PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on December 11, 2018, 02:03:31 PM
-
-
I saw a headline, maybe on the Daily Caller, that said “Pelosi, Schumer bring gas to the meeting. Trump willingly lights the match.”
They can’t out Trump Trump.
-
I think they did. Trump will own the shutdown. I suspect that isn't going to be good.
-
Oh, I thought I read Sid and Nancy. Never mind.
-
I think they did. Trump will own the shutdown. I suspect that isn't going to be good.
Republicans are certainly capable of losing the messaging game; clearly most shutdowns have been due to the intransigence of the democrats, yet have been blamed entirely on the Republicans.
But the only way this blows up for Trump is if he gets nothing for it. If he gets his wall, even if he has to shuffle money and get the military to build it, he will be beloved by those in the middle who value security for a long time.
-
Pay attention. Chuck and Nancy want these talks "private".
Why? So they, and their MSM can spin it anyway beneficial to them. The President brought them out in the open, with cameras rolling, and showed the country what they really are.
Sun light is a very powerful disinfectant.
-
I think they did. Trump will own the shutdown. I suspect that isn't going to be good.
So? Chucks Schumer shut down the government last time. The world didn't end. And Chucky owned that one lock, stock and barrel.
-
The Democrats disgust me even more than the Establishment (complicit) Republicans.
-
Trump wants his wall. Didn't do the Chinese much good.
-
Trump wants his wall. Didn't do the Chinese much good.
Stupid and shallow.
China built the Great Wall to keep invading Armies out. Not parasitic future democrat welfare recipients.
-
Bitch, shut up.
God how she grates.
I like Pence. Just sits there like the only adult in the room.
-
Trump wants his wall. Didn't do the Chinese much good.
But a 440 mile wall provides security to Israel today.
-
We have so much technology today. Drones, cameras, robotic everything, Artificial Intelligence which I am told can now REASON. I am sure we are using some of it, but why not maximize the potential of all these assets to curtail this illegal invasion. Either that, or bring back A-1 Skyraiders to patrol the border. This being an aviation board and all. 20mm is something in which people don't argue.
-
I think they did. Trump will own the shutdown. I suspect that isn't going to be good.
Why is it that when two sides can't agree, it is always the Republicans that get the blame. If the Dems would ever agree with the R's, there would be no shutdown.
It is because blame is an opinion, and the general public gets their opinion from the MSM.
-
Why is it that when two sides can't agree, it is always the Republicans that get the blame. If the Dems would ever agree with the R's, there would be no shutdown.
It is because blame is an opinion, and the general public gets their opinion from the MSM.
You answered your own question (as you are well aware). The MEDIA spins it as the Republican's fault, ALWAYS. Even if it is the Democrat's fault, or they are equally culpable. Same reason Russia, Russia, Russia is still being talked about over two years later, even though there is evidence that is was all bunk.
The weak minded, and low information types just repeat what they hear in the Media as they think it makes them sound "smart, and informed".
-
But a 440 mile wall provides security to Israel today.
Exactly.
Walls are effective.
-
That was just painful to watch. It may have put me off politics forever. A couple of grade schoolers could probably make better decisions than those two self-serving party hacks. America should be ashamed.
-
That was just painful to watch. It may have put me off politics forever. A couple of grade schoolers could probably make better decisions than those two self-serving party hacks. America should be ashamed.
Painful?? We have two years to watch the Chuck and Nancy Clown Show.
Chuck, not so much, he'll continue to be ignored in the senate, but Nancy is going to show us just how bizarre she can be.
-
Trump himself said he would happily own the shutdown in the name of national security. Of course he’s happy to give the Russians and Saudi’s a pass, but some poor schlubs trying to sneak in across our Southen border are a big threat.
-
Trump himself said he would happily own the shutdown in the name of national security. Of course he’s happy to give the Russians and Saudi’s a pass, but some poor schlubs trying to sneak in across our Southen border are a big threat.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/50493420.jpg)
-
Trump himself said he would happily own the shutdown in the name of national security. Of course he’s happy to give the Russians and Saudi’s a pass, but some poor schlubs trying to sneak in across our Southen border are a big threat.
Just out of morbid curiosity, do you ever think, or just babble bullshit, in a failed attempt to sound relevant?
Seriously.
Your anti President Trump rhetoric is pathetic, dishonest and deeply delusional.
-
Trump himself said he would happily own the shutdown in the name of national security. Of course he’s happy to give the Russians and Saudi’s a pass, but some poor schlubs trying to sneak in across our Southen border are a big threat.
Grow up. Trump is playing varsity ball in global international affairs, and you’re playing Stratego in your basement.
-
Grow up. Trump is playing varsity ball in global international affairs, and you’re playing Stratego in your basement.
Sometimes I think he is still pretending that his anti - President Trump rhetoric makes him look hot to coeds.
-
Trump himself said he would happily own the shutdown in the name of national security. Of course he’s happy to give the Russians and Saudi’s a pass, but some poor schlubs trying to sneak in across our Southen border are a big threat.
Michael, what part does the US play in the Saudi or Turkish government? Do you really know who Kashoggi was?
-
Trump himself said he would happily own the shutdown in the name of national security. Of course he’s happy to give the Russians and Saudi’s a pass, but some poor schlubs trying to sneak in across our Southen border are a big threat.
Didn't watch the video, eh? Once again, Steingar the Substanceless hits the talking points and misses the whole point.
-
We finally have a President that is putting the U.S. best interests FIRST, and attention seeking Michael can only point at a foreign journalist killed in a foreign country. It has NO bearing on us. We have no jurisdiction there! He is neither American, nor was he in America when it happened.
These same people complain when we use our influence around the world for our benefit, and claim we are colonialists, and exploiters of BROWN people. They get the friggin vapors over it.
Dishonesty, Bias, and ANTI AMERICAN globalism drives the LEFT. Huh, Michael?
-
But a 440 mile wall provides security to Israel today.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/laughing-pointing-emoticon-260nw-81643645.jpg)
You obviously don't watch the news much.
-
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/laughing-pointing-emoticon-260nw-81643645.jpg)
You obviously don't watch the news much.
So, because it isn't a perfect solution we should do nothing?
-
So let's look at what happened, and what's going on.
The dims say the $5 Billion for the wall is "wasteful", however we are spending $150 Billion per year on dealing with illegals. And the dims are OK with a fence, but they do not want a wall. Can anyone reasonably explain that logic?
Nancy wants to throw out a few crumbs in order to get what the dims want. But she is forgetting one small problem, and the President brought this up: She doesn't have the votes to become Speaker without Republican support. The MSM and the dims want you to believe she does, but she doesn't, the math doesn't lie. So, if Nancy wants to be Speaker, she needs to make a deal, and make it now, fund the border wall.
But Nancy and Chuck's base, the alt left, will scream and howl if they cave on the wall. This is going to be fun to watch. Trust me.
Notice how Chucky never looked the President in the face, especially when addressing him? That should tell you all you need to know. Also, all Chucky could do is throw out talking points, and when the President pushed him, he would just hang his head down. Those cameras in the room, their own MSM, was making this meeting very embarrassing for Nancy and Chuck.
Chuck threw out "Elections have consequences!", yep Chuck, you are absolutely right. That's why Trump is President and you are the Senate MINORITY Leader.
So Nancy will have to cave and give Trump what he wants, and she will have to get Chuck to cave and have him get enough D votes in the senate to pass it, or she won't be speaker.
And don't be surprised if Nancy and Chuck make this deal, then renege on it, just to get Nancy in the Speaker chair. If that happens be prepared to watch how little the dims get accomplished.
All in all, the President had a good time yesterday, and he has Nancy and Chuck right where he wants them.
-
You obviously don't watch the news much.
I do. And I also look for facts.
And the fact is the Israeli border wall has been very effective. It's more than a wall, it's also heavily guarded and monitored. Those barriers have cut illegal immigration into Israel by 99%.
-
Speaking of walls:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6487193/Central-American-migrants-march-consulate-Tijuana-demands-Trump-administration.html
Two groups of migrants from Central America marched to the American consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, yesterday, with a list of demands to the Trump administration.
One of them asked the American president to either let them in the country or pay them $50,000 each to go home, a report said.
The first group, including about 100 migrants, arrived at the consulate around 11am on Tuesday.
'We thought they would let us in. But Trump sent the military instead of social workers.'
Oh, and BTW, for the perfesser, this article comes from an ultra liberal media outlet.
-
So let's look at what happened, and what's going on.
The dims say the $5 Billion for the wall is "wasteful", however we are spending $150 Billion per year on dealing with illegals. And the dims are OK with a fence, but they do not want a wall. Can anyone reasonably explain that logic?
Nancy wants to throw out a few crumbs in order to get what the dims want. But she is forgetting one small problem, and the President brought this up: She doesn't have the votes to become Speaker without Republican support. The MSM and the dims want you to believe she does, but she doesn't, the math doesn't lie. So, if Nancy wants to be Speaker, she needs to make a deal, and make it now, fund the border wall.
But Nancy and Chuck's base, the alt left, will scream and howl if they cave on the wall. This is going to be fun to watch. Trust me.
Notice how Chucky never looked the President in the face, especially when addressing him? That should tell you all you need to know. Also, all Chucky could do is throw out talking points, and when the President pushed him, he would just hang his head down. Those cameras in the room, their own MSM, was making this meeting very embarrassing for Nancy and Chuck.
Chuck threw out "Elections have consequences!", yep Chuck, you are absolutely right. That's why Trump is President and you are the Senate MINORITY Leader.
So Nancy will have to cave and give Trump what he wants, and she will have to get Chuck to cave and have him get enough D votes in the senate to pass it, or she won't be speaker.
And don't be surprised if Nancy and Chuck make this deal, then renege on it, just to get Nancy in the Speaker chair. If that happens be prepared to watch how little the dims get accomplished.
All in all, the President had a good time yesterday, and he has Nancy and Chuck right where he wants them.
I’d like for this to be true, and I haven’t checked the numbers, but for Pelosi to lose the R’s would have to team up with the intransigent D’s like Ocasio Cortez. I don’t see that happening.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/12/12/good-idea-on-the-wall-demand-funding-for-physical-barriers-that-congress-has-already-approved-n2537328
-
And this is for the perfessor, who believes illegals at the border mean more to this country than our own:
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb121218dAPR20181212044507.jpg)
-
Chucky really dissed Indiana and South Dakota also. Showed what they left really feels about fly over country.
