Rand opposes using military for deportations

Yes, I hate the illegals enough to deny them free stuff and existing within my geo-political space.

If they want to remain and become compost, I'm ok with that as well.
wow, that's one of the most racist xenophobic things I've seen around here.

No one should get "free" stuff from the government (taxpayers) and ideally people shouldn't tresspass borders and the government should keep the borders secure.... but that's not the same thing as rounding people up and putting them on trains by the military to move them over to the border... geeze
 
I thought the open border people were joking. Turns out they were serious idiots and Marxists.

I'm not falling for that "open borders" propaganda crap brought on by Big Government Advocates. What we actually have is a "closed" border where people are processed into the system and given those really neat and preloaded Government ID Cards.

If it was up to me, the border would be "open", Private Contract Rights between employee/employer would be honored, employers wouldn't be forced to pay Government Mandated Minimum Wage, workers would not have to pay Federal Taxes which only makes fed.gov bigger and stronger, and if people find work, good for them, otherwise walk/travel FREELY without "Papers Please" for someplace else to go, including but not limited back to Mexico as long as it wasn't on the tax payer dime.

As a bonus, I wouldn't have to be threatened by MIC Virtual Walls, Peter Thiel and other federal contractors 24/7 Surveillance systems, eVerify for "permission" to get a job, and Biometric ID in place of "papers please" to prove to Government Goons that I am actually a person who enjoys my Bill of Rights.

Don't bother rebutting this post, otherwise I will consider you a fully-fledged member of the Peter Thiel/Elon Musk Network and the "let's pretend we are libertarian/republican" which is the lowest of the low.

Government created the problem, there ain't no way in he|| I'm looking for a "solution" from them.
 
I'm not falling for that "open borders" propaganda crap brought on by Big Government Advocates. What we actually have is a "closed" border where people are processed into the system and given those really neat and preloaded Government ID Cards.

If it was up to me, the border would be "open", Private Contract Rights between employee/employer would be honored, employers wouldn't be forced to pay Government Mandated Minimum Wage, workers would not have to pay Federal Taxes which only makes fed.gov bigger and stronger, and if people find work, good for them, otherwise walk/travel FREELY without "Papers Please" for someplace else to go, including but not limited back to Mexico as long as it wasn't on the tax payer dime.

As a bonus, I wouldn't have to be threatened by MIC Virtual Walls, Peter Thiel and other federal contractors 24/7 Surveillance systems, eVerify for "permission" to get a job, and Biometric ID in place of "papers please" to prove to Government Goons that I am actually a person who enjoys my Bill of Rights.

Don't bother rebutting this post, otherwise I will consider you a fully-fledged member of the Peter Thiel/Elon Musk Network and the "let's pretend we are libertarian/republican" which is the lowest of the low.

Government created the problem, there ain't no way in he|| I'm looking for a "solution" from them.


In bold. It’s really just that simple. Why so-called “liberty advocates” have so much difficulty with that simple truth, well, it really is discouraging.
 
I'm not falling for that "open borders" propaganda crap brought on by Big Government Advocates. What we actually have is a "closed" border where people are processed into the system and given those really neat and preloaded Government ID Cards.

If it was up to me, the border would be "open", Private Contract Rights between employee/employer would be honored, employers wouldn't be forced to pay Government Mandated Minimum Wage, workers would not have to pay Federal Taxes which only makes fed.gov bigger and stronger, and if people find work, good for them, otherwise walk/travel FREELY without "Papers Please" for someplace else to go, including but not limited back to Mexico as long as it wasn't on the tax payer dime.

As a bonus, I wouldn't have to be threatened by MIC Virtual Walls, Peter Thiel and other federal contractors 24/7 Surveillance systems, eVerify for "permission" to get a job, and Biometric ID in place of "papers please" to prove to Government Goons that I am actually a person who enjoys my Bill of Rights.

Don't bother rebutting this post, otherwise I will consider you a fully-fledged member of the Peter Thiel/Elon Musk Network and the "let's pretend we are libertarian/republican" which is the lowest of the low.

Government created the problem, there ain't no way in he|| I'm looking for a "solution" from them.

It's a matter of which order you do that in. I think most of us agree that "open" borders would be fine if the welfare state didn't exist. But it does. So in order for your house to stand, you must first build the foundation (remove the artificial incentives). Until you do that, you can't even talk about open borders because the entire structure of society collapses. Which, let's not be coy, is what you actually want.
 
