Justin Amash is the anti-Ron Paul

[TheTexan]

He just wants to save a buck even if it costs us all our liberty.

Trading his birthright for a mess of pottage, his kind have been the bane of liberty throughout history, tyrants couldn't succeed without them.

I'm pretty sure that's how the Roman Empire fell. Plastic lawn-chair market manipulation.

If only they had known to put up tariffs back then maybe they'd still be around.

 

[PAF]

Excellent comic...you make my point better than I can.

And what happened those natives?

They ended up second class citizens, deposed of their lands, traditions and customs, and thrown on squalid reservations to have their sons become wards of the state, after being ethnically cleansed in a genocidal pogrom.

That's not the future I want for my sons, not the future I want for my posterity and certainly not the future I'm willing to accept for a cheap roof.

Perhaps the Indians, like you and SwordSmyth, should have paid much more attention to my Signature. History does have a way of repeating itself.

____


Stuart Banner, a law professor, does not deny that between the early 17th century and the end of the 19th, nearly the entire land area of the United States was transferred from Indian to non-Indian ownership. But in How the Indians Lost Their Land, he offers an avowedly revisionist account of the way this happened. Previous scholars, he claims, have overemphasized the direct seizure of Indian land, failing to recognize that the process of acquisition proceeded mainly through legal forms: namely, purchase by individuals, groups or governments, and the signing of treaties between Indians and the United States. Banner criticizes traditional accounts for denying that Indians had their own concept of private property and were tricked into selling land, and for maintaining that whites believed the native inhabitants had no real claim to land ownership. Actually, Banner insists, there were strong reasons to purchase the land and not simply to seize it. The early settlers lacked the power to dispossess the Indian population, and throughout the colonial era, with the French competing with the English for Indian loyalty, wholesale expropriation would have been politically counterproductive.

Indeed, Banner argues, colonial governments and authorities in London generally tried to prevent settler intrusion onto Indian land before it had been purchased. This policy culminated in the Proclamation of 1763, which declared the entire continent west of the Appalachian mountains off-limits to white settlers. Of course, settlers ignored the Proclamation, as did land speculators like George Washington, who instructed his agents to buy as much Indian land in the west as possible while keeping ‘this whole matter a profound secret’ because of its illegality. But Banner’s point is that government officials were committed to dealing with Indians in a legal, orderly manner. Even speculators like Washington paid Indians for their land.


https://www.amazon.com/How-Indians-Lost-Their-Land/dp/067402396X

 

[PAF]

kcchiefs just wants you and your family to suffer. It's why he buys his plastic lawn chairs from China instead of America.

I wonder, how many more babies Section 8 will want to have, once those cheap items down at Wal-Mart aren't available anymore. Maybe Swordy will volunteer his services. You know, to help save our freedoms.

 

[specsaregood]

Excellent comic...you make my point better than I can.

And what happened those natives?

They ended up second class citizens, deposed of their lands, traditions and customs, and thrown on squalid reservations to have their sons become wards of the state, after being ethnically cleansed in a genocidal pogrom.

That's not the future I want for my sons, not the future I want for my posterity and certainly not the future I'm willing to accept for a cheap roof.

Indeed. One would have to be an idiot or suffering from a massive outbreak of white guilt to read that comic and think an unlimited immigration policy is a good thing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm pretty sure that's how the Roman Empire fell. Plastic lawn-chair market manipulation.

If only they had known to put up tariffs back then maybe they'd still be around.

The Roman empire wasn't exactly a bastion of liberty but it did fall because people put their own selfish interests above their country.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If I want/need a pair of shoes, and somebody else wants/needs a wooden chair, I and the other person are either free to exchange, or simply walk away. It is when other people like you/government who are not part of that private contract who interfere with my right to choose.

Conversely, if an Australian person produces something, and an American produces something, it is up to me who I wish to exchange with. If I want something el' cheapo, and save the rest of my money for another exchange (something that I need or want), it is within my right to do so. If I find that the higher price thingamajig is to my liking and not have money left over for another thingamajig, that is also my right to do so.

Your way robs me of that right.

We should all chip in to buy Swordsmyth the Tuttle Twin series.

 

[kahless]

 

[Swordsmyth]

Indeed. One would have to be an idiot or suffering from a massive outbreak of white guilt to read that comic and think an unlimited immigration policy is a good thing.

