those who would violate the NAP and who have a goal of control and removal of freedom and liberty, the rights to use the very same tool of freedom and liberty to their advantage to therefore take away freedom and liberty.  Extending those rights to those who wish to remove your rights is like supplying a plethora of advanced weapons, with training on how to use them, to your known enemy before a battle.  Only an idiot would do that.
> 
> Would you allow a confirmed and confessed child rapist to babysit your kids?  You are taking away their Liberty if you don't.


What the hell are you even talking about?!  You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?!  Talk about a serious collective mentality!  Sheesh!  I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head.  My doctor is Muslim.  Our kids used to go to the same school.  I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions.  He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you.  He sees people as individuals like I do.  He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done.  In other words, he's not a moron.  (well, he doesn't eat bacon.  So, obviously, he's not all put together.  But, at least we can joke about it.)

Nice segue into child-raping, too!  I suppose those strawmen are a great substitute for the boogeymen.

Man, where are these people coming from?  In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression.  The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread.  (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)

----------


## otherone

> Man, where are these people coming from?  In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression.  The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread.  (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)


Which is more ironic?
"anti-fascists" who use violence to deny freedom of expression, or "libertarians" who believe that's what government is for?

----------


## kahless

> What the hell are you even talking about?!  You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?!  Talk about a serious collective mentality!  Sheesh!  I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head.  My doctor is Muslim.  Our kids used to go to the same school.  I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions.  He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you.  He sees people as individuals like I do.  He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done.  In other words, he's not a moron.  (well, he doesn't eat bacon.  So, obviously, he's not all put together.  But, at least we can joke about it.)
> 
> Nice segue into child-raping, too!  I suppose those strawmen are a great substitute for the boogeymen.
> 
> Man, where are these people coming from?  In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression.  The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread.  (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)


So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated.  What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?  

The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?

----------


## CCTelander

> <snip>
> 
> Extending those rights to those who wish to remove your rights is like supplying a plethora of advanced weapons, with training on how to use them, to your known enemy before a battle.  Only an idiot would do that.



Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual *unless and until* that individual has violated the rights of another *causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now*. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.





> Would you allow a confirmed and confessed child rapist to babysit your kids?  You are taking away their Liberty if you don't.



Since child rapists have no inherent right to babysit anyone's kids, your analogy is epic fail and amounts to a straw man.

<snip>

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual *unless and until* that individual has violated the rights of another *causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now*. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since child rapists have no inherent right to babysit anyone's kids, your analogy is epic fail and amounts to a straw man.
> 
> <snip>


No one has an inherent right to immigrate or naturalize here.

----------


## CaptUSA

> So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated.  What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?  
> 
> The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?


No.  I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No.  I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.


Then go preach liberty in their lands, don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.

----------


## timosman

> That evidence overwhelmingly shows that ethnic heterogeneity greatly reduces support for welfare state spending because voters are less willing to support welfare programs if they believe that a large percentage of the money is going to members of a different racial or ethnic group.


What a bunk.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What a bunk.


But correlation and coincidence both equal causation, right?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

With busy news cycles it may have not come to our collective attention... so I'm going to remind everyone of little historic detail that I'm confident will change mind of OP and anyone else who may agree with such a ban.

Did you know that if such a ban had been in place few decades earlier, President Obama's muslim father may not have been here,  historic President Obama may never have been born here inside the US or become first historic President of the US within few years of Iraqi Freedom? 
Among other things, that would have meant no historic jubilations in 2008, no Obamacare, probably no gay wedding cakes in the military or outside/no Libya or Syria freedoms.

Sometimes quick fixes can be tempting but it should give us all  a pause when we take time to consider the gigantic historic repercussions of  such bans. 

Case is rested.

/case 

/thread

----------


## Identity

Out of all the creatures in the political jungle the _lolbertarian_ is among the strangest. Whenever asked about demographics, voting, trends, and immigration policy it has the tendency to shriek out a piercing noise that can be interpreted as _"muh constitution."_ However, when the subject is questioned on the specifics of the Constitution and the rather strict naturalization policies of the Founders, along with quotes and statements of said men, the _lolbertarian_ retreats, grumbling, _"muh austrian economics."_ Likewise, when the explorer points out that Austrian economics is a largely outdated, discredited 19th century economic theory that exists on the fringes of academia and largely outside of it (*ahem* Mises Institute) the _Lolbertarian_ has a sneaky trick up hidden in his quills which comes in the form of, _"muh NAP tho."_ However, when the inquisitive mind asks for a coherent definition of aggression and what exactly constitutes 'violence' he is met with silence and usual ambiguity until the _Lolbertarian_ finally barks out, "RAWN PAWL!"


Now onto the usual An-Cap and Libertarian arguments:




> Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations.




Sounds like some strange metaphysical proposition here- what are rights and what is the objective epistemological source that one could use to derive these mysterious 'rights' so we can know when they end and begin? Sounds like a lot of assumptions and cultural baggage. 




> And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others




You _assume_ the State is inherently violent- however you merely presuppose [your own An-Cap interpretation of] the NAP in order to do so- my question to you is this: why don't you presuppose the State as an abstract entity (analogous to a platonic form) essential to human society and perhaps of a divine origin? Seems absurd to you (not to me) but it's equally as subjective as your presuppositions on the matter. Now whether or not the State, in its current western democratic-republic form, can choose to not accept people form _x, y, and z_ countries? The answer will be a resounding yes. Demographics and voting do matter in America, sorry- if we accepted everyone from Europe, Latin America, and Asia then we wouldn't have an America anymore- we'd have a weird oligarchy with a single political party (in this case the Democratic Party) ruling things from now until the end of the USA. Ann Coulter brings this up and it's worth listening to- unless you can show me how a Republican or Libertarian could win a statewide election in California anytime soon.





> *Islam is NOT compatible with Liberty, by any stretch of the imagination. Islam is about compliance, control, and obedience.*


I generally agree here- the hardest thing for me to accept growing older was that *ideas have consequences.* Things don't just exist in a vacuum Culture & religion do shape people differently- my religion (or at least how I interpret it) tends to be rather authoritarian and statist (with a heavy emphasis on absolute Monarchies) and that's also my outlook. Islamic worldview is dependent upon conquest and submission- there's little room for infidels in many contemporary Islamic countries. *Contemporary.* Not 600 years ago, although it hasn't gotten much better. Strangely enough Muslim countries are the exception to the rule of secularization- whereas everyone else became gradually liberal and secular since the 60's the Islamic nations went in the complete opposition direction. Compare 70's Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran to their counterparts today. Disturbing stuff. Accepting them _en masse_ isn't beneficial for us, sorry. One would be wise to look at the mass Islamic immigration into Europe and see how well assimilation and integration has worked out there. When the noble AfD were putting up posters in the inner cities the _youths_ came and ripped them down one by one, with massive 'protests' (riots) and typical nonsense. Does that sound like a model group? One that can't even accept the moderate, "_hey we are taking in too many immigrants here.._" type position? No- they don't care because they don't have their new nations' interests at heart, they'd rather see their religious-ethnic interests promoted. That's a problem- deal with it. Don't just say "muh individualism tho," that $#@! isn't an argument.  


I remember asking a question on this very forum years ago, which was how do we build a Libertarian society if we had a policy of mass immigration or even [god forbird] open borders? The answers were all subpar and regurgitated Ayn Randian nonsense (INdividualismm!@!!1!1!!). But when looking at what's tangible and actual trends we see the results of mass immigration- pure Democratic bloc voting. California is now lost forever, more states will follow. All you'd need to do is flood a few swing states with third world migrants and BAM- goodbye to the national GOP. That's the reality of the situation we face here. So what's the solution? Trump's RAISE Act plan is a good start, but we need to be even more severe than that eventually. Assimilation + birth rates stabilizing will give hope to whatever is left of our dwindling democracy. Inshallah.. or something.

----------


## nikcers

> _"muh austrian economics."_


Muh straw man argument- economic interventionism doesn't work and it will fail.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/a-...n-libertarian/
> 
> _Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999,_





> This is where the writer of the Original Post fails greatest both factually and logically. 
> With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts. 
> What the Original Post neglects to recognized, is the fact the perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to a small sub-sect of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc. 
> The Wahhabi/Salafi also happens to be based out of Saudi Arabia, funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia. They also happen to be funded and armed by Washington for its geopolitical objectives. 
> A more logical argument by the Original Post would be a ban on Wahhabi/Salafi and Saudis. A ban on all Muslims is the equivalent of a blanket ban on all Christians based on the acts of the IRA in during twentieth century.
> 
> When you consider there are 2 billion Muslims in the world,  proportionally (and likely in absolute numbers) there are far more Americans involved in terrorists acts (drone assassinations, bombing civilians, invading nations, regime change, creating funding and arming terrorists organizations, etc.). The belief system behind these terrorists acts happens to be the neocon philosophy. It is also the neocons' policies that have been creating, arming, funding and using these Wahhabi/Salafi terror organizations.


Agree. Lumping all Islam together serves the agenda of the neocon, leftist, globalist establishment.

The neoconservatives want to conflate the Salafi Jihadists with other branches of Islam to make them all look bad. The open borders left wants to do the opposite, they want to dilute the Salafi Jihadists in with others to make them all look acceptable for immigration. And confuse everyone in the process. Quite a strategy.

The OP author (Mercer) is being a useful idiot for the establishment.

An analogy of this lumping together would be to say that just because some radical offshoot of Christianity was pushing violent ideology, all Christians should be suspect.




> The media loves to call these attacks a "lone wolf" attack. Purely an attempt at political correctness. If an organization or nation is at war, and is instructing the members or followers of that group to engage in attacks, there is no "lone" about the attack.
> 
> Now the media has conflicting agendas at work here. In order to be politically correct, and push the leftist globalist narrative, they don't want to blame any particular group. On the other hand, the neoconservative side of the media wants to infer blame on groups that are not involved, thus they will use the blanket term of Islam.
> 
> But to be accurate and specific, modern terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are by Salafi jihadists, which is a subset of Sunni Islam, thus it does not apply to all Muslims, does not apply to Shias, does not apply to all Sunni's and does not apply to all Salafists.
> 
> Who does it apply to? Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism. The best examples of practitioners of the terrorist brand of Salafi Jihadist Islam are ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is officially Wahhabist, so the radicalized jihadi version often has connections to that nation, although Salafism is a transnational movement. Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood sometimes refer to themselves as Salafists, which is probably a way for them to claim greater numbers internationally.
> 
> Bottom line: don't expect any accuracy in reporting from the media, who have their own agendas that require them to be intentionally vague.