-
Chucky really dissed Indiana and South Dakota also. Showed what they left really feels about fly over country.
They hate any state that isn't controlled by one or more Metro Areas (city and burbs) which are now overwelmingly Democrat. So, the coasts, and states like IL, MN, etc, they like. Others, not at all.
I have said this before. Our divide is largely Metro/Non-Metro in this country. We are losing the battle as more people are urbanizing, and either are Democrat, or become Democrat. These metro areas control every state in which they have the population to do so, and more often than not, they do.
-
Great article in The Federalist:
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/trump-just-set-3-traps-for-schumer-pelosi-over-immigration
-
Great article in The Federalist:
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/trump-just-set-3-traps-for-schumer-pelosi-over-immigration
Yea buddy.
The President should keep inviting them back to the WH for "talks". And have the cameras ready. "Full and open transparency".....
Right Nancy?
-
They hate any state that isn't controlled by one or more Metro Areas (city and burbs) which are now overwelmingly Democrat. So, the coasts, and states like IL, MN, etc, they like. Others, not at all.
I have said this before. Our divide is largely Metro/Non-Metro in this country. We are losing the battle as more people are urbanizing, and either are Democrat, or become Democrat. These metro areas control every state in which they have the population to do so, and more often than not, they do.
The urban/Dem areas are the new aristocracy, totally disconnected from the workers and farmers that feed their asses, and deliver energy and goods across the country to their asses, and they are completely contemptuous and snobby in their disdain for the "inferior" lowly classes: rural, hillbilly, redneck, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, gun loving, religion clinging low brow uneducated unsophisticated lesser forms of human.
More and more insulated and the young ones coming up now, attending urban universities are totally and completely devoid of any understanding of the entire 50% of the country that does not follow lockstep to the unified leftist monochrome that is now academia.
-
Yea buddy.
The President should keep inviting them back to the WH for "talks". And have the cameras ready. "Full and open transparency".....
Right Nancy?
Totally agree. Did you notice someone in the press interjecting themselves during this three way conversation? I’ll bet anything it was Acosta, who actually thinks he’s important and relevant.
-
I do. And I also look for facts.
And the fact is the Israeli border wall has been very effective. It's more than a wall, it's also heavily guarded and monitored. Those barriers have cut illegal immigration into Israel by 99%.
Progressive numb nuts NEVER deal in facts, or logic. It is all about sound bites and bullshit emotional nonsense.
It's not that michael is dishonest with us.
He is delusional and dishonest with himself.
We are just a stage for his pathetic play acting.
-
I do. And I also look for facts.
And the fact is the Israeli border wall has been very effective. It's more than a wall, it's also heavily guarded and monitored. Those barriers have cut illegal immigration into Israel by 99%.
Our southern border is many times the size of the Israeli one, and runs through tons of inhospitable domain. Good luck guarding all that. I'll bet money Mexicans know how to build ladders.
Oh, but your precious leader has said its the thing to do, so it must be so.
-
Our southern border is many times the size of the Israeli one, and runs through tons of inhospitable domain. Good luck guarding all that. I'll bet money Mexicans know how to build ladders.
Oh, but your precious leader has said its the thing to do, so it must be so.
So why are you against sovereignty? Why are you opposed to border security? How does it benefit the citizens of the US to allow people to enter the country illegally?
Can you answer any of the above questions?
-
Our southern border is many times the size of the Israeli one, and runs through tons of inhospitable domain. Good luck guarding all that. I'll bet money Mexicans know how to build ladders.
Oh, but your precious leader has said its the thing to do, so it must be so.
Any guess which prominent democrats were included in the 26 democrats who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 when it passed the Senate 80-19?
-
Any guess which prominent democrats were included in the 26 democrats who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 when it passed the Senate 80-19?
There you go with facts again.....
Since the perfesser doesn't like to actually read (easier to have Wolf Blitzer or Don Lemon tell him) I can fill in a few:
Sen Diane Feinstein(D)
Sen Joe Biden (D)
Sen Barack Obama (D)
Sen Hillary Clinton (D)
Sen Chuck Schumer(D)
-
There you go with facts again.....
The fun part is that Trump is Steingar’s “precious leader” too!
-
The fun part is that Trump is Steingar’s “precious leader” too!
Yes he is!
-
Yea buddy.
The President should keep inviting them back to the WH for "talks". And have the cameras ready. "Full and open transparency".....
Right Nancy?
I think that is actually a trap now. If he invites them and they balk because he might have the cameras rolling, he'll be able to use that against them.
-
The fun part is that Trump is Steingar’s “precious leader” too!
Yes, in his words the MANGO Mussolini is still President, succeeding, actualy working FOR the American people instead of against them, and against Globalism/reducing American Sovereignty.
-
Our southern border is many times the size of the Israeli one, and runs through tons of inhospitable domain. Good luck guarding all that. I'll bet money Mexicans know how to build ladders.
Oh, but your precious leader has said its the thing to do, so it must be so.
Many of us have been calling for tougher border security, including a wall, for years, BEFORE Trump ever came on the (political) scene. It is just that Trump is the first one with the balls to attempt to do the right thing. That is something that is completely foreign, and scary as hell to most politicians.
I don't like Trump. But I do love most of the things he does.
-
There you go with facts again.....
Since the perfesser doesn't like to actually read (easier to have Wolf Blitzer or Don Lemon tell him) I can fill in a few:
Sen Diane Feinstein(D)
Sen Joe Biden (D)
Sen Barack Obama (D)
Sen Hillary Clinton (D)
Sen Chuck Schumer(D)
Progressiv academic parasites are not permitted to actually read up on the facts.
They are obligated to only deal in sound bites, lies and utter emotional bullshit.
-
The U.S. Just Became a Net Oil Exporter for the First Time in 75 Years
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-06/u-s-becomes-a-net-oil-exporter-for-the-first-time-in-75-years
Any day now Obama will show up and tell us he did this.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-06/u-s-becomes-a-net-oil-exporter-for-the-first-time-in-75-years
Any day now Obama will show up and tell us he did this.
Of course. He spent 8 years blaming Bush for all of his failures and now he wants all the credit for Trump's successes.
-
Finally the U.S. is achieving energy independence and making MONEY from our energy instead of having to RELY on some of our enemies. Today's low energy prices reflect that and are a boon for the poor and middle class. Those energy savings go RIGHT TO THE BOTTOM LINE for individuals and businesses. This is HUGE.
Now my Governor, Tom Wolf wants to add a Carbon Tax (Cap and Trade scheme for Carbon) and put a further drain on our economy. Democrats are THIEVES. Of course any revenue will go to our huge, unfunded public sector worker pension fund.
-
Shapiro had a good take on this yesterday. He said this was a great example of good Trump and bad Trump. Good Trump because he got the Democrats to admit that they were not willing to pass a bill that would fund the wall. Bad Trump because this is an issue that Trump is right on and there was no need to own the shut down.
I think that's a good take. Trump got the two top Democrats to expose themselves on national television. Democrats don't want actual border security. Besides, a government shut down is really more theater than anything since most of the government still operates.
-
If a shut down happens it will be barely noticed by the public.
Many agencies of the federal government are already funded and will continue as normal.
Americans want border security, and they want immigration laws followed. And I think they agree with Trump and are willing to back him on this. Of course, the MSM and progressives will go nuts, but what's new?
The "Nancy and Chuck Goes to the WH" show is just yet another blunder by the dims.
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb121318dAPR20181213074510.jpg)
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz121218dAPR20181212054516.jpg)
-
If a shut down happens it will be barely noticed by the public.
Dunno, if you need your medical or a new certificate you might notice quite a bit. But since you're not even a pilot you wouldn't know that.
-
Dunno, if you need your medical or a new certificate you might notice quite a bit. But since you're not even a pilot you wouldn't know that.
Oh, my God!
Stop the presses....
The apocalypse is about to occur. A liberal parasite might be slightly inconvenienced b cause his party refuses to negotiate in good faith. It’s the end of civilization as we know it.
-
Dunno, if you need your medical or a new certificate you might notice quite a bit. But since you're not even a pilot you wouldn't know that.
I'm not?
Oh, reality check: Medical Examiners (private doctors) issue pilot medicals, not the FAA. And a new certificate? Done online.
Next.
-
Oh, reality check: Medical Examiners (private doctors) issue pilot medicals, not the FAA. And a new certificate? Done online.
If the MedXPress system is shut down - like it was on the last government shutdown - the AMEs will be unable to issue medicals.
-
If the MedXPress system is shut down - like it was on the last government shutdown - the AMEs will be unable to issue medicals.
If you are getting a normal medical, no problems, nothing abnormal the system should allow the pilot and the doctor to input the information.
But, let's look at reality. Everyone knows there is a pending shutdown. If their medical is due, why not move it up and get it done?
Also, most here are private (hobby) pilots. is having a small delay getting a medical going to end your life? Seriously, if a shut down happens, what, a week? Month tops?
I can't see the hysteria of a partial government shutdown.
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f78bfd559552ec8baf0db0fc12d8ff26aa00f715a1bad3275c0d8ddd006d73c4.jpg?w=800&h=546)
-
If you are getting a normal medical, no problems, nothing abnormal the system should allow the pilot and the doctor to input the information.
But, let's look at reality. Everyone knows there is a pending shutdown. If their medical is due, why not move it up and get it done?
Also, most here are private (hobby) pilots. is having a small delay getting a medical going to end your life? Seriously, if a shut down happens, what, a week? Month tops?
I can't see the hysteria of a partial government shutdown.
Yeah. I'm a big fan of government shutting down. Pragmatically and realistically, though, it seems to cost more to shut it down than just keeping the government running. Sigh.
-
If that's what it takes to slap this country awake and stop illegal mass influx then that's what it takes. It HAS to be done or we do not have a country anymore.
-
If that's what it takes to slap this country awake and stop illegal mass influx then that's what it takes. It HAS to be done or we do not have a country anymore.
The actual rate of illegal immigration has actually decreased quite a bit in the last few years, likely due to gains li Latin American economies.
-
The actual rate of illegal immigration has actually decreased quite a bit in the last few years, likely due to gains li Latin American economies.
That fact isn't relevant to group-think xenophobia or paranoia.
For members not part of the group-think, trend information is displayed in figures 1, 2, and 3 of this DHS document (the most authoritative, up-to-date source I could find):
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf)
-
That fact isn't relevant to group-think xenophobia or paranoia.