LOL I don't give a damn what you say that you consider me, Marxist. Because I know that you know it's a lie. It's what you do.

My response is for those reading who still take your clown act seriously.

Don't bother rebutting this post, otherwise I will consider you a fully-fledged member of the Peter Thiel/Elon Musk Network and the "let's pretend we are libertarian/republican" which is the lowest of the low.

To those reading. This is a great example of full on woke, marxist dialectical BS, straight from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Let's start with their border "strategy." Anyone with the weakest understanding of history knows that no society survived weak borders. PAF isn't stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing. And people like him are why things are screwed up.

These people tried to silence you by claiming if you wanted a secured border, you are a racist, a hater, and other crap. Then out of the other side of their mouth, they show their hatred for YOU and said Americans are lazy stupid and unamerican and we need a flood of immigrants. You have seen this many times. Yes dialectical thinking allows them to hold two opposing views simultaneously. They hate you, yet call you a hater. It's a crude tactic. That was Zippy's only card and it worked for a while.


Now we're dealing with Zippy 3.0s They all claim to be anarchists (I am not including real anarchists, who I respect. I am talking about these frauds.) These fake ones "considered" minarchists who wanted border security as neocons. When neocons have classically wanted open borders, like PAF. His pretending to be an anarchists is another part of marxist dialectics. They pretend to be one extreme and say that anyone outside of the extreme is a statist, neocon, etc. It is exactly the strategy of woke activists. If you ask if men in a dress should go in women's spaces, you are "considered" transphobic. If you question white fragility, you are racist. Depending upon their strategy, they claim to love gays, blacks, anarchists, etc, but deep inside you can tell they hate you. This is how they shut down conversations. Fuck 'em. I don't play that game. Nor should YOU!


They have no principles. They use principles as weapons and then discard them. This guy in particular shilled heavily for RFK Jr (now he denies it lol). When I said I admired RFK's honesty but could not vote for him because of his stance against the 2nd Amendment, this guy called me a statist saying that my stance on the second Amendment meant that I believed that my liberties came from government decree. He's spoken against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights many times in the past, when it was convenient. Now in this thread he claims to be its champion? LOL

Being called or considered a neocon, a statist, etc doesn't bother me. People throw around names in their passion. However, when someone is deceptive, using strategies straight out of "Rules for Radicals," screw 'em. They deserve no respect nor do they deserve to be taken seriously.

Am I being a hypocrite calling them Marxists? No. They hold no principles. They "debate" and behave in the manner that I described. They just want to bring it all down. And they have done a very good job at bringing this country down so far. Yes, America was a great country at one time, until we gave a damn what these marxists "CONSIDERED!"
 
Last edited:
In bold. It’s really just that simple. Why so-called “liberty advocates” have so much difficulty with that simple truth, well, it really is discouraging.

I'm basically a minarchist. That rant above is not directed at you. I respect you. You have never called me a statist or a neocon as a diversionary tactic.

Government isn't going anywhere. It's a tough truth I've come to realize. Over half the population receives the welfare that those on this forum have been against from the beginning. Voting would actually matter these days if only taxpaying citizens were eligible to vote. That's not happening. As screwed up as Trump is, I'm ashamed to say, that's the best America can hope for.

As for the state we're in, we had a good country. Not perfect, nothing is, but it was worth defending. I still think it is. No society has survived with weak borders and somehow we are told that open borders makes us stronger? Border security has been the only government program I was ever for since I supported Ron Paul. Him saying we should bring the troops back from overseas and put them on the border has my backing.
 
It's a matter of which order you do that in. I think most of us agree that "open" borders would be fine if the welfare state didn't exist. But it does. So in order for your house to stand, you must first build the foundation (remove the artificial incentives). Until you do that, you can't even talk about open borders because the entire structure of society collapses. Which, let's not be coy, is what you actually want.

Ok, let's NOT be coy. If it actually came down to it, which it won't, I would sooner "society collapse" than to build a full-blown police-state prison around me, my family and my area.