I think it's more of a progressive colonialist position (obviously out of step with PC), obviously anyone using it is implying that the Injuns were massively benefited by the coming of the white man and would have been crazy to resist being "culturally enriched" and that the 3rd worlders and communists coming here will be good for us and equivalent to Christian missionaries. (note the prominent placement of the bible in the pilgrim's hand)

The Injuns could have been converted without being wiped out, having their land taken and having our government and culture imposed on them and the 3rd worlders and communists bring nothing like Christianity. (although liberals are sure communism is much better than Christianity.)

 

[Swordsmyth]

It isn't free nor does it produce freedom.

 

[PAF]

We should all chip in to buy Swordsmyth the Tuttle Twin series.

You don't think that would be way over his head? He has a big issue with my signature don't ya know.




Tuttle Twins





Little Libertarians

 

[Swordsmyth]

You don't think that would be way over his head? He has a big issue with my signature don't ya know.


View attachment 6620

Tuttle Twins



View attachment 6621

Little Libertarians

That's a nice simplistic view of principles, it seems to fit your mental age.

Unfortunately people whose mind actually grows to an adult level realize that those principles must be imposed on the world and that some collective defense is required to do that.


Stay in your crib and let the adults do what needs to be done.

 

[PAF]

Unfortunately people whose mind actually grows to an adult level realize that those principles must be imposed on the world and that some collective defense is required to do that.

Yes, it is unfortunate. Which is why I keep repeating that Common Core needs to end. Adults(?) these days keep insisting that everything must be imposed and that collectivism is more important that individualism. It is a vicious cycle that Ron Paul and some of us are trying to explain.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, it is unfortunate. Which is why I keep repeating that Common Core needs to end. Adults(?) these days keep insisting that everything must be imposed and that collectivism is more important that the individualism. It is a vicious cycle that Ron Paul and some of us are trying to stop.

Liberty must be imposed, it is not the natural state of the world or of humanity.

You are anti-liberty, you are a foolish child looking at the imperfect state of the world and throwing all the babies out with all the bathwater in your simplistic arrogance.
The individual is incapable of maintaining his rights against collectives of tyrants and therefore some collective actions must be used to preserve liberty.
Utopia doesn't exist because it can't.
There is no "New Soviet Anarchist Man" and there never will be so there can't be a world without collective defense.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Liberty must be imposed, it is not the natural state of the world or of humanity.

You are anti-liberty, you are a foolish child looking at the imperfect state of the world and throwing all the babies out with all the bathwater in your simplistic arrogance.
The individual is incapable of maintaining his rights against collectives of tyrants and therefore some collective actions must be used to preserve liberty.
Utopia doesn't exist because it can't.
There is no "New Soviet Anarchist Man" and there never will be so there can't be a world without collective defense.

I don't believe anyone is arguing against collective defense. I am simply saying there are less evil ways of 'defending' oneself than getting in bed with the Saudis and murdering millions of people.

On top of the Tuttle Twins series, we should all chip in to buy you an American made red coat.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't believe anyone is arguing against collective defense. I am simply saying there are less evil ways of 'defending' oneself than getting in bed with the Saudis and murdering millions of people.

That is NOT what we have been discussing AT ALL.
We have been discussing trade warfare and how to respond to it.
Thanks for proving you are losing the argument.

On top of the Tuttle Twins series, we should all chip in to buy you an American made red coat.

You guys would be the Tories trading with the British during the revolution, your projection is amazing.

 

[PAF]

I don't believe anyone is arguing against collective defense. I am simply saying there are less evil ways of 'defending' oneself than getting in bed with the Saudis and murdering millions of people.

On top of the Tuttle Twins series, we should all chip in to buy you an American made red coat.

I'm wanting some good ol' American-made hot-wings which is where my money is better spent. And a spin on my Indian. How about we get him a cheap one from Wal-Mart?

Wait... he already has one! Look at his avatar!


Btw, it's great to have you on the forum, kcchiefs6465

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm wanting some good ol' American-made hot-wings which is where my money is better spent. And a spin on my Indian. How about we get him a cheap one from Wal-Mart?

Wait... he already has one! Look at his avatar!


Btw, it's great to have you on the forum, kcchiefs6465

That's a green coat with red lapels, worn by an enemy of the British.