----------


## Thor

> What the hell are you even talking about?!  You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?!  Talk about a serious collective mentality!  Sheesh!  I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head.  My doctor is Muslim.  Our kids used to go to the same school.  I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions.  He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you.  He sees people as individuals like I do.  He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done.  In other words, he's not a moron.  (well, he doesn't eat bacon.  So, obviously, he's not all put together.  But, at least we can joke about it.)


Very little individually if they are devout.  Many muslims, when in the minority, go along to get along (don't rock the boat); but when they become the majority, then everything changes (time to promote themselves to Capt.)  I am sure your doctor is great, but ask him what he thinks of Sharia Law, apostates, woman's rights, while enjoying a BLT at the table with him.  Again, did you watch any of the videos?  Care to comment on those "boogeymen" the videos reference?  The statistics that many "peaceful" muslims actually beleive what Islam teaches even though they may not have the balls (now) to practice it....




> Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual *unless and until* that individual has violated the rights of another *causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now*. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.


It is not a fictional scenario.  Look at Europe.  Turning the other cheek to give someone who follow an anti liberty and anti freedom agenda is just plain stupid, even if it violates their "rights."  Rights are reserved for those who wish to preserve and respect everyone else's rights.  It is not for those whose ultimate goal, by declaration of their faith which decries conquering and making everyone convert or perish, hence trampling and revoking said rights (even if they are currently acting like get along Charlie's.) 




> No.  I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.


Again, you haven't watched any of the videos...  Like what happened in London when they took took over neighborhoods...

----------


## Thor

> So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated.  What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?  
> *
> The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system.* Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?





> Then go preach liberty in their lands, *don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.*



*The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. D**on't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.*


*Bingo! We have a winner!*

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Thread like this are why I can hardly post here anymore. I get it now though, a sizable portion of Paul's support were never actually for individual liberty and basic human rights. The title looks insane to me. 




> No, since that is not a guide telling people how to behave or a government belief system pretending to be a religion.
> 
> While Sharia and this is a cause for concern.
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:
> 
> - the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
> ...


That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more... 




> Man, where are these people coming from?  In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression.  The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread.  (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)


+1




> Which is more ironic?
> "anti-fascists" who use violence to deny freedom of expression, or "libertarians" who believe that's what government is for?


+1

----------


## Ender

> Thread like this are why I can hardly post here anymore. I get it now though, a sizable portion of Paul's support were never actually for individual liberty and basic human rights. The title looks insane to me. 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more... 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> ...


*^^^THIS^^^*

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more...


And how many Christians believe in those doctrines today? Where are they found in Christian scripture?

On what basis do you claim that ANY foreigner has a "RIGHT" to come here without our permission?


We have a muslim member of this site that shows that it MIGHT be possible for liberty to take root in their culture, see this thread:
*Scientific research should be privately funded*But until it does we have a right and a duty to our children's children to limit or even ban immigration from ANY anti-liberty culture. (That may include most of the world at this point)

I repeat what I said above: Go preach liberty in their lands, don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then MAYBE convert them and rebuild it. *(GOOD LUCK STAYING ALIVE IF YOU START TO HAVE MUCH OF AN IMPACT BY THE WAY)*

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

^^^ Strawman serving up a red herring... #NoThanks

----------


## Swordsmyth

> ^^^ Strawman serving up a red herring... #NoThanks


From the guy who compared modern muslim culture to 1400's Christian culture.

----------


## nikcers

> And how many Christians believe in those doctrines today?





> From the guy who compared modern muslim culture to 1400's Christian culture.


Russia has declared that Jehova witness's are a terrorist organization

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Russia has declared that Jehova witness's are a terrorist organization


AND?..........

This is proof that Russians are just as anti-liberty as muslims?
If you think it is then you should note that I said:  

But until it does we have a right and a duty to our children's children  to limit or even ban immigration from *ANY anti-liberty culture*. *(That  may include most of the world at this point)*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Um...  Yeah...  You don't know what "liberty" means.  
> 
> "When THEY wish to exterminate you..."  *They?!  Are you really suggesting that there is no diversity of opinion in the Muslim world?!*  So if _some_ of them mean you harm, it means that ALL of them mean you harm?!  And since _some_ of them commit violence, you feel justified in using pre-crime to exclude them all?!  Well, I'm pretty sure you can apply that to, oh I don't know, EVERY religion in the world!  So yeah, you either do what AF suggests or you treat people as individuals - with their own free will and freedom of thought.
> 
> I take it you don't have any Muslim friends.  Or maybe you think they secretly wish you dead and are just waiting for the right time.  "Liberty" is an individual state of being - not a group state of being.  You may not understand this, but your _means_ ensure that your ends will never be achieved.


Pretty much this^^ I get the impression that some people think "muslim=arab". Nope. Lots of Muslims in sub-sarharan Africa too. And there are plenty of Arab Christians. (One of the Great Orthodox Christian patriarchates is in Syria)

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> From the guy who compared modern muslim culture to 1400's Christian culture.


So, you just make stuff up? Interesting. There is no such comparison. Just historical facts adding perspective to the discussion. 

In the bigger picture, wounds take time to heal, but that aint gonna happen til we stop inflicting them. 

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Islam is trailing Christianity modernizing, and while that is mostly true, it would help if they didn't have to worry so much about crazy Westerners who want to bomb them all back to the stone age. If you look you'll see that Islam is not a borg praying 5 times a day; plenty of countries within the muslim world itself don't want Saudi-like shariah, etc... Maybe, if we just stopped meddling they would modernize themselves. That seems the libertarian thing to do.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So, you just make stuff up? Interesting. There is no such comparison. Just historical facts adding perspective to the discussion.





> No, since that is not a guide telling people how  to behave or a government belief system pretending to be a religion.
> 
> While Sharia and this is a cause for concern.
> 
> “Fight against those who do not obey Allah and do not believe in Allah  or the Last Day and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and  His messenger even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay  the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29
> 
> “Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191
> 
> “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4
> ...


Followed by:



> That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s.  Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens,  pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that  is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the  reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church  started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not  walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more...


That is NOT comparing 1400's Christians to modern muslims as a strawman?????









> In the bigger picture, wounds take time to heal, but that aint gonna happen til we stop inflicting them. 
> 
> Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Islam is trailing Christianity modernizing, and while that is mostly true, it would help if they didn't have to worry so much about crazy Westerners who want to bomb them all back to the stone age. If you look you'll see that Islam is not a borg praying 5 times a day; plenty of countries within the muslim world itself don't want Saudi-like shariah, etc... Maybe, if we just stopped meddling they would modernize themselves. That seems the libertarian thing to do.


Yup, we ALL know the wars must end, the recent injuries inflicted on the middle east are just another reason we shouldn't let in hordes of people with a motive for vengeance.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Followed by:
> 
> 
> That is NOT comparing 1400's Christians to modern muslims as a strawman?????


No, as I said, it is adding historical facts for perspective. In this case something that "The West" started with these bulls, and hasn't really stopped in the 600 years since. 





> Yup, we ALL know the wars must end, the recent injuries inflicted on the middle east are just another reason we shouldn't let in hordes of people with a motive for vengeance.


Not sure who you are talking to. I'm certainly not for letting in any hordes, but blanket bans are as un-libertarian as I can imagine

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Russia has declared that Jehova witness's are a terrorist organization


And now they want to bomb the Vatican? #NeoconLogic

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, as I said, it is adding historical facts for perspective. In this case something that "The West" started with these bulls, and hasn't really stopped in the 600 years since.


Mohammad started it when he attacked the Byzantines and Persians.







> Not sure who you are talking to. I'm certainly not for letting in any hordes, but blanket bans are as un-libertarian as I can imagine


It is neither Libertarian or Un-Libertarian, they have no inherent right to come here so it is not a matter of rights or liberty, unless you want to talk about our children's children's rights to inherit a liberty culture; in which case you could say that it is Libertarian.

I do not even necessarily endorse a COMPLETE ban, but IF we let any in from such an anti-liberty culture it should be so few as to be almost a ban.

Again before the race SJWs get involved: I feel this way about most of the world so it has nothing to do with race.

----------


## Ender

> Mohammad started it when he attacked the Byzantines and Persians.


The Romans (Byzantines) and Persia had been at war for 6 centuries. Roman had taken land from England to Syria and the Persians fought with them continually until they were both conquered by Mohammad's army that was on it's way to Mecca. 

So, no- Mohammad did NOT start that war- he finished a 600 year war that was all about power and ego.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The Romans (Byzantines) and Persia had been at war for 6 centuries. Roman had taken land from England to Syria and the Persians fought with them continually until they were both conquered by Mohammad's army that was on it's way to Mecca. 
> 
> So, no- Mohammad did NOT start that war- he finished a 600 year war that was all about power and ego.


We are talking about cultures that presently exist, Christianity and islam, between those two islam started it.

If you want to go back into the mists of ancient history then you had better side with Israel and help them take all the land between the Euphrates and the sea. 

The real answer is to pull out and let GOD deal with the problem, but who started it actually has no bearing on who we should allow into our country, islam is one of the most anti-liberty cultures on the planet and we should let in few to none of it's followers.

----------


## AZJoe

> You take a minority of people from a small website and with a broad brush paint all Muslims for holding that belief.  So much for you taking people as individuals.


This is a logically flawed false straw response to the point to idiocy. Nowhere was it stated, implied or suggested that "all Muslims hold" libertarian beliefs. 
Rather it was pointed our there are indeed libertarian Muslims countering Kahless' collectivist  mindset that all Muslims hold the beliefs that Kahless collectively imputes to all 2 billion Muslims in the world.

----------


## AZJoe

> I in fact do *for the most part* take people as individuals but also believe in self preservation. When polls show ... 70-90% or more from a specific region support an authoritarian belief system as a form of government and jihad as a way of life to get there, it is wise to consider screening or limiting entry from those regions.  Like Rand said you do not have an automatic right to come here.


Talk about self contradictory irrational doublespeak. In the very same passage claims to treat people as individuals, while in the very next sentence imputes entire collectivists traits, beliefs, and motives based on happenstance of geography and birth regardless of the individual's actual beliefs and character.

And what of the qualification "for the most part". Either one views individuals as individuals or not.

----------


## AZJoe

> it is wise to consider screening or limiting entry from those regions.  Like Rand said you do not have an automatic right to come here.