For members not part of the group-think, trend information is displayed in figures 1, 2, and 3 of this DHS document (the most authoritative, up-to-date source I could find):
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf)
So what is the acceptable number of people entering our country illegally?
Why do you see it being acceptable to have non citizens coming into this country and breaking our laws?
-
So what is the acceptable number of people entering our country illegally?
Why do you see it being acceptable to have non citizens coming into this country and breaking our laws?
All other developled nations do NOT ALLOW illegal entry. They have very, very strict penalties for this. Why is it OK for illegal aliens to come here? What is it with the Liberal/Progressive mindset to think it is xenophobic, and paranoid to have unvetted, illegals coming here when other countries do not allow it?
Why is it OK to have potentential criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, or at the minimum those who want to use our system, designed for citizens for FREE, and essentially steal?
-
All other developled nations do NOT ALLOW illegal entry. They have very, very strict penalties for this. Why is it OK for illegal aliens to come here? What is it with the Liberal/Progressive mindset to think it is xenophobic, and paranoid to have unvetted, illegals coming here when other countries do not allow it?
Why is it OK to have potentential criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, or at the minimum those who want to use our system, designed for citizens for FREE, and essentially steal?
I've asked the perfesser this, no answer. Typical as a troll has no interest in carrying on a normal conversation.
I'm waiting for Jim to give us his answer.
-
That fact isn't relevant to group-think xenophobia or paranoia.
For members not part of the group-think, trend information is displayed in figures 1, 2, and 3 of this DHS document (the most authoritative, up-to-date source I could find):
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf)
OK. All rise... for...
the mutual masturbation society of progressive pants wetters is now in session.
-
That fact isn't relevant to group-think xenophobia or paranoia.
For members not part of the group-think, trend information is displayed in figures 1, 2, and 3 of this DHS document (the most authoritative, up-to-date source I could find):
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BSMR_OIS_2016.pdf)
What on earth are you talking about? Xenophobia is fear of foreigners. Who here fears foreigners? My two nieces are Hispanic immigrants. I don't fear them. What are you talking about?
What the hell does me wanting to prevent illegal entry into our country got to do with a pathological fear of foreign people?
Anyway, I looked at your figures so I guess that means you grant I might not be part of "group-think", whatever that is. It is good the numbers are way down and it is even better that as Michael says that could be as countries south of us improve economically. But you seem to be implying that since it's only a fraction of what it used to be that oh well we shouldn't mind, just let them in. I mean I assume that's what you mean, if you say people who want to stop even these few illegals are "group-think paranoid xenophobics".
-
The President speaks to us, unfiltered. Wish I knew how to share this without the string of trolls that always reply to him.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1073327086037741568
-
So what is the acceptable number of people entering our country illegally?
Why do you see it being acceptable to have non citizens coming into this country and breaking our laws?
The cogent question is how much of our resources are justified in addressing it? Were it the swarms of your dear leaders imaginings then it might be a high ticket item. Since the flow has been decreasing on its own, and since a big wall isn't going to stop anyone (like I said, lots of folks can make ladders. Ropes work too, as do tunnels) i don't think it requires tens of billions of the next generation's money to address. But its easy for you to want these things since it will be funded with debt that you will never have to pay off.
-
I prefer Mango Mussolini, personally. So, what is it worth to stop another large terrorist attack by terrorists that come in through out Southern border? I mean, think of the children.
-
The cogent question is how much of our resources are justified in addressing it? Were it the swarms of your dear leaders imaginings then it might be a high ticket item. Since the flow has been decreasing on its own, and since a big wall isn't going to stop anyone (like I said, lots of folks can make ladders. Ropes work too, as do tunnels) i don't think it requires tens of billions of the next generation's money to address. But its easy for you to want these things since it will be funded with debt that you will never have to pay off.
Rather than yet another inane diatribe, try answering the questions directly, as written.
1) So what is the acceptable number of people entering our country illegally?
2) Why do you see it being acceptable to have non citizens coming into this country and breaking our laws?
-
I prefer Mango Mussolini, personally.
For the perfesser's lord and savior I prefer the Mocha Messiah.
-
Rather than yet another inane diatribe, try answering the questions directly, as written.
1) So what is the acceptable number of people entering our country illegally?
2) Why do you see it being acceptable to have non citizens coming into this country and breaking our laws?
I'll take a stab at answering on behalf of the phony professor.
1) As long as they can be used to harvest votes, as many as can fit...
2) who gives a shit as long as democrats (communists like mike) can use them to hijack elections.
-
Since the flow has been decreasing on its own, and since a big wall isn't going to stop anyone (like I said, lots of folks can make ladders.
I see no 50' ladders in Tijuana. Isn't there supposed to be someone selling ladders right there?
Additionally, the wall IS stopping most of them. They are camped in Tijuana, not in San Diego. It didn't stop everyone, so there is room for improvement.
As far as the flow decreasing on it's own, that is largely been attributed to more hostile policies toward illegal immigrants. I think most people agree that if you make it very unpleasant for illegal immigrants to be here, then a lot of them are going to go home on their own. That would have a huge impact on the job opportunities for the middle and lower class, who are largely being shut out by immigrants who work for lower wages.
I am very pro immigrant, WHEN they come in through the proper channels. I am very against having an open border where just anyone can come in as they please.
-
The Left of which Michael is a part want Open Borders (Amnesty) and illegal entry for one reason alone. To permanently change the demographics of the U.S. to be a one party, Democrat country. The ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS in their self righteous quest. Never mind that it will absolutely destroy the very reason people want to come here in the first place.
We will see drastic reductions in freedom. liberty, opportunity, and economic expansion will cease. Taxes on the dwindling middle income earner will skyrocket as everything from Carbon Taxes, mileage taxes, higher energy taxes, and higher income tax rates occur.
This is their vision.
-
That would have a huge impact on the job opportunities for the middle and lower class, who are largely being shut out by immigrants who work for lower wages.
Ironic that in California, where the democrat party is hugely pro-union (some would say controlled by unions), democrats want to import scabs by the thousands, if not millions.
Tim
-
So what is the acceptable number of people entering our country illegally?
Your number is zero, correct? I find that value unacceptable because the cost to achieve it would be fiscally astronomical, but worse, it would require effective elimination of our few remaining rights to achieve. Fuck that goal and the horse you paranoids brought it in on.
Why do you see it being acceptable to have non citizens coming into this country and breaking our laws?
Fucking circular reasoning again in your rhetorical question - could be easily broken by changing immigration law to make them legal. Oh, you mean you accept the trope about the breaking of immigration law obviously making them criminals of other laws?
Now that I've answered your rhetorical questions to your dissatisfaction, I'll ask you one: Why did you avoid explaining why your whining increases as the illegal immigration decreases?
-
Your number is zero, correct? I find that value unacceptable because the cost to achieve it would be fiscally astronomical, but worse, it would require effective elimination of our few remaining rights to achieve. Fuck that goal and the horse you paranoids brought it in on.
Fucking circular reasoning again in your rhetorical question - could be easily broken by changing immigration law to make them legal. Oh, you mean you accept the trope about the breaking of immigration law obviously making them criminals of other laws?
Now that I've answered your rhetorical questions to your dissatisfaction, I'll ask you one: Why did you avoid explaining why your whining increases as the illegal immigration decreases?
Nothing like a progressive pants wetter to put it all in perspective.
FUCK YOU and your pathetic arguments, bought and paid for by george soros and his handmaiden nancy pelosi.
-
What on earth are you talking about? Xenophobia is fear of foreigners. Who here fears foreigners? My two nieces are Hispanic immigrants. I don't fear them. What are you talking about?
Then you fall into the tiny misinformed camp.
What the hell does me wanting to prevent illegal entry into our country got to do with a pathological fear of foreign people?
Then why do people whine longer and louder about a problem that is actually decreasing? IIRC you have some sort of training in a technical field where you probably learned about first attempting to understand the scope and history of a problem before attempting to prioritize its resolution among all other problems? Is illegal immigration the problem you really want us to sacrifice tons more money and freedoms to solve? Have you or anyone you know ever personally been harmed from an illegal alien? How about harmed by a native citizen?
You know - legal and illegal aliens, the water of the Canadian portion of the Columbia river, the sandy air of the Sahara, the polluted air of China, TCP/IP traffic from India, and a myriad of other things that cross U.S. borders all have in common that they should only be subject to regulation or control where they cause identifiable victims. That's my position.
Exercise of sovereignty: you once indicated this as an (or the) underlying reason to enforce immigration laws. That, IIRC, without enforcement there would be no meaningful sovereignty. I don't see the connection, though. The sovereignty of, say, Wisconsin's government over its declared area is not lost by an influx of Minnesota aliens. The aliens may be simply there for the cheese (or to watch the Vikings beat the Packers) - though if the Minnesota militia showed up Wisconsin's sovereignty would be in peril if the Minnesotans tried to enforce their laws in Wisconsin. But none of that sort of thing is happening with illegal immigrants from central America to the U.S. They're here to stand around on corners (well they used to, years ago - I remember that well) waiting to be picked up for odd jobs like mowing our lawns, harvesting our crops, and sell us gassy Mexican food.
Anyway, I looked at your figures so I guess that means you grant I might not be part of "group-think", whatever that is. It is good the numbers are way down and it is even better that as Michael says that could be as countries south of us improve economically. But you seem to be implying that since it's only a fraction of what it used to be that oh well we shouldn't mind, just let them in. I mean I assume that's what you mean, if you say people who want to stop even these few illegals are "group-think paranoid xenophobics".
Thank you for looking at the document.
-
Your number is zero, correct? I find that value unacceptable because the cost to achieve it would be fiscally astronomical, but worse, it would require effective elimination of our few remaining rights to achieve. Fuck that goal and the horse you paranoids brought it in on.
Fucking circular reasoning again in your rhetorical question - could be easily broken by changing immigration law to make them legal. Oh, you mean you accept the trope about the breaking of immigration law obviously making them criminals of other laws?
So you're still avoiding my questions? A really ignorant way to do it, but why expect any less from you?
I find it amusing people such as yourself are so concerned (at least you pretend to be) about someone who ignores our laws and enters our country illegally, then you want taxpayers to give them healthcare and welfare and a whole host of social services. Makes you feel good about yourself, because you are so concerned for your fellow man.
