D.C. Mayor Begs for National Guard as City Is “Overwhelmed” With Migrants

[dannno]

What would Ron Paul say/do.

It is a shame that on this RPF that consensus is what the uneducated newz-watching population feels. More tax-payer money, more police-state apparatus, the continued demise of this country.

Imagine if the People instead rallied around Ending Incentives and stop lining the pockets of the MIC, how much richer and freer we would be.


A relevant thread, but I will leave the graphic here as well:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?560185-Jopys-Of-Toying-With-Certain-People

Ron Paul is all for securing our border because of size of our government. It's not sustainable to have a large government in a relatively prosperous country with open borders.

You can find speeches Ron Paul gave back in the 80s supporting open borders, and I would support those as well if we lived in a free society.

Back in the 1800s, we largely had open immigration. About 1/3 immigrants returned back to their country voluntarily because we didn't have government handouts, and they either didn't like freedom as much as they thought they did or just preferred their country of origin.

Sometimes you have to apply a dose of reality to your philosophical principles.

 

[PAF]

Ron Paul is all for securing our border because of size of our government. It's not sustainable to have a large government in a relatively prosperous country with open borders.

You can find speeches Ron Paul gave back in the 80s supporting open borders, and I would support those as well if we lived in a free society.

Back in the 1800s, we largely had open immigration. About 1/3 immigrants returned back to their country voluntarily because we didn't have government handouts, and they either didn't like freedom as much as they thought they did.

It already started with I. Now it starts with you. And on down the line.

As long as you promote and beg for police-state tactics, and throwing endless money at it, well, you deserve exactly what you get. You can already see the result, it is guaranteed that it will only get worse - NOT better.

 

[Invisible Man]

Ron Paul is all for securing our border

Securing our border how exactly?

He is against a wall.

He is against requiring employers to vet their employees to make sure they're not illegal immigrants.

He is against requiring people to show passports to enter the country.

He may not call his positions open borders. But I don't see the difference.

 

[dannno]

It already started with I. Now it starts with you. And on down the line.

As long as you promote and beg for police-state tactics, and throwing endless money at it, well, you deserve exactly what you get. You can already see the result, it is guaranteed that it will only get worse - NOT better.

You are obviously not an economist.

The correct question is "compared to what?"

 

[dannno]

Securing our border how exactly?

He is against a wall.

He is against requiring employers to vet their employees to make sure they're not illegal immigrants.

He is against requiring people to show passports to enter the country.

He may not call his positions open borders. But I don't see the difference.

Border wall = lesser need for police state

Ron Paul is for putting military on our border, but not a huge fan of a border wall.

Not an easy issue.

 

[Invisible Man]

Border wall = lesser need for police state

Ron Paul is for putting military on our border, but not a huge fan of a border wall.

Not an easy issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first line. I've never seen Ron Paul say that a border wall would equate to less need for a police state.

Yes, he has talked about brining troops home from overseas to protect our borders instead of other countries. But I don't ever recall him saying that he wanted them to shoot at unarmed civilians just for crossing the border without showing passports. In fact, again, allowing people to cross the border without showing passports is one of the policies he explicitly supports.

 

[PAF]

You are obviously not an economist.

The correct question is "compared to what?"

I understand that for the majority of folks, the simplest solution(s) is what is often overlooked rejected.


1. Keep the Incentives rolling.

2. Fund more wall construction, at the expense of taking even more private property via Eminent Domain.

3. Build/pay MIC for more Surveillance Apparatus to monitor the wall against trespass/destruction, repair/rebuild/build additional as often as necessary.

4. Build/pay MIC for more detention/holding cells at tax-payer expense.

5. Require Americans to show/prove via "papers please", any time, every time they travel.

6. Employ and arm even more state/federal Agents when #3 becomes even more out of hand, because of course Federal Agents and Eminent Domain are the new black, as long as it doesn't affect you personally.

7. Make certain that "illegals" are made "legal" via "Documentation", ensuring that they are part of the fed.gov system, Fund the Fed when they work, as well as qualify for Bennies if/when they don't.