This is correct. However, this is not what the Original Post argued. This is both scope shift diversion and straw arguments, more logical flaws. The Original Post "OP" did not call for "limiting" or "screening." Instead of some vetting process, the OP called for a total ban on Muslims worldwide. 

Also the alternative to a total ban on all Muslims worldwide is _Not_ an "automatic right to come here". That is an illogical false dichotomy.

----------


## AZJoe

> You should listen closely to what he is saying here without saying Muslim.
> TWEET/VIDEO: Paul: "Maybe we should stop certain countries from sending people here for awhile. It's not like you have a right to move to our country."

----------


## CaptUSA

> Everyone deserves liberty no matter their religion, as to restrict that is infringing upon liberty.  But I think the risk in supporting that as a blanket statement is far greater than the reward,


And there you have it.  The same excuse used by every statist ever.  The second statement completely and totally invalidates the first.

"I like liberty - as long as it's the type of liberty that I like!"  Thanks for putting it so succinctly.  The rest of the post was just a lame attempt at justifying that statement.

----------


## Ender

> This is a regurgitated collectivist falsehood. 
> With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts. 
> Thor is improperly imputing a small radical subset of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi to every individual Muslim worldwide. 
> The perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to Wahhabi/Salafi belief - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc. 
> This Wahhabist are based out of Washington's BFF Saudi Arabia. They are and have been funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia. 
> Washington itself helped establish Al Qaeda as a funding network to support and recruit more radicals for its other creation Mujaheddin/Taliban. 
> Washington helped establish and arm and fund ISIS for its geopolitical objectives. 
> Washington helped spreading the radical ideology.
> 
> ...


*
ON. THE. NOSE.*

THIS RIDICULOUS HATE FOR THE SAKE OF HATE IS GETTING WAAAY OVER THE TOP.

Most people do not even recognize that there are more sects in the Muslim world as there are in the Christian. The Islam bashing is like blaming all Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church antics. I don't even know any Baptists that support that.

And I'd +rep you a zillion times, if I could.

----------


## CaptUSA

> THIS RIDICULOUS HATE FOR THE SAKE OF HATE IS GETTING WAAAY OVER THE TOP.
> 
> Most people do not even recognize that there are more sects in the Muslim world as there are in the Christian. The Islam bashing is like blaming all Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church antics. I don't even know any Baptists that support that.


Exactly.  I'd even take it further by saying that even _within_ those sects, there is a wide range of opinions and a wide range of what the individuals find acceptable.  I'm sure there are more than a few members of Westboro, that may not like what they see in the world, but they'd never speak out or hold up a picket sign.  Go figure - no matter how unified a collective tries to be, people are still individuals.

----------


## kahless

One has to consider with some of the replies these last few pages whether this is an honest discussion with libertarians or biased anti-US Muslim activists.

Here is the continued posting pattern:

1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.   They refocus the conversation back on #1.

8. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 7, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , called a Neocon, demeaned in some manner, or some other personal attack or falsely accused of a personal attack..

Ender in particular was provided this multiple times in this thread and will not refute it but rather continues the same posting behavior described above in this thread.

----------


## Ender

> One has to consider with some of the replies these last few pages whether this is an honest discussion with libertarians or biased anti-US Muslim activists.
> 
> Here is the continued posting pattern:
> 
> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> ...


LOL- I answered those points a couple of times but you refuse to read them and acknowledge what I have said. So basically you are accusing me of exactly what YOU do.

Let's try this again:

*I stand with Ron Paul.*

1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
2. Help countries we have destroyed.
3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed.
5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
6. Get rid of entitlements.

----------


## kahless

> LOL- I answered those points a couple of times but you refuse to read them and acknowledge what I have said. So basically you are accusing me of exactly what YOU do.
> 
> Let's try this again:
> 
> *I stand with Ron Paul.*
> 
> 1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
> 2. Help countries we have destroyed.
> 3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
> ...


Except for entitlements, you keep making up your own to deflect from what I posted.  Your posting pattern is pretty much focusing entirely on the US intervention aspect while ignoring all the problematic issues I described.

----------


## CaptUSA

> One has to consider with some of the replies these last few pages whether this is an honest discussion with libertarians or biased anti-US Muslim activists.
> 
> Here is the continued posting pattern:
> 
> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> ...


1. You
2. Are
3. Focused
4. On
5. Groups.
6. We
7. Focus
8. On
9. Individuals.

Most of us recognize that you can't punish some individuals for what other individuals may do just because they share some characteristics.  The essence of liberty is individual liberty.  And you stomp on that notion when you want to classify individuals in one manner or another based on your misconception that "certain" people are all the same and don't need to be respected as real people.

*That* is the pattern I'm seeing in this thread.  You will NEVER protect individual liberty by trashing it!

----------


## kahless

> 1. You
> 2. Are
> 3. Focused
> 4. On
> 5. Groups.
> 6. We
> 7. Focus
> 8. On
> 9. Individuals.
> ...


Ultimately I see your position as a direct assault on individual libertarians in the US since you have no recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 1. You
> 2. Are
> 3. Focused
> 4. On
> 5. Groups.
> 6. We
> 7. Focus
> 8. On
> 9. Individuals.
> ...


Immigration rules are about GROUPS, you can't take the measure of every individual on the planet and give them a thumbs up/down for permission to join our society, so you deal with GROUP trends and let the "exception to the rule" chips fall where they may, you also err on the side of caution so that the anti-liberty types who get in are kept to a small enough number that they are not a threat to liberty.

----------


## timosman

> Ultimately I see your position as a direct assault on individual libertarians in the US since you have no recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.


For me the definition of liberty is to be able to live in my mom's basement and troll on the internets. I hardly if ever leave my place. I see no way how this could be taken away from me.

----------


## timosman

> 1. You
> 2. Are
> 3. Focused
> 4. On
> 5. Groups.
> 6. We
> 7. Focus
> 8. On
> 9. Individuals.
> ...



Who is We you speak about on p. 6?

----------


## kahless

> For me the definition of liberty is to be able to live in my mom's basement and troll on the internets. I hardly if ever leave my place. I see no way how this could be taken away from me.


When your family cannot afford to pay property taxes due to all the immigrants receiving government assistance, what then?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> When your family cannot afford to pay property taxes due to all the immigrants receiving government assistance, what then?


You get an ObamaPhone.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You get an ObamaPhone.


This goes here:

----------


## kahless

> This goes here:


Beat me to it by seconds.

----------


## Ender

> Except for entitlements, you keep making up your own to deflect from what I posted.  Your posting pattern is pretty much focusing entirely on the US intervention aspect while ignoring all the problematic issues I described.


Your "problematic issues" are based entirely on hate & prejudice. You cite other fear mongers as your source and have absolutely no idea about Muslims and how they behave in the US.

You have NO answer to @AZJoe and his intelligent response:




> When you consider there are 2 billion Muslims in the world, proportionally (and likely in absolute numbers) there are far more Americans involved in terrorists acts (drone assassinations, bombing civilians, invading nations, regime change, creating funding and arming terrorists organizations, etc.). The belief system behind these terrorists acts happens to be the neocon philosophy. It is also the neocons' policies that have been creating, arming, funding and using these Wahhabi/Salafi terror organizations.
> 
> Washington itself and the neocons are a greater "antithesis to Freedom and Liberty."


AND, if Muslims are banned, what's next? A data base for all American Muslims? Then what religion or group shall we make enemies? Lutherans? Bakers? Catholic Schools? Mormons? American Indians? Your banning door will open to many other things where TPTB can inflict control.

You sound no different that the German Nazis and their view of the "problematic" Jews.

----------


## kahless

> Your "problematic issues" are based entirely on hate & prejudice. You cite other fear mongers as your source and have absolutely no idea about Muslims and how they behave in the US.
> ....
> You sound no different that the German Nazis and their view of the "problematic" Jews.


#8 again, typical.  btw - thanks for the name calling update.  I totally forgot to add being called a Nazi or anti-semite to #8.  Your Imam would be proud of you.




> One has to consider with some of the replies these last few pages whether this is an honest discussion with libertarians or biased anti-US Muslim activists.
> 
> Here is the continued posting pattern:
> 
> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> ...

----------


## Ender

> #8 again, typical.  btw - thanks for the name calling update.  I totally forgot to add being called a Nazi or anti-semite to #8.  Your Imam would be proud of you.


Again:

----------


## kahless

> _{video}posting of Communist rap group trash video{video}_


I see you just spammed that in the thread about Rand to someone else to.  Does this mean since you have been exposed as an anti-US Muslim activist that posting that video is your final farewell?

----------


## Ender

> I see you just spammed that in the thread about Rand to someone else to.  Does this mean since you have been exposed as an anti-US Muslim activist that posting that video is your final farewell?


Different video but its all about getting your head outta where the sun don't shine and WAKING UP.

Hard for you Mucho Name-Caller/Accuser, I'm sure.

----------


## Thor

> And there you have it.  The same excuse used by  every statist ever.  The second statement completely and totally  invalidates the first.
> 
> "I like liberty - as long as it's the type of liberty that I like!"   Thanks for putting it so succinctly.  The rest of the post was just a  lame attempt at justifying that statement.


I like preserving liberty, and anyone who doesn't is not a defender of liberty, but is aiding in the demise of liberty.

Get back to me when you watch the videos.  All you have to do is click play...  So simple even a someone willing to sacrifice liberty in the "name of liberty" can do it. 











*$#@!ing animals: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/....html?src=vidm*

----------


## Identity

> Not false.
> 
> Still fails to watch and address the videos.


Lol funny the user "AZJoe" used the same word ("verbose") to describe my comments in his neg rep of my post. Seems like this guy likes to talk by pointing and grunting. Judging by his prior substance-less "#NotAllMuslims" post he's probably afraid of actual arguments that can't fit onto bumper stickers, like most Americans.

----------


## Identity

> And there you have it.  The same excuse used by every statist ever.  The second statement completely and totally invalidates the first.
> 
> "I like liberty - as long as it's the type of liberty that I like!"  Thanks for putting it so succinctly.  The rest of the post was just a lame attempt at justifying that statement.


Honestly, the first thing I would do as a Dictator is pass a law sentencing every adult who uses the word "statist" to the guillotine. What exactly is liberty? How are you defining it? This sounds like a creepy cult mentality. Hey 90% of America is bloc voting for the Democratic Party but man, at least we still have our liberty!