The welfare state already exists. While I may be paying a very small percentage of taxes that goes towards immigrants against my will, I am still relatively free to do what I want, when I want, where I want. That does NOT mean that I am willing to pay MORE in taxes on top of that, far more costly than what immigrants cost, just to appease the U.S. Government/WEF/U.N. Agenda while lining the pockets of the ever-growing MIC and Police-State Apparatus which are the very ones contributary to the problem.



As a bonus, I wouldn't have to be threatened by MIC Virtual Walls, Peter Thiel and other federal contractors 24/7 Surveillance systems, eVerify for "permission" to get a job, and Biometric ID in place of "papers please" to prove to Government Goons that I am actually a person who enjoys my Bill of Rights.

Don't bother rebutting this post, otherwise I will consider you a fully-fledged member of the Peter Thiel/Elon Musk Network and the "let's pretend we are libertarian/republican" which is the lowest of the low.

Government created the problem, there ain't no way in he|| I'm looking for a "solution" from them.


PS: My family and my home is already built with the proper foundation. I and my family do not buy into fear-porn only to grow government even bigger than it already is.
 
Last edited:
In bold. It’s really just that simple. Why so-called “liberty advocates” have so much difficulty with that simple truth, well, it really is discouraging.

It makes for a nice cliche but that's all that it is.

Government created this problem by merely existing, and as long as it exists, all solutions to the problem are going to be government related.

It is what it is.

If you want to team up together to remove the government, send me a PM. I may or may not report you immediately to DHS however.
 
If only we could get all the illegals to self deport themselves by taking away all the incentives that brought them here in the first place.
 
It makes for a nice cliche but that's all that it is.

Government created this problem by merely existing, and as long as it exists, all solutions to the problem are going to be government related.

It is what it is.

If you want to team up together to remove the government, send me a PM. I may or may not report you immediately to DHS however.


Nah, I think I’ll stick with people whom I’m very sure I can trust in a tight spot. Thanks for the offer tho.
 
:rolleyes: LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

From the link I gave you.
FROM: George Coppolo, Chief Attorney

RE: State Sovereignty—Refusal to Enforce Federal Regulations

You asked whether recent U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Printz v. U.S. authorize a state to refuse to enforce federal regulations.

SUMMARY

Recent Supreme Court rulings based on state sovereignty concerns, including Printz v. U.S., prohibit the federal government from (1) requiring states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program and (2) requiring state officials to administer a federal regulatory scheme. They do not prohibit states from voluntarily complying with federal law to make themselves eligible for federal grants. In fact, these rulings allow Congress to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds provided the conditions are a proper exercise of Congress' spending power granted it by the constitution. The Court has articulated four standards to determine whether conditions of eligibility for federal grants are a proper exercise of this power. First, the exercise of spending must be in pursuit of the general welfare. Second, the conditions must be unambiguous. Third, the conditions must be related to federal interests in the national projects or programs involved. Finally, the conditions may not induce states to engage in activities that violate some specific federal constitutional right.​
REGULATORY!

You really can't read.
 
It's long settle law that the Federal government cannot "commandeer" state government to enforce federal law. If the mayor of Denver orders police to actively block ICE from rounding people up that's one thing. And using loaded terms like "insurrection" is not helpful on Rand's part. That would justify the use of the military to enforce immigration, something that Rand Paul in the same breath said he opposes.

Trump is not commandeering local law enforcement, he's telling them to hand over illegals in their custody and to stay out of the way, the mayor is threatening to actively interfere, what the mayor is doing is insurrection and treason.
 
Lame attempt at intersectionalism by the left which was rebuffed by Latinos voting for Trump in this last election. In one border town that is 97% Hispanic, Trump got 75% of the vote. That has to burn you up I'm sure.

You are again conflating hispanics who have been here for many generations, legal immigrants, and illegal migrants.

And you are the one who tried to claim that no immigrants were involved when the left has been specifically importing pervs legally and illegally.
 
Bullshyt. You lied and doubled down on your lie. You lied about my specific examples PLURAL and you have doubled down on your lied because you don't have ANY actual verified evidence of the "Haitians eating cats" claim! There's a whole freaking thread on that subject with every claim you and others put forward being debunked MULTIPLE times! You even, in that same thread, tried to reuse the story of the "Haitian cat eater" that turned out to be a WHITE man.
There's a whole thread full of evidence, only some of which was refuted, the rest stands ignored or lied about by you.
 
Back
Top