Obama to Begin Pushing Amnesty Bill!

[Deborah K]

No, no you don't.

So anyway, about that "kill 25 americans a day" nonsense, got source?




Why would I? I live in Texas.

Look it up yourself. You make me sick. He's accusing Ron Paul and his family of stealing money in this quote:

as an aside, and all for what? for a campaign that was never really a campaign, but rather a protracted fundraiser--a fraud in a very real sense--to pay out a bunch of friends and family of some guy I never even met, and to spend too much time warding off attacks from yourself and other members of the "lowest common denominator" for actually having the 'intestinal fortitude™" to stand up for real liberty--unpopular as it is around here--?... hell of a reward, some thanks. life wasted, lesson learned.)

This is an outrage and you should be banned.

 

[constituent]

lol, when all else fails shoot the messenger.

 

[Deborah K]

lol, when all else fails shoot the messenger.

You're no messanger. You are venom.

 

[constituent]

You're no messanger. You are venom.

yawn.

so to get back on topic, since off-topic posts are a violation of forum guidelines, got a source for that 25 number?

 

[Danke]

Let's send them all to Michigan. They need more large pro-life Catholic families and fewer nihilists up there.

 

[Pennsylvania]

I'll attempt to clarify my position on the issue a little further. Obviously emotions can run high on both sides of this topic and I don't intend to start or contribute to a flame war here.

Legality is irrelevant when it is not in sync with rights. For example, murder violates a person's right to life, and therefore it is acceptable for murder to be illegal. Drug use, on the other hand, does not violate anyone's rights, and therefore it is acceptable for it to be legal. This can be applied to any issue. Now the question is, what rights have "illegal" immigrants violated? If an illegal immigrant trespasses onto your property, then sure you are entitled to deal with that accordingly. But what difference does it make whether the person is "legal" or "illegal" in that he has trespassed on your property?

In other words, when you apply the term "illegal" to a person, it means that they are on property that is not necessarily yours, but belongs to a collective with which you identify. If this is not the case, then why not be concerned with individuals' property borders rather than the Mexico/U.S. border? Yet the U.S. does not have the right to own land because the U.S. is an abstraction. Even Ron Paul holds that only individuals have rights. This is the basis by which I maintain that there is no genuine difference between the processes of legal and illegal immigration.

The only way to paint "illegal" immigrants as criminals is to associate them with negative trends in human behavior: theft, killing, etc. We need to treat these things as disjoint because to do otherwise would be to fall into a collectivist mentality. If we can associate "illegals" with crime, then we can associate drug dealers, and adolescent black males with crime too.

Or better said: correlation is not causation.

Furthermore, I am not attacking the actions of border patrol. I understand that if people feel there is a genuine threat, they have no alternative but to act defensively. In that regard, I am not passing judgement. I do however ask that people consider that it is not "illegals" themselves which cause the problems, and instead, like most things, it is bad government policy which causes them.

 

[Pennsylvania]

Horseshit.

These people have feelings. They exist in reality. Our Founders stole this land from the Indians they raped and massacred, and you now tell me that we have the right to deny others the ability to immigrate because they may not vote how we'd like?

Should we send the Blacks back to Africa because they tend to vote Democrat, as well? It may not be as politically popular since they haven't broken any unjust laws, but it's something to keep us busy, at least.

Well said Kludge, I agree.

 

[Danke]

In other words, when you apply the term "illegal" to a person, it means that they are on property that is not necessarily yours, but belongs to a collective with which you identify. If this is not the case, then why not be concerned with individuals' property borders rather than the Mexico/U.S. border? Yet the U.S. does not have the right to own land because the U.S. is an abstraction. Even Ron Paul holds that only individuals have rights. This is the basis by which I maintain that there is no genuine difference between the processes of legal and illegal immigration.

And Chinese soldiers could flood across our boarders, but we really should not take any action as the United States is a collective and an "abstraction" They could be here just looking for a nice vacation.

 

[Pennsylvania]

And Chinese soldiers could flood across our boarders, but we really should not take any action as the United States is a collective and an "abstraction" They could be here just looking for a nice vacation.

Correct, if they do not initiate force, or the threat of force against anyone.

 

[Danke]

Even Ron Paul holds that only individuals have rights.