> Most people do not even recognize that there are more sects in the Muslim world as there are in the Christian. The Islam bashing is like blaming all Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church antics.




Westboro Baptist members are law-abiding, intelligent people who stage controversial, yet peaceful protests. Mass Islamic immigration seriously threatens the demographics, culture, and politics of the new nations that they enter. This doesn't make us "Muslim-haters." I probably have had more positive interactions with Muslims and Islam than most of you posting here, but defending these disturbing trends isn't bravery, it's cowardice.




> 6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration. Conversation is refocused back to #1.




Nah, man, you see- the real thing we shouldn't be pushing for is stopping mass immigration. No, no, no. We should be trying to take aware welfare from the single moms who are struggling to get by! Mass immigration + mass starvation on the streets, that'll skyrocket GOP approval ratings to the heavens.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I like preserving liberty, and anyone who doesn't is not a defender of liberty, but is aiding in the demise of liberty.
> 
> Get back to me when you watch the videos.


Listen, I watched your video yesterday (didn't bother with the rest).  I'm not sure what you thought was going to happen???  Did you think I was going to stop treating people like individuals?  Uh, not likely.  

Sure.  There are a lot of bad Muslims.  But there are a lot of bad Christians, atheists and agnostics, too.  It's why rational people judge each individual based on the content of their character and not some ridiculous religious test.  Maybe you should try watching your videos again.  Check out the stats again.  Only this time, think about the opposite numbers.  The numbers of people that you feel justified in maligning because of the others.  So even if you trust these numbers, if 27% of Muslims think apostates should be executed, that means 73% of them do not!  And so on.

Finally, if you are really worried about a terrorist killing you, then you are really falling for the boogeyman.  You like statistics, right?  You're far more likely to be killed by a shark - do you stay out of the ocean?  Would you spend trillions of dollars and give up your liberty to keep sharks out of the ocean?  If it's a political fear you have, your just as likely to have a college-educated secular white vote to take away your liberties as a Muslim.  But no...  You have a boogeyman to fear.  Completely irrational no matter which way you cut it.

Here's a tip.  Just try to get to know people as individuals.  When you do that, you can get down to real reasons to hate people.  At least then it won't be based on some stupid fear you have about what segment of the population they share.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Honestly, the first thing I would do as a Dictator is pass a law sentencing every adult who uses the word "statist" to the guillotine. What exactly is liberty? How are you defining it? This sounds like a creepy cult mentality. Hey 90% of America is bloc voting for the Democratic Party but man, at least we still have our liberty!

----------


## otherone

> Here's a tip.  Just try to get to know people as individuals.  When you do that, you can get down to real reasons to hate people.  At least then it won't be based on some stupid fear you have about what segment of the population they share.


Another tip:  Hold people accountable for what they do, not what you fear they might do.

----------


## oyarde

I like Liberty , we do not though live in a liberty society we live in a welfare society . Given the fact that we live in a welfare society and the likelihood of that ever changing without economic collapse is nil , is there a legitimate reason that the US welfare nation allows immigration at all ? I am aware of no reasons .

----------


## kahless

> Lol funny the user "AZJoe" used the same word ("verbose") to describe my comments in his neg rep of my post. Seems like this guy likes to talk by pointing and grunting. Judging by his prior substance-less "#NotAllMuslims" post he's probably afraid of actual arguments that can't fit onto bumper stickers, like most Americans.


Like Ender maybe AZjoe is another Muslim.  See posting pattern.




> Posting pattern of RPF Muslim activists:
> 
> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> 
> 4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.
> ...


You quoted this part a few posts back: "Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration", notice I called out "immigration",  in other words immigrants coming here and receiving welfare, not American single moms.

----------


## Thor

> Listen, I watched your video yesterday (didn't bother with the rest).  I'm not sure what you thought was going to happen???  Did you think I was going to stop treating people like individuals?  Uh, not likely.


Well speak up then...  I only asked about 4 or 5 times if anyone watched them..  Did you not read those queries?  

So the killing of Farkhunda was cool with you?  The muslim patrols in London on non muslims?  The Swedish $#@! holes, I mean "no go zones"?  

"Oh, that is a minority.  You can't group an individual into a minority"

Bull $#@!...




> Sure.  There are a lot of bad Muslims.


Yes, there are..  a whole lot...




> But there are a lot of bad Christians, atheists and agnostics, too.  It's why rational people judge each individual based on the content of their character and not some ridiculous religious test.


Yes, there are...  but none of them follow a "religion" (aka political party) that wants to conquer everyone else at all costs....




> Maybe you should try watching your videos again.  Check out the stats again.  Only this time, think about the opposite numbers.  The numbers of people that you feel justified in maligning because of the others.  So even if you trust these numbers, if 27% of Muslims think apostates should be executed, that means 73% of them do not!  And so on.


So 3 out of 10 people walking the streets who want to stone you is A-OK with you?  Got it.




> Finally, if you are really worried about a terrorist killing you, then you are really falling for the boogeyman.  You like statistics, right?  You're far more likely to be killed by a shark - do you stay out of the ocean?  Would you spend trillions of dollars and give up your liberty to keep sharks out of the ocean?  If it's a political fear you have, your just as likely to have a college-educated secular white vote to take away your liberties as a Muslim.  But no...  You have a boogeyman to fear.  Completely irrational no matter which way you cut it.


It is common sense.  Here is danger that has raised their hand stating they are a danger.  Let's just pretend like they haven't raised their hand.  And all will be rosy.




> Here's a tip.  Just try to get to know people as individuals.  When you do that, you can get down to real reasons to hate people.  At least then it won't be based on some stupid fear you have about what segment of the population they share.


That is not needed when they have self identified as part of a group hell bent on world domination,, conquering everyone else and killing those who do not acquiesce. And removing liberty for those that do...




> Another tip:  Hold people accountable for what they do, not what you fear they might do.


Here is a tip, look at previous actions and belief systems to predict future actions and protect accordingly.

----------


## Danke

> I like Liberty , we do not though live in a liberty society we live in a welfare society . Given the fact that we live in a welfare society and the likelihood of that ever changing without economic collapse is nil , is there a legitimate reason that the US welfare nation allows immigration at all ? I am aware of no reasons .



We we could use more Vikings, they don't use welfare.

----------


## otherone

> Here is a tip, look at previous actions and belief systems to predict future actions and protect accordingly.


Here is a tip, you should credit Antifa when you quote them directly.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> We we could use more Vikings, they don't use welfare.


Their descendants do, let me know when you get your jet converted to a time machine to bring some freedom loving vikings from the past.

Try cruising at 88mph through a lightning storm.

----------


## Danke

> Try cruising at 88mph through a lightning storm.


Last time I did that it was much faster. I was blinded temporarily but I ended up only a couple seconds into the future.

----------


## oyarde

> Last time I did that it was much faster. I was blinded temporarily but I ended up only a couple seconds into the future.


I can foretell the future for you for payment up front of 6 silver eagles .

----------


## Danke

> I can foretell the future for you for payment up front of 6 silver eagles .


Let me guess.  I am at the local watering hole close to my cabin up north.  I over hear an Injuns talking as one compliments his neighbor on the nice motor he recently got for his boat.   He says in reply, I just "picked it up."   "Good find" says the other Injun.

suspiciously it looks just like the one that was taken off of my property recently.

----------


## oyarde

> Let me guess.  I am at the local watering hole close to my cabin up north.  I over hear an Injuns talking as one compliments his neighbor on the nice motor he recently got for his boat.   He says in reply, I just "picked it up."   "Good find" says the other Injun.
> 
> suspiciously it looks just like the one that was taken off of my property recently.


I am insulted .I am a Great Sagamore , I already have a boat .

----------


## Ender

> Like Ender maybe AZjoe is another Muslim.  See posting pattern.


It is YOU who have refused to discuss my answers and when I repost them it is YOU who calls names. You have been calling me a Muslim for a year now while you continually deny it. You have now gone too far calling a good man like @AZJoe names and I am calling you on it.

YOU are the perfect example of your name-calling #8 and are a HYP.O.CRITE.

----------


## kahless

> It is YOU who have refused to discuss my answers and when I repost them it is YOU who calls names. You have been calling me a Muslim for a year now while you continually deny it. You have now gone too far calling a good man like @AZJoe names and I am calling you on it.
> 
> YOU are the perfect example of your name-calling #8 and are a HYP.O.CRITE.


I have repeatedly and it always goes as I describe below.  




> Posting pattern of RPF Muslim activists:
> 
> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> 
> 4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.
> ...


No reasonable individual would discuss this issue in this manner unless they are a Muslim political activist. Therefore I asked if you are Muslim and since you never denied the claim or this list it became a belief.  So referring to you and AZJoe as Muslims is not an attack but rather a belief.

You are on #8 and #9 right now.

btw - thx for the name calling update, I added "hypocrite" to #8.

----------


## AZJoe

> Like Ender maybe AZjoe is another Muslim.  See posting pattern.


And there you have it. Resorting to feeble minded logical fallacy of the ad hominem (false and delusional based no less) is the last refuge of weak minded when their position has no substance. 
It is akin to WaPo accusing Dr. Paul, and anyone else, of being a "Russian agent" if they don't agree with lies and propaganda.

 So in the mind of Kahless, one who rejects the collectivist mindset and instead responds with facts and logic and consistently promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense, non-aggression principal, must be Muslim. 
This is not reason. Such comments are  irrational, illogical, dishonest, suggesting emotional based form of psychosis.

----------


## AuH20

If we lived in the 1880s with no entrenched bureaucracy tentacles in play, I'd probably reconsider my muslim ban perspective. But it comes down to a 'don't feed the animals' moral hazard that Dr. Paul has extensively discussed.

----------


## AZJoe

> Well speak up then...  I only asked about 4 or 5 times if anyone watched them..


The goofy films contradict Thor. The very first film repeatedly establishes that the problem are a very small subset of Muslim people, and that there are myriad sects of Islam with far varying beliefs. The clip however fails to identify that the subset is Wahhabism/Salafism sponsored by Saudi Arabia as well as Washington. Thus  the very clip Thor relies upon directly negates the universal collectivist mindset of Muslims that Thor promotes.

Further, for every clip depicting Muslim imbeciles or gang one can can easily find or make hundreds of clips depicting people of Muslim faith that are the direct opposite - peaceful, charitable, tolerant, productive, intelligent, benign, etc. 