Go collaborate with the enemy while you still can.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Perhaps the Indians, like you and SwordSmyth, should have paid much more attention to my Signature. History does have a way of repeating itself.

____


Stuart Banner, a law professor, does not deny that between the early 17th century and the end of the 19th, nearly the entire land area of the United States was transferred from Indian to non-Indian ownership. But in How the Indians Lost Their Land, he offers an avowedly revisionist account of the way this happened. Previous scholars, he claims, have overemphasized the direct seizure of Indian land, failing to recognize that the process of acquisition proceeded mainly through legal forms: namely, purchase by individuals, groups or governments, and the signing of treaties between Indians and the United States. Banner criticizes traditional accounts for denying that Indians had their own concept of private property and were tricked into selling land, and for maintaining that whites believed the native inhabitants had no real claim to land ownership. Actually, Banner insists, there were strong reasons to purchase the land and not simply to seize it. The early settlers lacked the power to dispossess the Indian population, and throughout the colonial era, with the French competing with the English for Indian loyalty, wholesale expropriation would have been politically counterproductive.

Indeed, Banner argues, colonial governments and authorities in London generally tried to prevent settler intrusion onto Indian land before it had been purchased. This policy culminated in the Proclamation of 1763, which declared the entire continent west of the Appalachian mountains off-limits to white settlers. Of course, settlers ignored the Proclamation, as did land speculators like George Washington, who instructed his agents to buy as much Indian land in the west as possible while keeping ‘this whole matter a profound secret’ because of its illegality. But Banner’s point is that government officials were committed to dealing with Indians in a legal, orderly manner. Even speculators like Washington paid Indians for their land.


https://www.amazon.com/How-Indians-Lost-Their-Land/dp/067402396X

I am well aware of that history, I have cited it many times, and have traced the original land purchases of my own family back to lands purchased fair and square from the native tribes in New England and Pennsylvania.

It did not take long before the natives realized the danger of this: read about King Philip's War sometime.

Within 200 years they, native aboriginals, were for all intents and purposes, eliminated from the North American land mass.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't believe anyone is arguing against collective defense.

I am quite certain that there are more than a few people who are opposed to any manner of collective defense.

They abhor the idea, and maintain that, even if convinced of the concept, there is nothing worthwhile left of this nation to defend anyways.

I used to think that myself...but upon more careful reflection I came to the conclusion that I was wrong...not only from a philosophical perspective but from a very real, save my life, perspective.

The new left Bolsheviks/Jacobins will kill us if they are given the chance.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps the Indians, like you and SwordSmyth, should have paid much more attention to my Signature. History does have a way of repeating itself.

____


Stuart Banner, a law professor, does not deny that between the early 17th century and the end of the 19th, nearly the entire land area of the United States was transferred from Indian to non-Indian ownership. But in How the Indians Lost Their Land, he offers an avowedly revisionist account of the way this happened. Previous scholars, he claims, have overemphasized the direct seizure of Indian land, failing to recognize that the process of acquisition proceeded mainly through legal forms: namely, purchase by individuals, groups or governments, and the signing of treaties between Indians and the United States. Banner criticizes traditional accounts for denying that Indians had their own concept of private property and were tricked into selling land, and for maintaining that whites believed the native inhabitants had no real claim to land ownership. Actually, Banner insists, there were strong reasons to purchase the land and not simply to seize it. The early settlers lacked the power to dispossess the Indian population, and throughout the colonial era, with the French competing with the English for Indian loyalty, wholesale expropriation would have been politically counterproductive.

Indeed, Banner argues, colonial governments and authorities in London generally tried to prevent settler intrusion onto Indian land before it had been purchased. This policy culminated in the Proclamation of 1763, which declared the entire continent west of the Appalachian mountains off-limits to white settlers. Of course, settlers ignored the Proclamation, as did land speculators like George Washington, who instructed his agents to buy as much Indian land in the west as possible while keeping ‘this whole matter a profound secret’ because of its illegality. But Banner’s point is that government officials were committed to dealing with Indians in a legal, orderly manner. Even speculators like Washington paid Indians for their land.


https://www.amazon.com/How-Indians-Lost-Their-Land/dp/067402396X

Thank you for proving that your ideas would get us eliminated and conquered just as the Injuns were.

You are also ignoring all of the times and places that territory WAS taken from them by force.