Yet, I can guarantee if we come up to your little paradise we will find homeless people. Homeless AMERICAN citizens. And I would bet some of those homeless are veterans, you know, those folks who gave up a part of their life to serve our country and protect our rights, so ignorant fucks like yourself can act like a total arrogant asshole.
Yet you don't give a flying fuck about those people, they're nothing but an inconvenience and an eyesore to you. After all, in your little social circle it makes a better statement to show how you are so concerned about a bunch of people breaking our laws.
You can't make one coherent argument on why we should protect our borders and demand that people who come here obey our laws. My two questions obviously triggered you because you can't answer them, at least not truthfully because it would go against your little fantasy world.
Now that I've answered your rhetorical questions to your dissatisfaction, I'll ask you one: Why did you avoid explaining why your whining increases as the illegal immigration decreases?
Because no one is "whining" here. You injected that bullshit premise because you can't accept some very real facts.
-
Your number is zero, correct? I find that value unacceptable because the cost to achieve it would be fiscally astronomical, but worse, it would require effective elimination of our few remaining rights to achieve. Fuck that goal and the horse you paranoids brought it in on.
The goal should be zero. The law should specify zero. The expectation should not be to achieve zero, but to reduce the number as much as possible by the use of reasonable measures.
Why is it acceptable to say that we will allow a few murderers or a few child sex traffickers?
-
The goal should be zero. The law should specify zero. The expectation should not be to achieve zero, but to reduce the number as much as possible by the use of reasonable measures.
Why is it acceptable to say that we will allow a few murderers or a few child sex traffickers?
As with everything, multiple things can be true at once. I reject your premise that this is a binary problem.
As I see it, there are two (probably more) distinct issues here. The first is dealing with the illegal immigrants that are already here. The second is securing the border and enforcing the laws on the books (or modifying/enhancing them as necessary) to reduce/prevent illegal immigration going forward. I'm not saying you do this, but far too often these two are conflated.
The reality is that we are not going to round up and deport the ~10 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. I think this is, at least in part, what Jim was getting at regarding the amount of resources and cost to freedoms/liberties it would take to achieve this. We absolutely should deport those we find that are here illegally; indeed we already do this and should continue to do so. But we should identify those that are here and are offering something positive to our society and allow them to stay. A zero tolerance policy of illegally here = deportation and no exceptions is not realistic.
On the issue of reducing/preventing illegal immigration in the future, it needs to be a more holistic approach. The big, physical wall that Trump wants is more than just about having a wall to prevent people from getting in. Steingar is right that they will build ladders and dig tunnels and find other creative ways to get across the wall, but that's not the point. They're already doing that. A big, physical wall is also symbolic of our effort to protect our border. It makes it clearly defined (and in some places in the U.S., the border is marked by nothing more than a dilapidated fence of sorts). It also creates standoff distance and at least slows down people trying to get across it, allowing for a better response time for Border Patrol.
I think the physical wall should be combined with a virtual wall as well. I suspect that in certain parts a big wall is not practical and in those places a (insert some form of fence/wall) combined with a virtual wall would suffice.
-
Nothing like a progressive pants wetter to put it all in perspective.
FUCK YOU and your pathetic arguments, bought and paid for by george soros and his handmaiden nancy pelosi.
Well that's a convincing argument. You've certainly changed my mind.
-
As with everything, multiple things can be true at once. I reject your premise that this is a binary problem.
As I see it, there are two (probably more) distinct issues here. The first is dealing with the illegal immigrants that are already here. The second is securing the border and enforcing the laws on the books (or modifying/enhancing them as necessary) to reduce/prevent illegal immigration going forward. I'm not saying you do this, but far too often these two are conflated.
The reality is that we are not going to round up and deport the ~10 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. I think this is, at least in part, what Jim was getting at regarding the amount of resources and cost to freedoms/liberties it would take to achieve this. We absolutely should deport those we find that are here illegally; indeed we already do this and should continue to do so. But we should identify those that are here and are offering something positive to our society and allow them to stay. A zero tolerance policy of illegally here = deportation and no exceptions is not realistic.
On the issue of reducing/preventing illegal immigration in the future, it needs to be a more holistic approach. The big, physical wall that Trump wants is more than just about having a wall to prevent people from getting in. Steingar is right that they will build ladders and dig tunnels and find other creative ways to get across the wall, but that's not the point. They're already doing that. A big, physical wall is also symbolic of our effort to protect our border. It makes it clearly defined (and in some places in the U.S., the border is marked by nothing more than a dilapidated fence of sorts). It also creates standoff distance and at least slows down people trying to get across it, allowing for a better response time for Border Patrol.
I think the physical wall should be combined with a virtual wall as well. I suspect that in certain parts a big wall is not practical and in those places a (insert some form of fence/wall) combined with a virtual wall would suffice.
I'm not sure what you read in my post that you reject. Either you read something that wasn't there or I may have said something inadvertently that I didn't meant to say, but I pretty much agree with your statements.
We can't really expect to achieve zero, but we can try. I don't remember who said "don't let perfection be the enemy of good", but I agree with that.
-
It is typically two faced of the democrats (communists) that they attack the second amendment wanting to add more and more gun laws, making gun ownership and possession illegal, with all guns blazing, all lies being told, all crocodile tears being shed and all bulls hit being spread, while embracing a culture of illegals that have already, undeniably proven that they have zero respect for our laws and will continue to give America the finger if the democrats (communists) get their way and force the countr6 to turn a blind eye to their lawbreaking.
Nothing less should be expected from the party of vote fraud, political corruption and never ending lies.
-
I'm not sure what you read in my post that you reject. Either you read something that wasn't there or I may have said something inadvertently that I didn't meant to say, but I pretty much agree with your statements.
We can't really expect to achieve zero, but we can try. I don't remember who said "don't let perfection be the enemy of good", but I agree with that.
Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote. I took your line about allowing sex offenders as being a binary choice: if you're for letting some people stay then you must be for letting sex offenders stay. Jim never suggested that violent offenders and sex offenders should be permitted to stay. I took his stance as one of being that it's unrealistic to think that we can deport everyone.
-
Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote. I took your line about allowing sex offenders as being a binary choice: if you're for letting some people stay then you must be for letting sex offenders stay. Jim never suggested that violent offenders and sex offenders should be permitted to stay. I took his stance as one of being that it's unrealistic to think that we can deport everyone.
My comments were directed only at keeping people out. What we do with the current crop of resident illeagles is a different problem and will take decades to sort out. Ideally they would be deported but that can’t and won’t happen. For now we need to stop the flood of illegal entry and open the doors to legal entry some and speed up the process.
-
Well that's a convincing argument. You've certainly changed my mind.
Well, I was pretty impressed with communist boy and his argument for simply waving a magic wand and making all those aliens legal. Kind of like ignoring every crime committed by a democrat (communist), and concentrating on making up shit about republicans.
-
The argument from the virtue signalers when discussing border security is "The President wants to round up all illegals and deport them!"
Actually deportations under Trump are lower than under Obama. But that little tidbit gets ignored.
If you can get by the fake news of the MSM and the diatribes of the alt left, you will see that the President wants a secure border. Then, he has tried to get congress to act on immigration reform. He hasn't used the BHO "phone and a pen" approach, nor has he tried to do this under "Executive Order", he's actually trying to follow the constitution and have congress do their job.
Here is a good video on this subject:
-
Democrats (communists) live in world where the lies they tell themselves and everyone else takes first place above all facts.
-
Then you fall into the tiny misinformed camp.
What exactly am I misinformed about?
Then why do people whine longer and louder about a problem that is actually decreasing?
I grant the point that you cannot achieve 100%, that's a typical reality that the costs approach infinity as you approach zero. Even the Berlin Wall couldn't keep everyone on one side. But to assume there is no longer a problem because it has decreased is not a good enough reason to continue the terrible policy of allowing disrespect for our immigration law. A message must be sent. I favor not only a wall but we shoot on sight anyone caught trying to cross it illegally. At the same time I favor loosening and streamlining legal immigration. We actually need immigrants, especially young ones. We like most of the first world are facing a population decrease crisis that is not on most people's radar but will soon reach catastrophic proportions.
But it's a terrible idea to allow immigrants to self select. Below you ask if I've been harmed by illegals or native citizens, of course I have. Anyone who burdens social services has harmed me and every other tax payer. If your point is that illegals have harmed me less than native citizens have then I ask why on earth should that be a reason to not do anything about it?
This country needs healthy young adults to fuel an economy to support the boomer retirees, to pay into the social security system. Illegals work under the table and steal others' SS numbers. No one should enter this country unless they've been vetted as not criminal and as possessing a skill that is needed by our economy.
Is illegal immigration the problem you really want us to sacrifice tons more money and freedoms to solve?
I would rather spend money to build and patrol a wall than pay for medical treatment when illegals show up at the ER with a runny nose and maternity and neonatal services for illegals. Those costs get passed on to us. How do you not have a problem with that? I would rather spend money to build and patrol a border wall than continue in Iraq. If I had a time machine and were king I would go back and take all the money we wasted on Vietnam and build the wall back then.
You know - legal and illegal aliens, the water of the Canadian portion of the Columbia river, the sandy air of the Sahara, the polluted air of China, TCP/IP traffic from India, and a myriad of other things that cross U.S. borders all have in common that they should only be subject to regulation or control where they cause identifiable victims. That's my position.
That's my position too as a libertarian, and I do have a concern that Trump's wall could impact the flow of goods across that border. I have a direct eye on that data as part of my job. But my position is there is great harm done (that I see and apparently you don't) by not enforcing immigration law.
Exercise of sovereignty: you once indicated this as an (or the) underlying reason to enforce immigration laws. That, IIRC, without enforcement there would be no meaningful sovereignty.
And that would be it.
I don't see the connection, though.
And this baffles me. You don't see the point of locking the door to your house?
The sovereignty of, say, Wisconsin's government over its declared area is not lost by an influx of Minnesota aliens.
It can be. An influx of people from one state to another can change the whole voting demographic for example, and change the culture. But states belong to a republic with commerce written into our Constitution, it really isn't comparable.
The aliens may be simply there for the cheese (or to watch the Vikings beat the Packers) - though if the Minnesota militia showed up Wisconsin's sovereignty would be in peril if the Minnesotans tried to enforce their laws in Wisconsin. But none of that sort of thing is happening with illegal immigrants from central America to the U.S. They're here to stand around on corners (well they used to, years ago - I remember that well) waiting to be picked up for odd jobs like mowing our lawns, harvesting our crops, and sell us gassy Mexican food.