What the clips actually establish is that certain nations have horrible to no vetting process for immigrants, refugees,  and visitors. As if we did not know.  What do you expect when  certain nations accept hundreds of thousands to millions of refugees that are not and cannot be vetted due to the war-torn destruction of reliable records and process, and come from areas where there are widespread defeated Wahhabi factions (Washington's Al Qaeda, ISIS, FSA, etc.) that have embedded themselves into the refugees to escape destruction. Well Duh. With such a process, of course you are going to end up with thousands of bad and violent individuals. It simply confirms what we already knew about certain nations' vetting process - they have none of any practical effect. 
There is no Ah-ha revelation in these goofy clips. 

Nor do the clips establish any universal trait inherent in all of nearly 2 billion individuals of the world's population.
It does the opposite. It merely reveals the obvious - that not only are there varying Muslim beliefs, but also that all people, including Muslims, are individuals and have different beliefs. Some are bad and when a nation has no vetting process for millions of refugees they will end up with thousands of bad people that form criminal gangs. When that nation(s) further fails to enforce its own laws against aggressive initiation of violence by those individuals, it promotes those criminals. 

The clips do not prove the validity of the collectivist mindset;  Rather the clips prove a failure of bad government vetting and policies. It shows that these governments have their own collectivist mindset by their refusing to properly vet these refugees the governments fail to recognize that all refugees are not uniformly alike, that they are individuals, and that many of the refugees will be criminals or violent and/or former Al Qaeda/ISIS/FSA Wahhabis.

----------


## Superfluous Man

If you believe that somebody is guilty of conspiring to commit a crime and want to punish them for that by violating what would be their natural rights if they were not criminals, then you have to follow due process and prove them guilty of that crime before doing that.

It's immoral to support some kind of pre-crime enforcement against people because you believe they are more likely to be future criminals because of some label they apply to themselves.

This has to be done on an individual basis, one person at a time.

----------


## kahless

> And there you have it. Resorting to feeble minded logical fallacy of the ad hominem (false and delusional based no less) is the last refuge of weak minded when their position has no substance. 
> It is akin to WaPo accusing Dr. Paul, and anyone else, of being a "Russian agent" if they don't agree with lies and propaganda.
> 
>  So in the mind of Kahless, one who rejects the collectivist mindset and instead responds with facts and logic and consistently promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense, non-aggression principal, must be Muslim. 
> This is not reason. Such comments are  irrational, illogical, dishonest, suggesting emotional based form of psychosis.


I honestly did not mean that as an attack but rather an observation from your posting history.  It is not about what you describe but rather I cannot get my head around why you ignore #2 - #7, and respond only with #1 and #8, below.  Well, if you take such offense to it I suppose you are not?

You see I want to live consistently in a region that "promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense and non-aggression principal".   Your support of policies make this impossible in my lifetime short and long term is why I came to the conclusion that I did.  

Not once did I attack anyone here but I cannot say the same for you and Ender for my disagreeing with your love for bringing people here that want to deny me life and liberty.




> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> 
> 4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.
> 
> 5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.
> ...


Thinking about this list more I could probably add more like, "being made a foreigner in my own land with a language and culture I do not understand is unfair to do to people living here".  But we have not gotten that far in the thread yet for you and Ender to deny it is a problem for people living here?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> eigner in my own land with a language and culture I do not understand is unfair to do to people living here".


That is nonsense.

Nobody would interfere with your right to speak whatever language you want to whomever else wants to speak it with you and live according to whatever culture you want. The fact that other people in your vicinity choose to exercise that very same right to speak some other language with one another and live according to a different culture is none of your business, not unfair to you in any way, and not something you or anyone else have any right to impede.

----------


## otherone

> I honestly did not mean that as an attack but rather an observation from your posting history.  It is not about what you describe but rather I cannot get my head around why you ignore #2 - #7, and respond only with #1 and #8, below.  Well, if you take such offense to it I suppose you are not?
> 
> You see I want to live consistently in a region that "promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense and non-aggression principal".   Your support of policies make this impossible in my lifetime short and long term is why I came to the conclusion that I did.  
> 
> Not once did I attack anyone here but I cannot say the same for you and Ender for my disagreeing with your love for bringing people here that want to deny me life and liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about this list more I could probably add more like, "being made a foreigner in my own land with a language and culture I do not understand is unfair to do to people living here". * But we have not gotten that far in the thread yet* for you and Ender to deny it is a problem for people living here?


Haven't gotten that far? It was fairly obvious that is the underlying premise of your entire argument.

----------


## kahless

> That is nonsense.
> 
> Nobody would interfere with your right to speak whatever language you want to whomever else wants to speak it with you. The fact that other people in your vicinity choose to exercise that very same right to speak some other language with one another is none of your business, not unfair to you in any way, and not something you or anyone else have any right to impede.


Really, nonsense?  Like the US is made up solely of wealthy people that can simply pickup and move when the culture or language changes in their community to some rural homestead to live among their own? How many times do you expect people to have the ability to keep doing this in their lifetime?

Just stick your head in the sand and completely deny the millions of middle class and poor people in cities and suburbia that are being outnumbered by immigration and wake up one day to culture and language shock.

The community which I was raised went from 90% European English speaking white to 20%.  It is not easy especially for senior citizens to adapt to the culture shock, discrimination and languages issues in their community.  This is taking place all over the US in cities and surburbia.  People that promote open borders are effectively promoting abuse of the native population.

----------


## kahless

> Haven't gotten that far? It was fairly obvious that is the underlying premise of your entire argument.


Care to address #2 - #7?




> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> 
> 4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.
> 
> 5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.
> ...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Really, nonsense?  Like the US is made up solely of wealthy people that can simply pickup and move when the culture or language changes in their community to some rural homestead to live among their own? How many times do you expect people to have the ability to keep doing this in their lifetime?


No. But just what are you calling "their community"? As if the culture and language their neighbors speak and live in the privacy of their own homes, or in communication between one another, is any of their business. If you want to keep speaking English, and living according to whatever cultural norms you want, and demand that your children marry other likeminded people and raise their kids that way, go right ahead. Your language and culture will last for as long as they have people who share your views and want to preserve them. Leave your neighbors alone. They don't have to participate along with you if they don't want to.

And we certainly can't tolerate a government that arrogates to itself the authority to legislate for all of us what cultural practices we need to follow and avoid, and what vocabulary and grammar we need to use, so as to conform to some official American language and culture.

----------


## otherone

> Care to address #2 - #7?


UGH. REALLY?

Your concerns are completely garbled.  You throw terms around like they themselves are an argument, without considering what those terms mean, or imply. Any attempt to debate actual content with you is diverted to previous, unsubstantiated, concerns.
You are simply xenophobic. You whine like a SJW, wringing your hands about being a victim.  You try to conceal this by speaking of "risk management", and government-doled "libertarianism".

----------


## otherone

> And we certainly can't tolerate a government that arrogates to itself the authority to legislate for all of us what cultural practices we need to follow and avoid, and what vocabulary and grammar we need to use, so as to conform to some *official* American language and culture.


Especially as the official culture is revisionist.

----------


## kahless

> No. But just what are you calling "their community"? As if the culture and language their neighbors speak and live in the privacy of their own homes, or in communication between one another, is any of their business. If you want to keep speaking English, and living according to whatever cultural norms you want, go right ahead. Leave your neighbors alone. They don't have to participate along with you if they don't want to.


Added #8. thx




> 1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.
> 
> 2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.
> 
> 3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.
> 
> 4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.
> 
> 5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.
> ...

----------


## CaptUSA

> If we lived in the 1880s with no entrenched bureaucracy tentacles in play, I'd probably reconsider my muslim ban perspective. But it comes down to a 'don't feed the animals' moral hazard that Dr. Paul has extensively discussed.


Finally addresses the real problem with immigration.  Still thinks you fix a government-created problem by adding MOAR government.

----------


## CaptUSA

> UGH. REALLY?
> 
> Your concerns are completely garbled.  You throw terms around like they themselves are an argument, without considering what those terms mean, or imply. Any attempt to debate actual content with you is diverted to previous, unsubstantiated, concerns.
> You are simply xenophobic. You whine like a SJW, wringing your hands about being a victim.  You try to conceal this by speaking of "risk management", and government-doled "libertarianism".


Outta rep.  But exactly spot on!

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The community which I was raised went from 90% European English speaking white to 20%.  It is not easy especially for senior citizens to adapt to the culture shock, discrimination and languages issues in their community.  This is taking place all over the US in cities and surburbia.  People that promote open borders are effectively promoting abuse of the native population.


I can't fathom what kind of logical contortions must go through your mind to be able to call other people being non-European and speaking a language other than English with one another a form of abuse committed against anyone.

If the racist elderly people you're talking about want to confine their interactions to people just like themselves, that's their right, whether those people make up 20% of some larger population or 90% of it. But interfering with the rights of other people to be different from them is not their right.

----------


## kahless

> Outta rep.  But exactly spot on!


So what you and   @otherone are saying is:

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the  following issues:

2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. 

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration. 

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time. 

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

???

----------


## otherone

> So what you and @otherone are saying is:
> 
> 1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the following issues:
> 
> 2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. 
> 
> 3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.
> 
> 4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.
> ...


Can't speak for CaptUSA, but it's futile chasing strawmen who move around goalposts.

----------


## kahless

> Can't speak for CaptUSA, but it's futile chasing strawmen who move around goalposts.


I cleaned it up specifically for you after your complaint that it was garbled.  Which ones do not reflect your viewpoint?

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the following issues:

2. No risk management on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

???

----------


## CaptUSA

> So what you and   @otherone are saying is:
> 
> 1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the  following issues:
> 
> 2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. 
> 
> 3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.
> 
> 4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.
> ...


I'll play, but your strawmen terms are silly...

1.  Please show me where I said that - otherwise, please acknowledge that you're making $#@! up.
2.  Risk management??!!!  Holy Shyte!  Perhaps a little context of the risk level compared to the wealth and liberty given up to mitigate those "risks"!
3.  I certainly have concerns.  They just don't make me irrational.  I can still see good individuals among the bad ones.
4.  Same concern I have for any victims of senseless violence - not sure why we're bringing the thought-crimes into this.  (Does is matter to you why a crazy kills?)
5.  I have more concern about the authoritarian methods you would use, to be honest...
6.  I have issues with the welfare state.  Period.  This is the real problem.  End that and the other problems go away.  But you don't solve a government-created problem with MOAR government.  That's the statist fantasy.
7.  I don't worry about mass immigration for that reason - I'm already swarmed in a nation of people that make a libertarian society impossible - you included.  Should I collectivize all those people, too, and call for MOAR government to oust them, maybe???
8.  This is only a problem when you have governments with too much power.  Take away their power and restore minority rights (you know...  the smallest minority - individual rights) and that problem ceases to exist.  You certainly don't want to give governments MOAR power!

