Open Borders Terrorist Tries to Murder Sheriff Joe Arpaio

[Chosen]

He stated in the debates that the fence was the least of the reasons for voting on the bill.
His opposition to open borders is because we have a welfare state, and these people are draining our border states.
If the only thing they could do by crossing the border is produce for our economy, then he wouldn't have a problem with it.

You need to rewatch the debates.
I have hundreds of videos you can watch on my youtube channel
You hear want you want to hear.

You quited his own words idiot. He said in the above why he voted for it. Your argument against what he DIRECTLY stated is to watch hundreds of debate on your youtube channel?


"I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs." - Ron Paul

^That is from his website.

 

[torchbearer]

You quited his own words idiot. He said in the above why he voted for it. Your argument against what he DIRECTLY stated is to watch hundreds of debate on your youtube channel?


"I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs." - Ron Paul

^That is from his website.

I'd rather take the words spoken from his mouth.
Not everything written in Ron's name is written by Ron.

 

[Chosen]

I explained what I believe the Rule of Law is:



Thus, the Law, in the sense of the Natural Law, is not necessarily the same as the "law" in the sense of a collection of statutes issued by an arbitrary ruler.



You're right in the sense that the Natural Right of Liberty comes from the sovereignty of the individual which derives from the Natural Law.



My focus is truly on big government versus small government; it's on aggression versus non-aggression. If a government is such that it is fully voluntary and non-aggressive, I don't care how big it is because I can opt out of it. But if a government is coercive, it doesn't matter how small it is--it's still infringing on the Natural Law.



Being on someone's land without their permission violates the Law because it's trespassing. But laws against trespassing are not dependent on whether the trespasser originated on this side or that side of Rio Grande. As for the State, it doesn't legitimately own most of its property (it annexed it, pilfered it through eminent domain, purchased it with tax plunder, etc.), and even if it did, it would still only have power over it's own property. It would have no right to kick a Mexican off of the land of an American, if the American was allowing the Mexican to be there.



Hitler?

The reference to Hitler is to indicate that he exploited political upheaval in the same way you and yours are trying to do. This is a concrete reference.

RULE OF LAW
Absolute predominance or supremacy of ordinary law of the land over all citizens, no matter how powerful. First expounded by the UK law Professor A. V. Dicey in his 1885 book 'Introduction To The Study Of Law Of The Constitution,' it is based on three principles that (1) legal duties, and liability to punishment, of all citizens, is determined by the ordinary (regular) law and not by any arbitrary official fiat, government decree, or wide discretionary-powers, (2) disputes between citizens and government officials are to be determined by the ordinary courts applying ordinary law, and the (3) fundamental rights of the citizens (freedom of the person, freedom of association, freedom of speech) are rooted in the natural law, and are not dependent on any abstract constitutional concept, declaration, or guaranty.

 

[NYgs23]

He stated in the debates that the fence was the least of the reasons for voting on the bill.
His opposition to open borders is because we have a welfare state, and these people are draining our border states.
If the only thing they could do by crossing the border is produce for our economy, then he wouldn't have a problem with it.

I might add I somewhat disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, but I'm more radical than he is in regards to the whole notion of the State. I think each act should be judged on whether it violates the non-aggression principle; I fail to see how travel across an arbitrary border defined by arbitrary monopolies called States does that, in and of itself.

 

[Chosen]

I'd rather take the words spoken from his mouth.
Not everything written in Ron's name is written by Ron.

Here he is mentioning it your Christs website:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul427.html

 

[torchbearer]

Here he is mentioning it your Christs website:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul427.html

I'm not a disciple of Lew, but Lew does write articles in Ron's name.
Ron didn't even write his own book. He had help... probably from Lew.

 

[Chosen]

I might add I somewhat disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, but I'm more radical than he is in regards to the whole notion of the State. I think each act should be judged on whether it violates the non-aggression principle; I fail to see how travel across an arbitrary border defined by arbitrary monopolies called States does that, in and of itself.

LOL now you disagree? After you argument to try and spin Paul with your philosophy falters? LOL

 

[Chosen]

I'm not a disciple of Lew, but Lew does write articles in Ron's name.
Ron didn't even write his own book. He had help... probably from Lew.

But again your point is that he supports open borders. He does not.

 

[torchbearer]

I'm slowly going through the 1000 videos I have... so i can show you the words straight from the guys mouth.

 

[torchbearer]

But again your point is that he supports open borders. He does not.

He would support open borders under different circumstances is what I said.