Don't be ridiculous. There are huge changes to our culture and demographics caused by legal and illegal immigration. I have no problem with that. I live in the middle of an amalgam of American/Mexican culture here in south Texas. It's actually the emergence of a new culture that is neither one nor the other, but unique and wonderful in its own way. There are good and bad consequences of human mass migrations into already occupied territory. It's the story of our whole evolution, of any living creature's evolution. In the grand scheme of things it's not really going to matter. (And it does not matter that "they were here first" - no they weren't. There is no human alive today that was displaced by the white man when our nation was born.) But in the here and now: It does matter.
-
Rush, you are trying to apply logic to EMOTION, and "FEELINGS". That is not only going to fail, but also be frustrating. The Virtue Signalers try to make themselves feel better for whatever reason. Maybe it is White Guilt. I don't know what motivates them, but they seem to want to make themselves feel better through self destructive polices through government intervention. All at OUR EXPENSE.
-
Rush, you are trying to apply logic to EMOTION, and "FEELINGS". That is not only going to fail, but also be frustrating. The Virtue Signalers try to make themselves feel better for whatever reason. Maybe it is White Guilt. I don't know what motivates them, but they seem to want to make themselves feel better through self destructive polices through government intervention. All at OUR EXPENSE.
What is so bizarre is that a decade or two ago you could get everyone including liberal Democrats to at least look at the pros and cons of illegal entry but today the left will not even talk about the cons and if you try to talk about the cons you are called racist, xenophobic etc etc. That is a sign that it has become part of the orthodoxy of identity politics and has nothing to do with critical thinking.
-
What is so bizarre is that a decade or two ago you could get everyone including liberal Democrats to at least look at the pros and cons of illegal entry but today the left will not even talk about the cons and if you try to talk about the cons you are called racist, xenophobic etc etc. That is a sign that it has become part of the orthodoxy of identity politics and has nothing to do with critical thinking.
It is due to not so subtle indoctrination, and yes a form of brainwashing. When you have the MEDIA, Education, most of government, AND corporate America telling you that to say anything against "people of color', women, LGBT types, Muslims, etc that you are a HORRIBLE person, and are just pushing back due to prejudice of some kind.
Oh, and if you are a gun rights advocate, or gun owner, and dare to take responsibility for your own safety, and security you are a knuckle dragging, Troglodyte, uneducated, and inferior in every way. If you don't believe 100%, and trust in the all powerful government, then you are a Nazi.
-
The democrats (communists) realize their agenda can't win in a factual debate. Instead they use their bigotry to make everything that disagrees with their religious fervency off limits, illegal, homophobic, racist, sexist and so on. Their can't-win attitude is obvious by the religious ferocity of their attacks against every logical argument that rejects their orthodoxy.
Look at abortion, equal rights, predatory men in the ladies room and all the other idiotic positions that democrats (communists) marry themselves to. There isn't a logical reason to sup[port any of them, which is why their existence is all about scorched earth politics, personal destruction, attacking people at their jobs and in their communities, making up stupid shit and them demanding everyone respect their lies, and so on.
Democrats (communists) can't win in the arena of ideas and hard work, so they lie, cheat, steal and hate like demonic lunatics to cover their total lack of ethics, decency, integrity and honesty.
-
The greatest enemy our country faces today is not foreign. It is the cabal between the Democrats (Totalitarians), Media, Education, and Silicon Valley.
-
I know the folks on the right think that only the folks on the left are a problem. Some day you should go listen to Monica Perez. You can find her podcasts if you look.
-
I know the folks on the right think that only the folks on the left are a problem. Some day you should go listen to Monica Perez. You can find her podcasts if you look.
The problem is generally with the people on the ends of the bell curve. There are both right and left ends of that curve.
But for quite a while now, I think the left side has been weighted more heavily than the right.
-
I know the folks on the right think that only the folks on the left are a problem. Some day you should go listen to Monica Perez. You can find her podcasts if you look.
When has the GOP stood behind a racist, violent, organization that terrorized old people and openly ferments murder as the solution to social problems?
When has the GOP used a judicial nomination as an excuse to destroy people, then gotten mad because people saw through their transparent lies?
When did the GOP excuse proof of sexual crimes and attack anyone who spoke out about them?
When did the GOP use the DOJ to change the outcome of an election?
When did the GOP cheer for radical Islamists and brutally attack anyone that called them out for it?
When did the GOP change and then change again election laws t9 make sure their candidate would get a senate seat?
When did a GOP senator murd r a woman with his car and walk away, returning to p9li5ics to be re-elected to his senate seat?
When did a GOP judge get impeached for crimes, the. Get elected to Congress?
When did a groupmsupported by the GOP attack people in the streets, terrorize women and children of liberal tv commentators in their homes, and that without a word of condemnation from their own party?
NEVER. Your bullshit doesn’t fly.
-
The greatest enemy our country faces today is not foreign. It is the cabal between the Democrats (Totalitarians), Media, Education, and Silicon Valley.
Our problems come from within. We now have a government run by establishment politicians who have seized control of the various government agencies.
And as Eisenhower warned us, beware the military industrial complex. Be aware that military industrial complex and the establishment are deeply intertwined. Wars are big business and make great opportunities to raid the treasury. Just look at Afghanistan and the $800 billion we've poured down that shithole. And those in the establishment do not want their gravy train to go away.
Trump will be the last non politician, non establishment type to ever hold the office of President. The establishment will make damn sure that never happens again. And if anyone tries, they will use the full power of the federal government to destroy them, their family and anyone who helps them. Think that sounds conspiratorial? Better take a good hard look at what is happening right now before our very eyes.
The democrat party is being run by the alt left progressives (communist). Their agenda as well as the establishment runs hand in hand. Personally I believe we are beyond the PONT on the chart.
-
And yet, another "enterprise" for the establishment.
https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/in-america-s-hidden-war-in-syria-troops-face-peril-on-many-fronts-1.560780
Billions to be made here.
-
If I were Trump, tomorrow morning I would announce blanket amnesty for all illegals immediately and open the border totally........
Just so we can watch some judge from Hawaii place a restraining order on it, and Nancy and Chuck come out in full opposition and tell everyone how immoral that is.
-
When has the GOP stood behind a racist, violent, organization that terrorized old people and openly ferments murder as the solution to social problems?
When has the GOP used a judicial nomination as an excuse to destroy people, then gotten mad because people saw through their transparent lies?
When did the GOP excuse proof of sexual crimes and attack anyone who spoke out about them?
When did the GOP use the DOJ to change the outcome of an election?
When did the GOP cheer for radical Islamists and brutally attack anyone that called them out for it?
When did the GOP change and then change again election laws t9 make sure their candidate would get a senate seat?
When did a GOP senator murd r a woman with his car and walk away, returning to p9li5ics to be re-elected to his senate seat?
When did a GOP judge get impeached for crimes, the. Get elected to Congress?
When did a groupmsupported by the GOP attack people in the streets, terrorize women and children of liberal tv commentators in their homes, and that without a word of condemnation from their own party?
NEVER. Your bullshit doesn’t fly.
Yep, all horrible stuff. Tell me when something is going to be done about it?
I've listened to Hannity and all the people he's had on detailing how Flynn was set up. When will we see something done about it, never is the answer.
Where is the punishment for Feinstein brining Balsey Ford out of the woodwork and trying to ruin Kavanauhg's life?
Hmmmmm, maybe it's all like one big happy group and they just play this game.
-
Yep, all horrible stuff. Tell me when something is going to be done about it?
I've listened to Hannity and all the people he's had on detailing how Flynn was set up. When will we see something done about it, never is the answer.
Where is the punishment for Feinstein brining Balsey Ford out of the woodwork and trying to ruin Kavanauhg's life?
Hmmmmm, maybe it's all like one big happy group and they just play this game.
When you hear “the establishment” and “the deep state”, just remember they are one in the same.
-
So you're still avoiding my questions? A really ignorant way to do it, but why expect any less from you?
I'm not interested in keeping anyone from crossing our borders - in either direction. Satisfied now? The illegal immigration situation exists because of artificially set quotas for legal immigration. Numbers pulled out of thin air. Maybe you can pull one out of your ass and tell us all what number of legal immigrants should be allowed in per year?
I find it amusing people such as yourself are so concerned (at least you pretend to be) about someone who ignores our laws and enters our country illegally, then you want taxpayers to give them healthcare and welfare and a whole host of social services. Makes you feel good about yourself, because you are so concerned for your fellow man.
It isn't often I swear online but - fuck you for claiming I hold any such positions. You know by now I'm a libertarian and don't want taxpayers footing the bill for ANY social services. Figures you'd stoop so low as to invent positions opposite the ones I hold. Look, if your objection to illegal immigrants is because some of them will suck up taxpayer money, you've misidentified the problem.
Yet, I can guarantee if we come up to your little paradise we will find homeless people. Homeless AMERICAN citizens. And I would bet some of those homeless are veterans, you know, those folks who gave up a part of their life to serve our country and protect our rights, so ignorant fucks like yourself can act like a total arrogant asshole.
Yet you don't give a flying fuck about those people, they're nothing but an inconvenience and an eyesore to you. After all, in your little social circle it makes a better statement to show how you are so concerned about a bunch of people breaking our laws.
??? Irrelevant insulting drivel. You forgot to claim I eat babies and am probably a serial rapist. Might want to include some similar made-up claims in your next reply! Be sure to paint me as evil as possible - it's how you "win" arguments!
You can't make one coherent argument on why we should protect our borders and demand that people who come here obey our laws. My two questions obviously triggered you because you can't answer them, at least not truthfully because it would go against your little fantasy world.
My post triggered you - let's not project here, OK? You asked for my opinions and now throw a tantrum when I don't reply to your taste.
Because no one is "whining" here. You injected that bullshit premise because you can't accept some very real facts.
Only one of has posted any verifiable facts regarding illegal immigration trends.
-
Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote. I took your line about allowing sex offenders as being a binary choice: if you're for letting some people stay then you must be for letting sex offenders stay. Jim never suggested that violent offenders and sex offenders should be permitted to stay. I took his stance as one of being that it's unrealistic to think that we can deport everyone.
Punishing all the members of a group because an unknown subset of them are suspected to be sex offenders is unjust. That's a dangerous proposition.
-
What exactly am I misinformed about?
I gathered that you didn't know illegal immigration rates had been declining. That's all.