9.  Treat each person as an individual with inherent individual rights.  Act on it.  Believe it.  And live it.  Otherwise, you're just as big a problem as anyone else who ignores those things - regardless of their religion or ideology.

----------


## otherone

> I cleaned it up specifically for you after your complaint that it was garbled.  Which ones do not reflect your viewpoint?
> 
> Saying you "cleaned it up" doesn't mean it still makes any sense
> 
> 1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the following issues:
> 
> You conflate Islamic with political terrorism.  Were the IRA Catholic terrorists?
> 
> 2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.
> ...


???

----------


## kahless

> I'll play, but your strawmen terms are silly...
> 
> 1.  Please show me where I said that - otherwise, please acknowledge that you're making $#@! up.





> Or maybe he realizes how absurd it is to suggest someone might be dangerous to you just because he shares a religion with people who happen to be getting bombed relentlessly by our government?





> 2.  Risk management??!!!  Holy Shyte!  Perhaps a little context of the risk level compared to the wealth and liberty given up to mitigate those "risks"!


You are against minimizing the risk by having some form of immigration controls such as a ban on Muslims from regions with activist terror cells.




> 3.  I certainly have concerns.  They just don't make me irrational.  I can still see good individuals among the bad ones.
> 4.  Same concern I have for any victims of senseless violence - not sure why we're bringing the thought-crimes into this.  (Does is matter to you why a crazy kills?)
> 5.  I have more concern about the authoritarian methods you would use, to be honest...


So again you have no issue with immigration of peoples that support and will implement an authoritarian belief system that we will be subject to.




> 6.  I have issues with the welfare state.  Period.  This is the real problem.  End that and the other problems go away.  But you don't solve a government-created problem with MOAR government.  That's the statist fantasy.
> 7.  I don't worry about mass immigration for that reason - I'm already swarmed in a nation of people that make a libertarian society impossible - you included.  Should I collectivize all those people, too, and call for MOAR government to oust them, maybe???


By importing people that use and believe in the welfare state they will eventually vote for MOAR government. Not only have you surrendered your beliefs to statism you are now advocating for statism using immigration as a tool to achieve the means.




> 8.  This is only a problem when you have governments with too much power.  Take away their power and restore minority rights (you know...  the smallest minority - individual rights) and that problem ceases to exist.  You certainly don't want to give governments MOAR power!


Does not change native population being made culturally and through language a stranger in their own lands.  Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.




> Treat each person as an individual with inherent individual rights.  Act on it.  Believe it.  And live it.  Otherwise, you're just as big a problem as anyone else who ignores those things - regardless of their religion or ideology.


By supporting mass immigration of peoples that believe otherwise you are directly working against this belief.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Are "Libertarian" and "bans" compatible?

----------


## otherone

> Are "Libertarian" and "bans" compatible?


Sure.  If it's a "Libertarian Ban" or "Libertarian Curfew".  It has the word "Libertarian" right in it.

----------


## AuH20

> Are "Libertarian" and "bans" compatible?


In 2017, it is. We live in the most liberty hostile period in American History. The federal government is hellbent on replacing the current citizenry with malleable replacements.

----------


## otherone

> In 2017, it is. We live in the most liberty hostile period in American History. The federal government is hellbent on replacing the current citizenry with malleable replacements.


The current citizenry isn't malleable?  Half of them are terrified by Climate Change, the other half by Muslims.  It's a win-win for Washington.

----------


## AuH20

> *The current citizenry isn't malleable*?  Half of them are terrified by Climate Change, the other half by Muslims.  It's a win-win for Washington.


Not malleable enough for their liking. The oligarchs want to ramrod their agenda and the current populace has resisted to a degree. If they bring in the Muslims and Hispanics in large numbers, they could rapidly implement the entire agenda, from gun banning to automatic cars. The whole enchilada could proceed within a very short time period. The desperate dirt people from the nether regions of the world can be bought extremely cheap, in comparison to the spoiled Western counterparts, who have been brought up on the lies of Madison Avenue and who also can remember recent history when the quality of life was superior.

----------


## CaptUSA

> ...


So...  You didn't really want an answer, then??  

Either live under "their" form of authoritarianism or yours?  Yeah, I'll keep advocating for individual liberty, thanks.

----------


## otherone

> Not malleable enough for their liking. The oligarchs want to ramrod their agenda and *the current populace has resisted to a degree.* If they bring in the Muslims and Hispanics in large numbers, they could rapidly implement the entire agenda, from gun banning to automatic cars. The whole enchilada within a very short time period. The desperate dirt people from the nether regions of the world can be bought extremely cheap.


The state relies on the population being at odds with each other.  It's pretty basic political science. A united people would be a threat to the power structure.

----------


## timosman

> So...  You didn't really want an answer, then??  
> 
> Either live under "their" form of authoritarianism or yours?  Yeah, I'll keep advocating for individual liberty, thanks.


Which bridge do you live under?

----------


## otherone

> So...  You didn't really want an answer, then??  
> 
> Either live under "their" form of authoritarianism or yours?  Yeah, I'll keep advocating for individual liberty, thanks.


But Kahless's has funnel cake instead of falafel.

----------


## timosman

> Are "Libertarian" and "bans" compatible?


What are you advocating? Swinging dicks in public?

----------


## kahless

> So...  You didn't really want an answer, then??  
> 
> Either live under "their" form of authoritarianism or yours?  Yeah, I'll keep advocating for individual liberty, thanks.


What  are you talking about,  I responded point by point a few posts above yours, no three dots in any post.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6549816

Ultimately I see your position as a direct assault on individual liberty in the US since you have no recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

----------


## otherone

> What are you advocating? Swinging dicks in public?


Is that what freedom means to you?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Are "Libertarian" and "bans" compatible?


They sure are, even the anarchists want to ban tyrants (or any government at all).

----------


## timosman

> They sure are, even the anarchists want to ban tyrants (or any government at all).


Zippy is a hardcore libertarian.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> The low hanging fruit first.


If you understand the current power dynamics in America, the low hanging fruit seems to have allied with mid hanging fruits with big pockets. Kushner and Ivanka would not let Trump move too far away from democrats/AIPAC type groups that oppose Islamic refugees admission bans.


*Jewish groups pan Trump for signing refugee ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day*
By Laura Koran, CNN
January 28, 2017 


The action temporarily blocks entry to citizens from 7 majority-Muslim nationsOne of its most vocal critics is former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 

Washington (CNN)Many  organizations that advocate for refugees slammed President Donald  Trump's executive action Friday imposing "extreme vetting" on those  fleeing to America, among them Jewish groups that took particular  exception to the day on which he signed it: Holocaust Remembrance Day.




Muslims-Jews seem to have allied for common interest perhaps, you really think Trump can move against such powerful interests?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Zippy is a hardcore libertarian.



He's a "supporting member."  He even says so!

----------


## otherone

> He's a "supporting member."  He even says so!


There are a lot of Zippy's here.  Some are paid.  Some aren't.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> There are a lot of Zippy's here.



Fo sho!

----------


## oyarde

> Are "Libertarian" and "bans" compatible?


I never thought so but I guess banning the Liberty of others to grant mine is something  I can learn to live with . If my state banned Illinois from entry or charged a toll and required they return to the craphole they came from I could live with it .

----------


## kahless

> I never thought so but I guess banning the Liberty of others to grant mine is something  I can learn to live with . If my state banned Illinois from entry or charged a toll and required they return to the craphole they came from I could live with it .


If you are against a ban I guess you can say you stayed true to some textbook definition of left libertarianism.  All the while by doing so moving further away from the ability to experience it in real life.  If you support the ban a great many people move closer to experiencing liberty, Paleolibertarianism.  I take the later.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I never thought so but I guess banning the Liberty of others to grant mine is something  I can learn to live with . If my state banned Illinois from entry or charged a toll and required they return to the craphole they came from I could live with it .


Real freedoms should apply to everybody.   If you agree somebody should have their freedoms restricted you agree that you can/should have some of your freedoms taken too.

----------


## sparebulb

> Real freedoms should apply to everybody.   If you agree somebody should have their freedoms restricted you agree that you can/should have some of your freedoms taken too.


This is a preachy rationalization formed in the sound of a fart.

It smells bad too, considering the source.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Real freedoms should apply to everybody.   If you agree somebody should have their freedoms restricted you agree that you can/should have some of your freedoms taken too.


Nobody's freedoms are being restricted, they don't have a right to come here any more than I have right to enter their territory, it is a privilege that can be extended or retracted.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep  calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.


That must explain why 0.0001% of Muslims commit terrorist acts. 




> Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation.  Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; its still radical.


The Protestant Reformation unleashed huge numbers of violent lunatics, including the ancestors of all modern communists. 




> Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin

----------


## Thor

> Real freedoms should apply to everybody.   If you agree somebody should have their freedoms restricted you agree that you can/should have some of your freedoms taken too.


So then the vehicle in which we allow freedoms (rights for everyone, no matter), is the same vehicle that destroys freedom.  

C'est la vie...  It is as it should be.  Stop fighting against the state, it is inevitable.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That must explain why 0.0001% of Muslims commit terrorist acts. 
> 
> 
> 
> The Protestant Reformation unleashed huge numbers of violent lunatics, including the ancestors of all modern communists.


Terrorism is not the primary risk factor, their statist/tribal culture is.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Terrorism is not the primary risk factor, their statist/tribal culture is.


Therefore, we must embrace our own statist/tribal culture..

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Therefore, we must embrace our own statist/tribal culture..


No, how we run things at home and who we let in are two different things, just like how much I trust my family and how I deal with them are different from how I deal with outsiders or how I might choose who to marry or adopt.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No, how we run things at home and who we let in are two different things, just like how much I trust my family and how I deal with them are different from how I deal with outsiders or how I might choose who to marry or adopt.


According to whom? 

..Why do you think Donald Trump is the current President?

Is it because voters made a rational appraisal of immigration policy, and favor a statist one, but are otherwise liberals?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> According to whom? 
> 
> ..Why do you think Donald Trump is the current President?
> 
> Is it because voters made a rational appraisal of immigration policy, and favor a statist one, but are otherwise liberals?