8. Maintain the 100-mile "Constitution-Free Zone" around the entire country, which happens to be where the majority of red-blooded, land of the free home of the brave Americans reside.


-OR-

1. Stop the Incentives - to hugely reduce the number coming in, unless they actually come here to work.

2. Eliminates/greatly reduces #2-#8 which are listed above.


Before one can become an economist, one must first understand basic math. Knowing each and every one of the Bill of Rights probably wouldn't hurt either.

 

[dannno]

I'm not sure what you mean by the first line. I've never seen Ron Paul say that a border wall would equate to less need for a police state.

He didn't, that's the hole in his argument. He wants less of a police state, he wants the border to be protected.. the way to protect the border with a smaller police state is a wall.

Yes, he has talked about brining troops home from overseas to protect our borders instead of other countries. But I don't ever recall him saying that he wanted them to shoot at unarmed civilians just for crossing the border without showing passports. In fact, again, allowing people to cross the border without showing passports is one of the policies he explicitly supports.

They don't need to shoot people for crossing the border, they can arrest and deport them. Of course they will need a gun for protection.

I feel like I'm arguing with a leftist here. Seriously. I had this exact same argument about Kyle Rittenhouse. They were like "what do you need a gun to protect property for, you are going to shoot them if they go on the property?" No, you stop them from going on the property. If they attack you, then you use the gun in self defense.

 

[dannno]

-OR-

1. Stop the Incentives - to hugely reduce the number coming in, unless they actually come here to work.

2. Eliminates/greatly reduces #2-#8 which are listed above.


Before one can become an economist, one must first understand basic math. Knowing each and every one of the Bill of Rights probably wouldn't hurt either.

I'm not against any of those things you are advocating. Congress is. If there are 52 Senators who will vote for a wall, but only 10 that will vote to end incentives, then you have a shitty congress. That's what we have. Not to mention, most of the incentives are coming from the states.

So I will revert back to the quote you were responding to.

 

[PAF]

I'm not against any of those things you are advocating. Congress is. If there are 52 Senators who will vote for a wall, but only 10 that will vote to end incentives, then you have a $#@!ty congress. That's what we have. Not to mention, most of the incentives are coming from the states.

So I will revert back to the quote you were responding to.

Math is math, unless it all of a sudden self-identifies as something else.

Call your reps.

 

[dannno]

Math is math, unless it all of a sudden self-identifies as something else.

Call your reps.

You are not good at math.

 

[PAF]

You are not good at math.

It is said that every caller represents 100.

Let's break it down:

How many people do you know = ?

How many people do you talk liberty with = ?

How many people, after conversing with them, will call in, if they are serious about anything other than "my side win" = ?

It all starts with YOU, which as simple as it gets.

As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't say "We the Republicans", or "We the Democrats". My recollection is "We the People".

 

[PAF]

You are not good at math.

I remember at Committee there was UNANIMOUS support for Flip-Flop-Mitt, and any mention of Ron Paul was ridiculed and shot down. I was told Ron would NEVER have the numbers required, and they certainly would not help me, and that I should support Flip-Flop for the sake of "Party Unity".

So, I became a Congressional District Coordinator and did things on my own, where EVERY Ron Paul Delegate WON HANDS DOWN. Here is an example that I dug up just for you:

 

[Occam's Banana]

How it started:

How it's going:

 

[Invisible Man]

They don't need to shoot people for crossing the border, they can arrest and deport them.

OK. But again, that's not something Ron Paul advocates, which was the point we were discussing.

I feel like I'm arguing with a leftist here. Seriously. I had this exact same argument about Kyle Rittenhouse. They were like "what do you need a gun to protect property for, you are going to shoot them if they go on the property?" No, you stop them from going on the property. If they attack you, then you use the gun in self defense.

What same argument. You're the one who brought up them needing a gun just to make up an argument nobody used. So who's the person you're arguing against that seems like a leftist? Yourself?