I grant the point that you cannot achieve 100%, that's a typical reality that the costs approach infinity as you approach zero. Even the Berlin Wall couldn't keep everyone on one side. But to assume there is no longer a problem because it has decreased is not a good enough reason to continue the terrible policy of allowing disrespect for our immigration law. A message must be sent. I favor not only a wall but we shoot on sight anyone caught trying to cross it illegally. At the same time I favor loosening and streamlining legal immigration. We actually need immigrants, especially young ones. We like most of the first world are facing a population decrease crisis that is not on most people's radar but will soon reach catastrophic proportions.
Just FYI: you're NOT a libertarian if you subscribe to punishment disproportionate or even prior to a crime. It is rather odd to see you invoke the Berlin Wall on one hand, meant to keep people from freedom on pain of death, then propose the U.S. kill anyone crossing the Mexican Wall for freedom. You realize, BTW, that every one of the people who managed to cross the Berlin Wall to the West became temporary (and potentially permanent) indigents sucking resources from taxpayers. So following your logic, not only the Russians but U.S. soldiers should have been gunning them down. Ugh.
But it's a terrible idea to allow immigrants to self select.
Um, they always have and always will self-select, unless you are proposing the government begin kidnapping "high-value" foreigners. I think North Korea has tried that. The U.S. doesn't (yet) run a socialist planned economy so I'd rather the U.S. not continue down that path by selecting immigrants with skills somebody thinks are important.
Below you ask if I've been harmed by illegals or native citizens, of course I have. Anyone who burdens social services has harmed me and every other tax payer. If your point is that illegals have harmed me less than native citizens have then I ask why on earth should that be a reason to not do anything about it?
It's special pleading to claim illegal immigrants indigents cause "harm" in that way and treat them differently from legal immigrant or natively born indigents. They're all indigents, meaning they are all consuming taxpayer money. Killing all illegals because some may become indigents but sparing all other indigents is morally obscene. If you have a problem with indigents, look to the operation of social services as the origin, not one particular subset of indigents.
This country needs healthy young adults to fuel an economy to support the boomer retirees, to pay into the social security system. Illegals work under the table and steal others' SS numbers. No one should enter this country unless they've been vetted as not criminal and as possessing a skill that is needed by our economy.
The cause of those illegals is an artificially low quota of 675,000 immigrants (excluding close family members already citizens) compared to a demand and need of an order of magnitude or larger (as clear in the government document I posted earlier.)
Also, illegals may steal SS numbers, but unless they steal the name and ID, they pay SS withholdings but will never claim retirement. You've identified a form of fraud that actually helps SS retirees by withholding from non-legit SS payees who will be unable to collect SS.
Lastly, effectively no vetting (relative to today) and no quotas were employed during greatest period of growth of the U.S. frontier. Many immigrants weren't even literate, yet managed to carve a civilization out of a wilderness. I don't know when your ancestors arrived in the U.S., but mine had no particular skills.
I would rather spend money to build and patrol a wall than pay for medical treatment when illegals show up at the ER with a runny nose and maternity and neonatal services for illegals. Those costs get passed on to us. How do you not have a problem with that? I would rather spend money to build and patrol a border wall than continue in Iraq. If I had a time machine and were king I would go back and take all the money we wasted on Vietnam and build the wall back then.
You'd ruin the economy - please don't build that time machine (unless you can reverse things once you see how awful they turn out.) And how'd you get to be king and not a queen?
And this baffles me. You don't see the point of locking the door to your house?
A house is not analogous to a country for any useful purpose.
Let's take a specific example: If an illegal immigrant crosses the border via public lands (some of the border land is (or was) privately owned, the rest public) and via public roads checks into a hotel or stays with friends at their house, my house isn't affected. Nor is your house. No harm is caused to anyone. But you'd want to see them killed "just in case" they might use taxpayer resources. Ugh.
It can be. An influx of people from one state to another can change the whole voting demographic for example, and change the culture. But states belong to a republic with commerce written into our Constitution, it really isn't comparable.
It is a matter of legal paperwork to make the borders between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada like those between U.S. states (I believe that was Ronald Reagan's dream back around 1979.)
Don't be ridiculous. There are huge changes to our culture and demographics caused by legal and illegal immigration. I have no problem with that. I live in the middle of an amalgam of American/Mexican culture here in south Texas. It's actually the emergence of a new culture that is neither one nor the other, but unique and wonderful in its own way. There are good and bad consequences of human mass migrations into already occupied territory. It's the story of our whole evolution, of any living creature's evolution. In the grand scheme of things it's not really going to matter. (And it does not matter that "they were here first" - no they weren't. There is no human alive today that was displaced by the white man when our nation was born.) But in the here and now: It does matter.
OK.
BTW, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" by Frederick Jackson Turner http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22994 (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22994), written in 1893 proposes that the character of the nation was forged by the expanding frontier. He has a lot of insights into the way past migrations changed the culture of the U.S. Worth a read IMHO, at least the first chapter. The Gutenberg book is technically a compilation of his papers, only the first of which needs to be read to get his thesis.
-
Um, they always have and always will self-select, unless you are proposing the government begin kidnapping "high-value" foreigners. I think North Korea has tried that. The U.S. doesn't (yet) run a socialist planned economy so I'd rather the U.S. not continue down that path by selecting immigrants with skills somebody thinks are important.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree on whether or not there should be border security. Earlier you said you didn't want to stop anybody from crossing either way; something I disagree with. Not only do I think we should have border security, I think it's in our national interests to allow those in (or those already here to stay) who have something meaningful to add to our society and who can assimilate.
You also stated that you didn't want taxpayers footing the bill for any social services yet that's exactly what happens when people cross illegally. How does your position of not wanting to stop people from crossing either way not conflict with not wanting taxpayers to pay for social services?
-
Damn Jim, you said that someone else was triggered, but you appear to have been detonated. As you said, I rarely hear (read) you curse, but you have sure done your share lately.
You make too many claims and assertions to address them all, but here are a few.
You trivialize the objections by your choice of singular adjectives. There is no one single objection to opposing illegal entry (ie "sucking up our resources) although that is a valid objection.
You want a specific number of legal aliens. How about NO number. Instead of limiting the number maybe we should set qualifications, like they must be English proficient. They must have a skill. They must have sufficient resources so that they will not require American welfare to survive. And those requirements can be modified based on our need. Maybe this year we need more tomato pickers than we do physicists. Or maybe we need more nurses than doctors. But regardless of which requirements we set, ALL immigrants must be registered and approved. NOBODY sneaks in.
And once they are in and registered, they will have a time limit to assimilate. If they commit a crime, they get deported.
I'm not against immigration at all. If Grandfather Anthony and Grandmother Frieda had not immigrated here, I would not exist. But they came in legally. They got jobs. They learned English. They made sure their kids worked hard and got an education. We need immigrants. We don't need invaders.
-
I'm not interested in keeping anyone from crossing our borders - in either direction. Satisfied now? The illegal immigration situation exists because of artificially set quotas for legal immigration. Numbers pulled out of thin air. Maybe you can pull one out of your ass and tell us all what number of legal immigrants should be allowed in per year?
Great, so you're an open borders supporter. Post a huge welcome sign and tell them "come on in!"
The illegal immigration situation exist because our government refuses to follow the very laws they created, not because of "quotas". That's pure ignorance on your part.
The goal of any law is to have everyone follow them. Laws are made with the purpose of " well, we'll have 20% choose not to follow them". Without the rule of law, we don't have a country. So are you now going to tell us you don't support the rule of law? Should we just go back to the Wild West days and strap 6 guns on our sides and carry hanging ropes on our saddles? Should we drawl "I'm the law in these here parts!"
It isn't often I swear online but - fuck you for claiming I hold any such positions. You know by now I'm a libertarian and don't want taxpayers footing the bill for ANY social services. Figures you'd stoop so low as to invent positions opposite the ones I hold. Look, if your objection to illegal immigrants is because some of them will suck up taxpayer money, you've misidentified the problem.
Wait, you want open borders, but then when these people come in you don't want them getting social services? And how do you plan on implementing that? It's rampant right now, first of all, they are not even here legally, then they are getting into our social systems (again, often illegally).
Can't have your cake and eat it too Jim. The actual solution is to follow our laws, just like every other soveign nation on earth.
??? Irrelevant insulting drivel. You forgot to claim I eat babies and am probably a serial rapist. Might want to include some similar made-up claims in your next reply! Be sure to paint me as evil as possible - it's how you "win" arguments!
It's not irrelevant, not at all. Your all bleeding heart for these law breakers to invade our country and break our laws, yet you don't give one shit for our own citizens who could actually use these services. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. I've yet to see one progressive step up and say we need to take care of our own first, instead they demand we take care of everyone from every shithole around the world.
It's nothing more than virtue signaling, which you are engaging. You want that feel good feeling about those "poor immigrants" while ignoring our own people.
My post triggered you - let's not project here, OK? You asked for my opinions and now throw a tantrum when I don't reply to your taste.
Now that's funny. Look, you like to play the faux intellect on this board and others. Seeing through your bullshit is easy. Seeing through your phony "I'm a libertarian" is just as easy. You made some real bullshit replies, but be prepared to be called out on them. So far all you've done here is show your ignorance.
Only one of has posted any verifiable facts regarding illegal immigration trends.
Well, look at the big brain on Jim!
Trends don't erase the problem. All it would take to reverse that trend is open the border to the latest group wanting in and we would be over run quickly. That's exactly what the progressives wanted, to see Trump pressured into letting the latest caravan in, then we would have wave after wave coming. Then your "trends" would rapidly reverse.
Too bad your faux intellect can't figure that one out.
-
Damn Jim, you said that someone else was triggered, but you appear to have been detonated. As you said, I rarely hear (read) you curse, but you have sure done your share lately.
You make too many claims and assertions to address them all, but here are a few.
You trivialize the objections by your choice of singular adjectives. There is no one single objection to opposing illegal entry (ie "sucking up our resources) although that is a valid objection.
You want a specific number of legal aliens. How about NO number. Instead of limiting the number maybe we should set qualifications, like they must be English proficient. They must have a skill. They must have sufficient resources so that they will not require American welfare to survive. And those requirements can be modified based on our need. Maybe this year we need more tomato pickers than we do physicists. Or maybe we need more nurses than doctors. But regardless of which requirements we set, ALL immigrants must be registered and approved. NOBODY sneaks in.