 

[torchbearer]

You inability to quote me correctly in this very thread doesn't bold well for your recollection.

 

[Nate]

Joe is a fascist drug warrior. He is also anti-illegal immigration because he is a nationalist xenophobe not because he has the best interests of this country in mind. He looks at the border as a drug war zone. That is why he wants it closed. He does not care about your freedoms or anybody else's.
He wants to impose his ideologies on others through the use of governmental force. He uses the state to enforce his beliefs on others in a violent totalitarian method. This opens him up to violent retaliation from the totalitarians on the other side of the issues. Violent statist open borders proponents will naturally hate violent statist closed border proponents. Just like you and Joe obviously hate them. You are 2 sides of the same coin. Their violence and hatred mirrors your own. This is why you hate them so much.
You reap what you sow. Sheriff Joe deserves whatever he gets. Just like everyone else on this planet including you and me. Please do not try and paint statist authoritarians like Sheriff Joe as pro freedom and liberty. He is not and nobody here is going to fall for it.

 

[pcosmar]

Chosen
I agree with you on border security and National Sovereignty. I am afraid that you are banging your head against a wall.
Our elected leaders (save a very few) have NO intention of closing the border and every intention of merging the country with Mexico and Canada. You may delay it some, but they will do it anyway.

I do disagree with you about Sheriff Joe Arpaio. That man is an authoritarian asshole that cares nothing for the rights of innocent citizens.
He may get tough on criminals and that is fine., but he has and is crossing the line.

 

[AuH20]

Joe is a fascist drug warrior. He is also anti-illegal immigration because he is a nationalist xenophobe not because he has the best interests of this country in mind. He looks at the border as a drug war zone. That is why he wants it closed. He does not care about your freedoms or anybody else's.
He wants to impose his ideologies on others through the use of governmental force. He uses the state to enforce his beliefs on others in a violent totalitarian method. This opens him up to violent retaliation from the totalitarians on the other side of the issues. Violent statist open borders proponents will naturally hate violent statist closed border proponents. Just like you and Joe obviously hate them. You are 2 sides of the same coin. Their violence and hatred mirrors your own. This is why you hate them so much.
You reap what you sow. Sheriff Joe deserves whatever he gets. Just like everyone else on this planet including you and me. Please do not try and paint statist authoritarians like Sheriff Joe as pro freedom and liberty. He is not and nobody here is going to fall for it.

So explain to us what you'd do, as opposed to Arpaio's supposed "draconian" methods? Its very easy criticize the sheriff from afar.

 

[NYgs23]

LOL now you disagree? After you argument to try and spin Paul with your philosophy falters? LOL

I didn't try to "spin" Ron Paul; the most I said about him was, "...why do you support Ron Paul again? Because he supports closed borders (under the current circumstances)?" My opinions are my own. But, though I could be wrong, I think Ron Paul would agree with me that there is more concern about the possibility of a lawman violating civil liberties than being the possibility that the lawman is "too soft."

But you seem very cavalier about the power that lawmen like Sheriff Arpaio have to violate civil liberities, abuse their powers, and cause pain and suffering. Your constant references about "me and mine" even subversively trying to undermine the rule of law again sound like a person more interested in enforcing statutes and pumping nationalism than a person trying to promote liberty. You view libertarians as enemies because their less willing to use the power of the State to enforce whatever statutes you hold dear. You sound more like a supporter of Bobby Jindal or Tom Tancredo to me.

 

[torchbearer]

Here is his comment on the fence at 4:45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo
Keep listening to the 6 minute mark, he also states the other things i've put in this thread.

 

[NYgs23]

So explain to us what you'd do, as opposed to Arpaio's supposed "draconian" methods?

Abolishing the Office of Sheriff would be a good start. Seriously, let private security forces protect people from actual violations of their rights. You don't a monopolistic security force enforcing the dictates of a monopolistic ruling body.

 

[AuH20]

Abolishing the Office of Sheriff would be a good start. Seriously, let private security forces protect people from actual violations of their rights. You don't a monopolistic security force enforcing the dictates of a monopolistic ruling body.

But then what about the legal ramifications of a private security force operating in a such a capacity? It could get very expensive.

 

[torchbearer]

Abolishing the Office of Sheriff would be a good start. Seriously, let private security forces protect people from actual violations of their rights. You don't a monopolistic security force enforcing the dictates of a monopolistic ruling body.

mafia rule is not preferable.

 

[torchbearer]

But then what about the legal ramifications of a private security force operating in a such a capacity? It could get very expensive.

Wait until they start asking for 'protection' money from the people in their reach.