I've been noticing this trend with you lately of worrying a lot about this right versus left stuff. Lump me in with whomever you want if that's your thing.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They don't need to shoot people for crossing the border

Says who?

This is an invasion...orchestrated and financed by Marxist NGOs and governments from around the world designed to bring about the collapse of the republic.

This invasion uses bodies, not bombs or bullets.

It uses bodies because our enemies know we are weak, that our own citizens no longer believe in the core principles of the republic, and because of goddamned "Christian" charity, we won't put up any form of real resistance to the invasion.

Three brigades of citizen militia, dispersed along the border, with orders to open fire on any invader crossing the "red line", would end this problem in 48 hours.

But we lack the will and, in a nation of 350 million people, the manpower, to do it.

So our children will enjoy their Venezuelan future.

 

[nobody's_hero]

OK. But again, that's not something Ron Paul advocates, which was the point we were discussing.



What same argument. You're the one who brought up them needing a gun just to make up an argument nobody used. So who's the person you're arguing against that seems like a leftist? Yourself?

I've been noticing this trend with you lately of worrying a lot about this right versus left stuff. Lump me in with whomever you want if that's your thing.

You were the one who brought up shooting people to stop them from crossing.

Of course they're going to have guns. I wouldn't go near the border without a gun. Those aren't all hordes of nuns and puppies crossing.

I don't see where danno advocated arbitrarily shooting people to prevent them from crossing, though.

I'd remind you that earlier this summer, a Texas Nat'l Guardsman lost his life to drowning trying to save some illegals from drowning, so . . .

 

[Invisible Man]

You were the one who brought up shooting people to stop them from crossing.

He was the one who brought up RP's proposal of bringing troops home to protect our border instead of foreign counties' as if that was somehow related to illegal immigration. My remark was in reply to that.

Of course they're going to have guns.

What a ridiculous comment. Nobody said anything about anyone having guns or not having guns before dannno brought it up. Now you're repeating the same thing he said, and I'm still wondering how it has anything to do with the conversation.

Did you think that I was saying anyone anywhere shouldn't have a gun?

 

[nobody's_hero]

He was the one who brought up RP's proposal of bringing troops home to protect our border instead of foreign counties' as if that was somehow related to illegal immigration. My remark was in reply to that.



What a ridiculous comment. Nobody said anything about anyone having guns or not having guns before dannno brought it up. Now you're repeating the same thing he said, and I'm still wondering how it has anything to do with the conversation.

Did you think that I was saying anyone anywhere shouldn't have a gun?

"Protect" doesn't necessarily involve shooting. That's what leftists would say. You can use a gun in defensive encounters without having to shoot. Sometimes even the presence of a gun is enough to keep people 'polite'.

Guns are used every day in this country to deter criminals without having to fire a shot.

I think you were just trying to make danno look like some sort of bloodthirsty vigilante and got called out on it, and now you're twisting things around and obfuscating because that's what you do.

But I don't ever recall him saying that he wanted them to shoot at unarmed civilians just for crossing the border without showing passports.

Just FYI ,no one even mentioned that in this thread until you said it.

 

[Invisible Man]

"Protect" doesn't necessarily involve shooting. That's what leftists would say. You can use a gun in defensive encounters without having to shoot. Sometimes even the presence of a gun is enough to keep people 'polite'.

The point is, dannno wasn't talking about anything having to do with defending the nation. He was talking about using the military to enforce immigration laws. And he was trying to say that Ron Paul supported that. As far as I know he does not.

I think you were just trying to make danno look like some sort of bloodthirsty vigilante and got called out on it, and now you're twisting things around and obfuscating because that's what you do.

No. I was trying to make him look like someone who was misrepresenting Ron Paul as someone who supported using the military against illegal immigrants in some way, which is what he was doing.

Guns are used every day in this country to deter criminals without having to fire a shot.

I don't know why you're telling me this. It has nothing to do with anything I have said. The purpose of the military isn't to use their guns to deter criminals, and as far as I know, Ron Paul never has said he wanted to repurpose the military for that. So we're still right back at the same place.