What the public currently believes is not the point, and they are more classically liberal than the immigrants that are being brought in anyway.

It is possible and proper to have a liberty oriented culture and control immigration to keep from losing it, that is what we need to convert the voting public to believe in.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What the public currently believes is not the point


It's what determines the outcome of elections.

_...whether there ought to be elections is another matter._ 




> and they are more classically liberal than the immigrants that are being brought in anyway


They're not. 




> It is possible and proper to have a liberty oriented culture and control immigration to keep from losing it, that is what we need to convert the voting public to believe in.


It's possible, via sufficient propaganda, to convert the public to vegetarian Zoroastrianism..

My point is that the practical - real, not hypothetical - effect of all the anti-immigrant talk is nothing but more statism across the board.

Who needs to abolish the Fed, cut spending, liberalize the economy, etc; it's the foreigners fault, don't you know?

...and DHS needs more funding too.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It's possible, via sufficient propaganda, to convert the public to vegetarian Zoroastrianism..
> 
> My point is that the practical - real, not hypothetical - effect of all the anti-immigrant talk is nothing but more statism across the board.
> 
> Who needs to abolish the Fed, cut spending, liberalize the economy, etc; it's the foreigners fault, don't you know?
> 
> ...and DHS needs more funding too.


And the practical - real, not hypothetical - effect of bringing in hordes of statist/tribal/communist immigrants is much more statism across the board and a guarantee that liberty will be lost for generations if not forever, at least many Americans believe in freedom in the abstract and thus can be educated about what needs to be done far easier.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And the practical - real, not hypothetical - effect of bringing in hordes of statist/tribal/communist immigrants is much more statism across the board and a guarantee that liberty will be lost for generations if not forever, at least many Americans believe in freedom in the abstract and thus can be educated about what needs to be done far easier.


No. 99% of Americans know *nothing* and act on emotion from their "education" or the media.

They're no better, nor worse, than the most illiterate third worlder. 

We are where we are because of the voting of "real" Americans.

And the only reason we're better off than many (certainly not all) foreign states is that we don't get bombed; we do the bombing.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No. 99% of Americans know *nothing* and act on emotion from their "education" or the media.
> 
> They're no better, nor worse, than the most illiterate third worlder. 
> 
> We are where we are because of the voting of "real" Americans.
> 
> And the only reason we're better off than many (certainly not all) foreign states is that we don't get bombed; we do the bombing.


If that were true we would be all out communist by now.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If that were true we would be all out communist by now.


Wait a while.

----------


## TheCount

> If that were true we would be all out communist by now.


Communism is not the only type of statism.

Infighting among the different types of American statists has meant that their progress in eliminating liberty has been spread over a wide variety of topics.  Still, they've made consistent progress with the help of folks like you.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Communism is not the only type of statism.
> 
> Infighting among the different types of American statists has meant that their progress in eliminating liberty has been spread over a wide variety of topics.  Still, they've made consistent progress with the help of folks like you.


LOL

----------


## oyarde

This thread should have included a poll .

----------


## Identity

> Who needs to abolish the Fed, cut spending, liberalize the economy, etc; it's the foreigners fault, don't you know?



Yes, that's right. I can picture our Libertopia right now- hoards of Latin American and Saudis marching down the suburbs of the West, "_Hey hey! Ho ho! The minimum wage has got to go! 19th century economics are the way to go! Ho ho! Hey hey!"_ Different men of religion, race, culture walking hand-in-hand singing kumbaya chanting, "_Corporations shall overcome! Corporations shall overcome! Wage slavery for all!"_ 

PS: No serious institution really cares about abolishing the Federal Reserve, we're thankful at this point to have such an institution- without it you would see a depression worse than that of the 30's. At best you have the Mises Institute that advocates for its abolishment but the opinion is rather fringe in the field of economics. Based upon the other things your types have to say about such matters it makes me much more inclined to side with the mainstream than Alex Jones-esque weirdos.

----------


## Identity

> Real freedoms should apply to everybody.   If you agree somebody should have their freedoms restricted you agree that you can/should have some of your freedoms taken too.


Real freedom is living a paleolithic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, free from obligation or commitment to anyone outside your immediate tribe/family. Contemporary civilization requires generations worth of infrastructure, State intervention, social cohesion, and shared interests & values. Accepting mass immigration or even just any immigration because "freedumb" has to be one of the strangest most half-cocked arguments I've ever come across.  Although such hilarious insights do not seem to be atypical for your posts. Presupposing that society ought to have such simplistic notions (it doesn't, and most people would never agree with you) is unfounded.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Real freedom is* living a paleolithic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, free from obligation or commitment to anyone outside your immediate tribe/family*. Contemporary civilization requires generations worth of infrastructure, State intervention, social cohesion, and shared interests & values. Accepting mass immigration or even just any immigration because "freedumb" has to be one of the strangest most half-cocked arguments I've ever come across.  Although such hilarious insights do not seem to be atypical for your posts. Presupposing that society ought to have such simplistic notions (it doesn't, and most people would never agree with you) is unfounded.


This isn't the world of 1000 years ago.  People travel and mix and trade ideas and goods which benefit everybody. Even ancient tribes migrated and traded. But if you want to live in a log cabin in the forest by yourself you can still do that.

----------


## Identity

> People travel and mix and trade ideas and goods which benefit everybody.


Global communication just dumbs down culture and appeals to the lowest common denominator. Democracy is merely a game of trying to simplify your snake oil onto a bumper sticker while keeping a steady amount of donor money. Then once in office voting along your party when it's politically convenient for you to do so. Hardly some grand enlightenment of humanity. Right now we don't have your ideal- rather we have one side which promotes globalism, oligarchy, and diversity. On the other side you have people maligned by the people, thrown into jail for expressing their opinions, beaten violently when peacefully assembling together, and censored by mainstream companies, government forces, and social circles. Not some stupid _"Hey maaan let's sit down, smoke a blunt and talk about our ideas maaaan"_ type hippy notion that you're implying. Also, exchanging ideas is not always a good thing- ideas have consequences as I said earlier in the thread. Something that both sides (left & right) have difficulty accepting.




> Even ancient tribes migrated and traded. But if you want to live in a log cabin in the forest by yourself you can still do that.


Strange how Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Hungary are perfectly fine without mass islamic migrations. I suppose the "ideas" of clitorectomies and honor killings have yet to benefit those countries.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Global communication just dumbs down culture and appeals to the lowest common denominator. Democracy is merely a game of trying to simplify your snake oil onto a bumper sticker while keeping a steady amount of donor money. Then once in office voting along your party when it's politically convenient for you to do so. Hardly some grand enlightenment of humanity. Right now we don't have your ideal- rather we have one side which promotes globalism, oligarchy, and diversity. On the other side you have people maligned by the people, thrown into jail for expressing their opinions, beaten violently when peacefully assembling together, and censored by mainstream companies, government forces, and social circles. Not some stupid _"Hey maaan let's sit down, smoke a blunt and talk about our ideas maaaan"_ type hippy notion that you're implying. Also, exchanging ideas is not always a good thing- ideas have consequences as I said earlier in the thread. Something that both sides (left & right) have difficulty accepting.
> 
> 
> 
> *Strange how Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Hungary are perfectly fine without mass islamic migrations.* I suppose the "ideas" of clitorectomies and honor killings have yet to benefit those countries.


The US doesn't have "mass Islamic migrations" either.  They are only about 1% of the population and less than ten percent of immigrants.

----------


## timosman

> This isn't the world of 1000 years ago.  People travel and mix and trade ideas and goods which benefit everybody. Even ancient tribes migrated and traded. But if you want to live in a log cabin in the forest by yourself you can still do that.


You have to worry about people on the other side of the globe. If you don't, they might not survive and you will be labeled an obstructionist.

----------


## Identity

> The US doesn't have "mass Islamic migrations" either.  They are only about 1% of the population.


Never said we did but this is also another lame tactic used. In one breath you'll praise diversity and the _"hey maaan let's exchange our ideas"_ type ideal, in the next breath you'll say immigration is a non-issue and immigration rates will consistently remain the same so we shouldn't even be discussing the issue. Famously enough Ted Kennedy said something similar during the passing of the 1965 Immigration Act. Right now massive amounts of immigration have turned California and Virginia into blue-leaning states. If immigration continues consistently (unlikely seeing as how it benefits major religious players, Democratic politicians, and the capitalist donor class. We'll expect *more immigration* post-Trump if anything) then you're going to see a permanent Democratic majority. Perhaps the GOP will make a come-back, but it won't be in any recognizable form, i.e. one could expect a total overhaul in ideology, fiscal conservatism, and nativist skepticism. How is this beneficial for our interests and our society? I've yet to get a coherent answer from your side and expect none here.

----------


## Zippyjuan

At current rates, Islam could become a majority religion in the US in oh, maybe 100 years or so.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, that's right. I can picture our Libertopia right now- hoards of Latin American and Saudis marching down the suburbs of the West, "_Hey hey! Ho ho! The minimum wage has got to go! 19th century economics are the way to go! Ho ho! Hey hey!"_ Different men of religion, race, culture walking hand-in-hand singing kumbaya chanting, "_Corporations shall overcome! Corporations shall overcome! Wage slavery for all!"_ 
> 
> PS: No serious institution really cares about abolishing the Federal Reserve, we're thankful at this point to have such an institution- without it you would see a depression worse than that of the 30's. At best you have the Mises Institute that advocates for its abolishment but the opinion is rather fringe in the field of economics. Based upon the other things your types have to say about such matters it makes me much more inclined to side with the mainstream than Alex Jones-esque weirdos.


QED




> No. 99% of Americans know *nothing* and act on emotion from their "education" or the media.
> 
> They're no better, nor worse, than the most illiterate third worlder. 
> 
> We are where we are because of the voting of "real" Americans.

----------


## timosman

> At current rates, Islam could become a majority religion in the US in oh, maybe 100 years or so.


About the same time as you getting green bars.

----------


## otherone

> QED


On one hand he describes how retarded the masses are, on the other, how his ideology is superior because the masses agree with him.

----------


## Thor



----------


## enhanced_deficit

Unintended side effects of muslim refugees exodus from Syria/Libya and other mideast war zones to Europe?