Ya, really no legitimate function for government.


We The People have rights, and we form government(s) to carry out certain functions on our behalf.

Every society is a collective, as far as I can tell. Unless you live in TW's world.

 

[Danke]

... or the threat of force against anyone.

And that is up you to decide?

I decided illegals are a threat. So I guess I'm right about protecting the boarders then.

 

[Kludge]

And that is up you to decide?

I decided illegals are a threat. So I guess I'm right about protecting the boarders then.

If you (as an individual) want to shoot Mexicans dead while they try to cross the border, I won't stop you, but don't say you're doing it on my behalf, please.

 

[Pennsylvania]

Ya, really no legitimate function for government.

Well I recognize the sarcasm, but taken seriously, I would disagree anyway. I do think there is a necessary function for government, which would be an institution which protects rights without inherently violating them, i.e. without taxation.

We The People have rights, and we form government(s) to carry out certain functions on our behalf.

Which is fine with me as long as that government does not violate rights, and in the case of taxation and national borders, it does.

 

[Pennsylvania]

And that is up you to decide?

I decided illegals are a threat. So I guess I'm right about protecting the boarders then.

With the same outlook, you can determine that a legless 4-year old with a lollipop is a threat to you.

And regardless, in this analogy, what you are saying here is that all legless 4-year olds as a collective are a threat, rather than just the one that initiated the force or threat of force.

 

[Danke]

If you (as an individual) want to shoot Mexicans dead while they try to cross the border, I won't stop you, but don't say you're doing it on my behalf, please.

Come on Kludge. You know property rights are meaningless if you can't defend them.

Or are you against property ownership too now?

 

[Danke]

With the same outlook, you can determine that a legless 4-year old with a lollipop is a threat to you.

And regardless, in this analogy, what you are saying here is that all legless 4-year olds as a collective are a threat, rather than just the one that initiated the force or threat of force.

No, I used your stupid statement against your argument. "threat of force" Who decides? Simple question.

 

[Kludge]

Come on Kludge. You know property rights are meaningless if you can't defend them.

Or are you against property ownership too now?

If you (as an individual) want to shoot Mexicans dead while they trespass on your property, I won't stop you, but don't say you're doing it on my behalf, please.

 

[Pennsylvania]

No, I used you stupid statement against your argument. "threat of force" Who decides? Simple question.

Have I attacked you in a way that you feel the need to attack me? If you want to continue the conversion that's fine with me, but I'm not going to pursue it if you are going to make condescending statements such as the one above.

 

[Lord Xar]

So abolish taxation, not immigration.

Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our schools, hospitals, ie.. all social services -- illegal immigration is illegal. "Deciding" to legalize them is only gonna spur more. Plus, there is a thing called "chain migration" -- which will further legalize millions more. Most will vote left, most will be government dependent.

Your open borders apologist views are well known and you argue till you are blue in the face. You can't advocate open borders and spout property rights and all that jazz, when our welfare state and political leanings via 'their votes' will only further diminish our liberties thru oppressive taxation, not abiding by the rule of law etc..

Take California and most all states with high illegal immigration - did liberty sprout up? Nope, the very thing happened that promoted MORE illegal immigration, MORE taxation, MORE corruption, MORE crime etc... advocating and promoting illegal behaviour that lends itself to the very things that smother liberty - ie, welfare state, far left agenda, taxation, collective etc.. is suicide.

You play word games to win a flawed argument. Grow up.

What I find most hilarious and somewhat telling on a posters true nature is how they advocate the very thing that will restrict and smother liberty & the constitution. It is hilarious. It is not secret that many have come here to infilitrate this site in the guise of libertarians.

Let me put it "as plain as I possible can" -- you grant amnesty to 20+million illegal immigrants. Then thru chain migration, millions more. Then the welfare state will compound the birth rate to new heights -- and will you have a complete pwnage of the political climate, to the far left.

 

[Lord Xar]

And Constituent AGAIN, belittles and forces conversation offtrack along with his cohorts.

Hey MODS -- what is happening to this site? It is fairly apparent it has been supplanted and nothing is done.
These posters are not libertarians, only far leftists in disguise.

I don't get it. This place is truly sucking now.