And once they are in and registered, they will have a time limit to assimilate. If they commit a crime, they get deported.
I'm not against immigration at all. If Grandfather Anthony and Grandmother Frieda had not immigrated here, I would not exist. But they came in legally. They got jobs. They learned English. They made sure their kids worked hard and got an education. We need immigrants. We don't need invaders.
Exactly.
Go anywhere in the world, even to the real shit hole countries and they have far better border security and immigration laws than we do.
I've traveled extensively my whole life (and still do) and I've experienced the laws of other countries. I've even participated in their visa procedures and visa work procedures. And these other countries don't have the problems we do. They have laws and the enforce them.
Open border progressives want to tear all of that down. Without borders, without laws, we don't have a country.
-
Exactly.
Go anywhere in the world, even to the real shit hole countries and they have far better border security and immigration laws than we do.
I've traveled extensively my whole life (and still do) and I've experienced the laws of other countries. I've even participated in their visa procedures and visa work procedures. And these other countries don't have the problems we do. They have laws and the enforce them.
Open border progressives want to tear all of that down. Without borders, without laws, we don't have a country.
What you have is unchecked corruption at every level and the looming disaster about to befall most of Europe as it collapses under the weight of millions of unproductive parasites allowed in by imbeciles and communists hiding behind a thin veneer of democracy.
-
What you have is unchecked corruption at every level and the looming disaster about to befall most of Europe as it collapses under the weight of millions of unproductive parasites allowed in by imbeciles and communists hiding behind a thin veneer of democracy.
My BIL is German, and he and his family live in Barvaria. They are living through the disaster Merkle created by opening their borders and letting a million enter. Crime has shot up, the cost of social services has gone up and, as an extra added bonus, they brought in diseases with them, unchecked.
My BIL and SIL don't feel safe out in public now, for good reason. The stories are pretty bad.
Merkle is paying the price for her grand experiment. Ask my friends in the UK of why brexit is so popular and it's the same thing, the number one reason, immigration. They want their country back.
-
Why do Liberal/Progressives feel the U.S. should be different from all other countries, and obligated to take criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, and violent gang members into our country? What about the U.S. and us as citizens makes us want to put ourselves at more risk, and also want us to pay for them?
-
Why do Liberal/Progressives feel the U.S. should be different from all other countries, and obligated to take criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, and violent gang members into our country? What about the U.S. and us as citizens makes us want to put ourselves at more risk, and also want us to pay for them?
Do you honestly believe that Democrats, as a whole, want criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, and violent gang members to enter the country? Or is it that they want more immigration because they're more likely to vote Democrat and if that means a few bad apples get in then that's acceptable?
I think it's the latter. I don't think Democrats truly want the bad people coming in. Rather that's more likely just the cost of doing business.
-
Do you honestly believe that Democrats, as a whole, want criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, and violent gang members to enter the country? Or is it that they want more immigration because they're more likely to vote Democrat and if that means a few bad apples get in then that's acceptable?
I think it's the latter. I don't think Democrats truly want the bad people coming in. Rather that's more likely just the cost of doing business.
The policy advocates and their elected lapdogs aren't directly affected by the "bad apples" since they live behind gates and doormen.
-
Do you honestly believe that Democrats, as a whole, want criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, and violent gang members to enter the country? Or is it that they want more immigration because they're more likely to vote Democrat and if that means a few bad apples get in then that's acceptable?
I think it's the latter. I don't think Democrats truly want the bad people coming in. Rather that's more likely just the cost of doing business.
I agree. I guess my question is why are Democrats OK with that "cost of doing business" just to bring in more Democrat voters? Why isn't the media talking about the increased risk to American citizens that illegal aliens pose?
-
Do you honestly believe that Democrats, as a whole, want criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, and violent gang members to enter the country? Or is it that they want more immigration because they're more likely to vote Democrat and if that means a few bad apples get in then that's acceptable?
I think it's the latter. I don't think Democrats truly want the bad people coming in. Rather that's more likely just the cost of doing business.
It's not that Democrats want that stuff. Their problem is that Trump doesn't want it so they have to pretend to want it.
-
I gathered that you didn't know illegal immigration rates had been declining. That's all.
Oh. I knew it but not the exact figures.
Just FYI: you're NOT a libertarian if you subscribe to punishment disproportionate or even prior to a crime.
The most dangerous person on the planet is a utopian idealist, libertarianism included. As a libertarian idealist - if I were one - I would believe individuals are best qualified to decide what is best for themselves, and in aggregate the best thing for a community as a whole is for each individual to selfishly pursue what is best for himself. The American free market has pretty much proved this to be true. This includes allowing individuals to emigrate and to move freely about.
The real world however has already been mucked up and not by libertarian policy. If you can wave a magic wand and eliminate the socialism that infects our country then I'd be more likely to agree with open borders. But the reality we have is illegal influx combined with internal economic ruination (socialism) is destroying the nation as surely as barbarian invasions plus internal corruption destroyed the Roman Empire. There's no stopping it, but I'd like to delay it as long as we can. At least until I'm dead then you can do what you want, I don't care.
It is rather odd to see you invoke the Berlin Wall on one hand, meant to keep people from freedom on pain of death, then propose the U.S. kill anyone crossing the Mexican Wall for freedom. You realize, BTW, that every one of the people who managed to cross the Berlin Wall to the West became temporary (and potentially permanent) indigents sucking resources from taxpayers. So following your logic, not only the Russians but U.S. soldiers should have been gunning them down. Ugh.
BIG DIFFERENCE, keeping people in vs keeping them out. I only used the Berlin Wall as an example of no physical barrier being perfect. You are putting words in my mouth about comparing the two wrt the rest of it. Artificially dividing a culturally unified Germany because of the psychotic paranoia of Communism, as opposed to defending a national border is apples and oranges. Good Lord.
Um, they always have and always will self-select, unless you are proposing the government begin kidnapping "high-value" foreigners. I think North Korea has tried that. The U.S. doesn't (yet) run a socialist planned economy so I'd rather the U.S. not continue down that path by selecting immigrants with skills somebody thinks are important.
Wow, there you go putting words into my mouth again. In what way have I ever suggested kidnapping people or advocated a socialist planned economy? Quite the opposite.
Quality of people matters. I realize it's not politically correct to admit that people vary in ability, intelligence, work ethic, and all around morality, but that doesn't change reality. There is nothing wrong with setting a minimum bar for several of these parameters. At the very least, we need to deny entry to gang members and criminals. Illegal entry does not even do that. After that we can argue over who to let in. Years ago I applied to immigrate to Australia. The package they sent me made it clear, you had to be a degreed professional to be considered. Why is it okay for Australia or any other country in the world to accept only quality people but not us? Try moving to Japan. You not only need to be able to support yourself from the get go, you need to have good character, prove yourself loyal and renounce citizenship in any other country. Why the hell is it okay for everyone but us to set standards?
It's special pleading to claim illegal immigrants indigents cause "harm" in that way and treat them differently from legal immigrant or natively born indigents. They're all indigents, meaning they are all consuming taxpayer money. Killing all illegals because some may become indigents but sparing all other indigents is morally obscene. If you have a problem with indigents, look to the operation of social services as the origin, not one particular subset of indigents.
I don't advocate killing someone because they might become indigent. Don't try to change what I said. Once inside our borders, I don't advocate executing them just because they snuck in. I advocate defending our borders, with deadly force if necessary. If nothing else stops them, shoot to stop them. It's the same as most personal self defense law. And it is natural law. Humans group together and then defend their territory.
I bolded the word illegal which you said, then in the same sentence you claim they should not be treated differently from legal immigrants or native citizens. A priori, the illegal is illegal. What is so hard to understand about this? They have already committed a crime, and therefore should be treated differently.
The cause of those illegals is an artificially low quota of 675,000 immigrants (excluding close family members already citizens) compared to a demand and need of an order of magnitude or larger (as clear in the government document I posted earlier.)
I agree with you there should not be an artificial quota.
Also, illegals may steal SS numbers, but unless they steal the name and ID, they pay SS withholdings but will never claim retirement. You've identified a form of fraud that actually helps SS retirees by withholding from non-legit SS payees who will be unable to collect SS.
That's a good one. I won't hold my breath after I retire waiting for my extra money they helpfully sent in for me. It's FRAUD. If they use a real number, somebody might indeed collect, someone who did not actually do the work.
I am opposed to the entire Social Security scheme, and like I said before, if I were an idealist it would not exist to be defrauded. But we have what we have. If we need workers, and we do, they need to be brought into the legal system. To continue to allow them to enter illegally and defraud not only SS but welfare, unemployment, etc. is wrong and needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary.
Lastly, effectively no vetting (relative to today) and no quotas were employed during greatest period of growth of the U.S. frontier. Many immigrants weren't even literate, yet managed to carve a civilization out of a wilderness. I don't know when your ancestors arrived in the U.S., but mine had no particular skills.
Good Lord. You cannot compare different eras. We have what we have today, no new frontiers, no factories hungry for workers. We have a dying nation (despite the current economic Trump bump) we are a stagnant socialist nation barely behind Europe's dying socialist nations, thanks to all the utopian idealists on the left. We have to deal with the mess they made. We cannot afford to bring in more parasites. Close the borders, and vet contributors or we will only die faster.
You'd ruin the economy - please don't build that time machine (unless you can reverse things once you see how awful they turn out.) And how'd you get to be king and not a queen?
To me "man" can mean "person" and "king" can mean a gender neutral ruler. I'm not into PC. I don't use the term "chairwoman" or "mailperson" and the like. Nonsense.
A house is not analogous to a country for any useful purpose.
Let's take a specific example: If an illegal immigrant crosses the border via public lands (some of the border land is (or was) privately owned, the rest public) and via public roads checks into a hotel or stays with friends at their house, my house isn't affected. Nor is your house. No harm is caused to anyone. But you'd want to see them killed "just in case" they might use taxpayer resources. Ugh.
NO! Not "just in case". They have ALREADY committed a crime, by attempting to enter our country illegally. What is so hard to grasp about this?
It is a matter of legal paperwork to make the borders between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada like those between U.S. states (I believe that was Ronald Reagan's dream back around 1979.)
OK.
BTW, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" by Frederick Jackson Turner http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22994 (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22994), written in 1893 proposes that the character of the nation was forged by the expanding frontier. He has a lot of insights into the way past migrations changed the culture of the U.S. Worth a read IMHO, at least the first chapter. The Gutenberg book is technically a compilation of his papers, only the first of which needs to be read to get his thesis.