*‘Pray for an Islamic Holocaust’: Tens of thousands from Europe’s far right march in Poland*

    By Avi Selk  November 12   

             Thousands gathered in central Warsaw on Nov.  11 for a march organized by radical far-right groups. The march  coincided with Poland’s Independence Day.                          (Młodzież Wszechpolska)         

  The _official_ celebration  of Poland’s 99th independence day proceeded innocuously, with  ceremonies in the capital. There was even a visit from the European  Council’s internationalist president, who insisted to Politico that  Saturday’s festivities would proceed “with a smile on our face and with joy in our hearts.”
 But  for blocks and blocks and blocks beyond the central towers of Warsaw, a  much larger crowd swelled beneath a cloud of red smoke. The tens of  thousands of people came from across Poland and beyond, and reporters  documented their signs:
 “Clean Blood,” as seen by Politico.
 “Pray for an Islamic Holocaust,” per CNN.
 “White  Europe” streaked across another banner, the Associated Press reported —  as about 60,000 people chanted and marched through Warsaw in an annual  gathering of Europe’s far-right movements, which have by now grown to  dwarf the official version of Poland's independence day.
_ [Trump was first U.S. president to visit Warsaw without visiting the Warsaw Ghetto since 1989]_  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d=pm_world_pop

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Unintended side effects of muslim refugees exodus from Syria/Libya and other mideast war zones to Europe?
> 
> 
> *‘Pray for an Islamic Holocaust’: Tens of thousands from Europe’s far right march in Poland*
> 
>     By Avi Selk  November 12   
> 
>              Thousands gathered in central Warsaw on Nov.  11 for a march organized by radical far-right groups. The march  coincided with Poland’s Independence Day.                          (Młodzież Wszechpolska)         
> 
> ...


I said "Eurabia" was intended to provoke this kind of backlash and now it has, I also said if moderate reasonable measures were not taken that the plan would succeed, if you want to see this kind of thing in America keep flooding us with barbarian hordes legal and illegal, people who are pushed too far tend to overreact.

----------


## Identity

> On one hand he describes how retarded the masses are, on the other, how his ideology is superior because the masses agree with him.


Way to miss my point- you appeal to authority with the typical corny "_You dun no' nuddin' about economics"_ arguments while ignoring the general consensus within academia. Silliness. If you had some sort of authority in the matter (i.e. broad consensus within multiple schools within the field) then I could see your argument having a semblance of authenticity behind it. We have PhD's in economics who subscribe to Libertarian Socialism- why am I wrong to cite them and rely upon their ideas yet someone quote-mining typical Austrian talking points is valid? 

What Revolution was doing was just throwing out buzzwords with no explanation behind them: don't focus on the real issue of immigration and the blue takeover of America- better to just focus on da Federal Reserve man! [Hey did you know the Federal Reserve isn't even federal??? Alex Jones!11!!!] No one is going to be convinced with that level of retardedness and it's not a feasible strategy going forward. Good luck trying to abolish the Fed or any other comical Libertarian ideal when the Democrats have a permanent majority in the Congress and the party is run by oligarchs. We'll focus on real issues like immigration which are winning issues and necessary to tackle if we wish to keep America functioning properly.

----------


## kahless

> Unintended side effects of muslim refugees exodus from Syria/Libya and other mideast war zones to Europe?
> *‘Pray for an Islamic Holocaust’: Tens of thousands from Europe’s far right march in Poland*
> 
>     By Avi Selk  November 12   
> 
>              Thousands gathered in central Warsaw on Nov.  11 for a march organized by radical far-right groups. The march  coincided with Poland’s Independence Day.                          (Młodzież Wszechpolska)         
> 
>   The _official_ celebration  of Poland’s 99th independence day proceeded innocuously, with  ceremonies in the capital. There was even a visit from the European  Council’s internationalist president, who insisted to Politico that  Saturday’s festivities would proceed “with a smile on our face and with joy in our hearts.”
>  But  for blocks and blocks and blocks beyond the central towers of Warsaw, a  much larger crowd swelled beneath a cloud of red smoke. The tens of  thousands of people came from across Poland and beyond, and reporters  documented their signs:
> ...


No doubt there is push back but as usual for this particular article CNN and WAPO had to use lies again to push their agenda. 




> CORRECTION: Earlier versions of this article — including the original headline — cited a CNN report that said a “Pray for an Islamic Holocaust” banner was displayed at the weekend march in Warsaw. CNN has since corrected its story and removed its reference to the banner. A similar banner was hung in another Polish city in 2015, according to local reports, but not at Saturday's march. This post has been updated.

----------


## Ender

> Way to miss my point- you appeal to authority with the typical corny "_You dun no' nuddin' about economics"_ arguments while ignoring the general consensus within academia. Silliness. If you had some sort of authority in the matter (i.e. broad consensus within multiple schools within the field) then I could see your argument having a semblance of authenticity behind it. We have PhD's in economics who subscribe to Libertarian Socialism- why am I wrong to cite them and rely upon their ideas yet someone quote-mining typical Austrian talking points is valid? 
> 
> What Revolution was doing was just throwing out buzzwords with no explanation behind them: don't focus on the real issue of immigration and the blue takeover of America- better to just focus on da Federal Reserve man! [Hey did you know the Federal Reserve isn't even federal??? Alex Jones!11!!!] No one is going to be convinced with that level of retardedness and it's not a feasible strategy going forward. Good luck trying to abolish the Fed or any other comical Libertarian ideal when the Democrats have a permanent majority in the Congress and the party is run by oligarchs. We'll focus on real issues like immigration which are winning issues and necessary to tackle if we wish to keep America functioning properly.


Dude- maybe you ought to read Ron Paul about ending the FED. The money problem is pretty much the basis of everything else is wrong in the US- FIX IT, get rid of entitlements, and immigration is no longer a problem.

And there is no difference in the "blue & "red"- just different buzz words to make their followers happy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I said "Eurabia" was intended to provoke this   kind of backlash and now it has, I also said if moderate reasonable   measures were not taken that the plan would succeed, if you want to see   this kind of thing in America keep flooding us with barbarian hordes   legal and illegal, people who are pushed too far tend to   overreact.


What's going to bring this to America is precisely the narrative you're promoting. 

"To stop the rise of radical nationalism, we have to become radical nationalists" is an exceptionally preposterous argument.




> Way to miss my point- you appeal to authority with the typical corny "_You dun no' nuddin' about economics"_ arguments while ignoring the general consensus within academia. Silliness. If you had some sort of authority in the matter (i.e. broad consensus within multiple schools within the field) then I could see your argument having a semblance of authenticity behind it. We have PhD's in economics who subscribe to Libertarian Socialism- why am I wrong to cite them and rely upon their ideas yet someone quote-mining typical Austrian talking points is valid?


Ah, well, the academic consensus, yes..




> What Revolution was doing was just throwing out buzzwords with no explanation behind them: don't focus on the real issue of immigration and the blue takeover of America- better to just focus on da Federal Reserve man! [Hey did you know the Federal Reserve isn't even federal??? Alex Jones!11!!!] No one is going to be convinced with that level of retardedness and it's not a feasible strategy going forward. Good luck trying to abolish the Fed or any other comical Libertarian ideal when the Democrats have a permanent majority in the Congress and the party is run by oligarchs. We'll focus on real issues like immigration which are winning issues and necessary to tackle if we wish to keep America functioning properly.


The academic consensus, I presume?

...on another note, what exactly are you - a self-identified socialist - complaining about anyway?

The progress of socialism in the West is too _slow_ for you, or what?

If I were a socialist, I'd take a look at the news once a month, say "sweet" and go play golf.

----------


## timosman



----------


## timosman

> I have thought about it, and agree whole-heartedly.


You wouldn't be able to say that if Hillary was at the helm.

----------


## Identity

> Dude- maybe you ought to read Ron Paul about ending the FED. The money problem is pretty much the basis of everything else is wrong in the US- FIX IT, get rid of entitlements, and immigration is no longer a problem.
> 
> And there is no difference in the "blue & "red"- just different buzz words to make their followers happy.



Rawn Pawl!!1!1!!! Both parties are bad man!!1!1!!! It's amazing you guys are still around. Truly stunning that this corniness lingers.

----------


## pcosmar

> Rawn Pawl!!1!1!!! Both parties are bad man!!1!1!!! It's amazing you guys are still around. Truly stunning that this corniness lingers.


So why are socialists fighting it so vigorously that you find it necessary to join a forum and troll it.

Hm,

----------


## timosman

> So why are socialists fighting it so vigorously that you find it necessary to join a forum and troll it.
> 
> Hm,


Part of the upcoming blue wave?

----------


## Swordsmyth

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: *How did uncontrolled immigration of people from a hostile culture and religion work out over there?*

----------


## acptulsa

ronpaulnewsletters.com

So why doesn't the thread title call it Constitutional too?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So why doesn't the thread title call it Constitutional too?


It should.

----------


## acptulsa

> It should.


Of course it should.  If you're going to tell a joke, you might as well go over the top.

----------


## kahless

> [acptulsa] ronpaulnewsletters.com
> 
> So why doesn't the thread title call it Constitutional too?


^Still running around the forum spreading propaganda that this is a racist site while pushing the media narrative of so called racist newsletters. 

He should be banned.

----------


## acptulsa

> ^Still running around the forum spreading propaganda that this is a racist site while pushing the media narrative of so called racist newsletters. 
> 
> He should be banned.


By all means.  Let people post collectivist mumbo jumbo, some of which has appeared on the stormfront website, all over this place in peace.

Don't need troublemakers like me making trouble for those who are busy trying to make trouble for Rand Paul.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> [acptulsa] ronpaulnewsletters.com
> 
> So why doesn't the thread title call it Constitutional too?
> 			
> 		
> 
> ^Still running around the forum spreading propaganda that this is a racist site while pushing the media narrative of so called racist newsletters. 
> 
> He should be banned.


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Kahless again.

----------


## Jan2017

> So why doesn't the thread title call it Constitutional too?




Legal and constitutional but not a ban . . .
What is a muslim ban ?

If a country can not vet out who it is sending to our nation - even a diplomatic friend in Chad - then they had a 90-day restriction to
get those papers in order. 

"Muslim ban" is just CNN-inspired lingo to falsify and mischaracterize what otherwise is jus' a pretty straightforward (and legal) executive action.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

It should be obvious that the reason America isn't libertarian anymore is because there aren't enough libertarians around, & adding even more NON-libertarians into the mix will only worsen the situation. It's one thing to want to be consistent in one's ideology but it's another thing to forsake all reason & rationality while doing so; that's the problem with utopian socialist/communist ideals & the far-left SJW's, & it's sad to see so many libertarians doing the exact same thing, leading societies into tyranny in search of a better world.

----------