I might check it out if I have time.
-
Because some people (liberals, progressives, Democrats, Commies) think the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is U.S. LAW.
-
I enjoy reading all this “libertarian” crap. And it’s just that, crap. Might as well be called “Unicornism”.
Please point out one government on this earth that has a libertarian government.
-
Because some people (liberals, progressives, Democrats, Commies) think the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is U.S. LAW.
It is neither law nor even accepted policy. It was a poem written by a refugee advocate. It was never voted on by the citizenry or elected representatives. It was local to New York and did not reflect the views of the nation as a whole.
-
I enjoy reading all this “libertarian” crap. And it’s just that, crap. Might as well be called “Unicornism”.
Please point out one government on this earth that has a libertarian government.
None of course.
The difference between the libertarian unicorn and the communist unicorn is when you try to implement libertarian ideals (AKA classical liberalism) you end up with a free and thriving society, and when you try to implement communist ideals you end up starving your people to death.
But there is no such thing as utopia; even in the best and richest society ever achieved there are imperfections, inequalities and so on. There is no libertarian government just like there is no true communist government but the respective approximations have very different results. (See the above paragraph.)
Of course there's the problem of defining libertarianism. I know what it used to be back when I cared about such things but nowadays I think some people call themselves libertarian but really are just another form of liberal. Not saying Jim is that kind though.
-
I don't often use the term "Liberal" anymore, and if I do, I combine it with "Progressive". Of course, that is also a misnomer, as today's Democrats are just Far Left, big government STATISTS, and Globalists. Their ideals, ideas, and policies always have a big government solution and a belief that government is always benign, and knows better than the individual. Eventually it becomes a Totalitarian state that is very OPPRESSIVE. That isn't progress to me.
-
None of course.
Of course there's the problem of defining libertarianism. I know what it used to be back when I cared about such things but nowadays I think some people call themselves libertarian but really are just another form of liberal. Not saying Jim is that kind though.
According to
https://www.quora.com/Which-current-country-has-the-most-Libertarian-society
New Zealand and Switzerland are the most libertarian. At least to me, Libertarian != Liberal. I consider myself conservative but libertarian to the extent that I want the minimum government necessary to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
A basic principle of Libertarianism is: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." Which is exactly opposite from a typical liberal who wants government to tell them and everyone else what to do. For the common good, of course.
-
I think some people call themselves libertarian but really are just another form of liberal. Not saying Jim is that kind though.
Well, I will
Jim claims to be a libertarian, but he is really a flaming liberal.
The problem with libertarianism is that the more people you have, the more rules (laws) you MUST have. Anyone that wants to open the borders and let unlimited aliens enter must be willing to accept that we will have to have more and more laws and regulations in order to keep the peace.
Have you ever gone t a park and read the signs:
No dogs.
No alcohol.
No glass.
No running.
No loud music . . .
and on and on.
Everyone of those rules were because someone abused their privileges.
We already have too many people. But that is a whole 'nuther discussion. The root of all evil is not money. It is too many people. What we need is a few good wars. And free birth control. And the death penalty.
And more Scotch! 8)
-
According to
https://www.quora.com/Which-current-country-has-the-most-Libertarian-society
New Zealand and Switzerland are the most libertarian. At least to me, Libertarian != Liberal. I consider myself conservative but libertarian to the extent that I want the minimum government necessary to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
While they may have a semblence to libertarian, their government is not established nor run strictly libertarian. No government has used this form of governance.
-
While they may have a semblence to libertarian, their government is not established nor run strictly libertarian. No government has used this form of governance.
I agree. I think that while a government may be formed to be strictly libertarian, once those in government get a taste of power they want to increase that power.
I believe that the US was formed to be generally libertarian. The constitution was written to serve as a limitation on the power of government. But those IN the government soon saw that the people's pursuit of life, liberty, and all that was bad if it went in a direction they didn't like. Of course it was for the people's own good that the government now does all sorts of things it shouldn't do. We don't want people hurting themselves, do we? We must put boundaries on what they the people are allowed to do. Power breeds power and we have what we have now.
-
Read all the posts that responded directly or indirectly to mine, but too many to try to respond to individually or even collectively without repeating points I'd already attempted to make anyway.
I'll just leave these.
-
Good videos Jim. Reagan always was and still is my hero.
That was back in the day when America was great. Yeah, we lost some of our shine during Vietnam, but after that speech, along came Obama and apologized for how horrible we have been, and proceeded to make us worse than ever. That is why we want to "Make America Great Again"; to bring back the days that Reagan was talking about.
Did you notice how he mentioned "walls, with doors"? That is exactly what I have been calling for.
He mentioned borders where people go come and go "Legally". I don't think he meant where anybody could sneak in "undocumented".
If we could make this country great again, if we could get people to trust the government again, if we could be confident law enforcement would enforce the laws instead of political agendas, if we could restore the confidence citizens have in our country, then perhaps Reagan's dream could come alive again.
-
Read all the posts that responded directly or indirectly to mine, but too many to try to respond to individually or even collectively without repeating points I'd already attempted to make anyway.
I'll just leave these.
I haven't watched these yet and I'm wondering if one of them will contain the line he said that I remember to this day, that I thought of when I saw your post referencing quora and the diagram with the four quadrants.
I normally see those represented as a diamond, rotated 45 degrees counterclockwise so that the maximum freedoms on both axes points straight up. And in that speech he said something like "let's not be partisan left or right but instead rise upward to liberty instead of descending into tyranny". At the time I thought "he knows about the freedom diamond!"
Edit: they didn't
-
Reagan was the great communicator, and a good President.
-
I enjoy reading all this “libertarian” crap. And it’s just that, crap. Might as well be called “Unicornism”.
Please point out one government on this earth that has a libertarian government.
Exactly. Up in an earlier post Jim rode your ass about illegal immigration, but said “as a libertarian” he didn’t support giving benefits to illegal immigrants or something. As if an open borders advocate actually would have a say in the almighty benevolent US government giving freebies or illegals.
They ignore the unintended consequences. Libertarians are the ultimate “drive by” political commentators.
-
Exactly. Up in an earlier post Jim rode your ass about illegal immigration, but said “as a libertarian” he didn’t support giving benefits to illegal immigrants or something. As if an open borders advocate actually would have a say in the almighty benevolent US government giving freebies or illegals.
They ignore the unintended consequences. Libertarians are the ultimate “drive by” political commentators.
I used to think I might be a libertarian. But then I realized how hypocritical they are.
That is similar to the fact that when I was a young man full of idealistic bullshit, I thought I was a liberal. Then I realized that real life doesn't work that way.
I still have problems (a lot of them) with the Republican party, but the ideals they profess are more close aligned with my personal ideals now. Even if the politicians that run under that banner are just a different flavor of corrupt politician.
-
I used to think I might be a libertarian. But then I realized how hypocritical they are.
That is similar to the fact that when I was a young man full of idealistic bullshit, I thought I was a liberal. Then I realized that real life doesn't work that way.
I still have problems (a lot of them) with the Republican party, but the ideals they profess are more close aligned with my personal ideals now. Even if the politicians that run under that banner are just a different flavor of corrupt politician.
So what's to say that your current "phase" is the right and correct one? Maybe you'll have a phase once you're elderly where you become Green Party.
-
I used to think I might be a libertarian. But then I realized how hypocritical they are.
Wait, what? Do whatever you want, but your freedom to do so stops when it interferes with someone else. You want open borders? Fine. You pay for whoever comes across. You're into roadkill sex? Fine. Don't expect me to accept that as normal. I really don't care what you do. Just leave me and everyone else out of it. (This is the generic "you" and not you specifically.)
Now, I'm willing to be persuaded that my libertarian beliefs are hypocritical, but I do need some explanation about why.
-
Wait, what? Do whatever you want, but your freedom to do so stops when it interferes with someone else. You want open borders? Fine. You pay for whoever comes across. You're into roadkill sex? Fine. Don't expect me to accept that as normal. I really don't care what you do. Just leave me and everyone else out of it. (This is the generic "you" and not you specifically.)
Now, I'm willing to be persuaded that my libertarian beliefs are hypocritical, but I do need some explanation about why.
Ok, well let's just take a small example:
You want open borders? Fine. You pay for whoever comes across.
I DON'T want open borders. But if you get your open borders, then I have to pay.
Also, the reason we have most of our laws and rules are because someone previously abused their privileges. They may get arrested, convicted, incarcerated, then released. And they get their civil rights back and then go out and commit more crimes. Again, I have to pay.
We let one rapist in along with a thousand honest border crossers. That one rapist rapes my wife or daughter. Again, I pay because you get your open borders.
Libertarianism might work under a system of draconian punishment where someone who doesn't respect the concept of "your rights stop where mine begin" gets punished to the extent where they never commit that crime again. But then, we need a government to enforce those rules and administer that punishment. But you libertarians don't want government enforcement of rules. At least not until after some criminal violates my rights. Then it's too late.
-
Libertarianism might work under a system of draconian punishment where someone who doesn't respect the concept of "your rights stop where mine begin" gets punished to the extent where they never commit that crime again. But then, we need a government to enforce those rules and administer that punishment. But you libertarians don't want government enforcement of rules. At least not until after some criminal violates my rights. Then it's too late.
Oh, not at all. That's anarchy. A government is needed (the minarchist right-libertarian view) "for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches." (via Wiki.)
You're only forced to pay now because the bloated government forces you to through its departments of health, welfare, education, and on and on. None of which are constitutional. Ideally you wouldn't pay and the border crosser would either become self-sufficient, paid for by someone who wants to pay, or would go home.
-
Oh, not at all. That's anarchy. A government is needed (the minarchist right-libertarian view) "for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches." (via Wiki.)
You're only forced to pay now because the bloated government forces you to through its departments of health, welfare, education, and on and on. None of which are constitutional. Ideally you wouldn't pay and the border crosser would either become self-sufficient, paid for by someone who wants to pay, or would go home.
They must be getting their information about libertarianism from the media. And we know how truthful they are! On top of that there are people claiming to be libertarians who are nothing of the sort. The term used in the United States today by the official party, is classical liberalism (free market capitalism) with the added idea that the government needs to stay out of your personal life, unless what you do harms others. There is nothing about anarchy in it. A strong government is needed to defend the country and to enforce the "do not harm others" part of personal liberty.
-
As I have stated before, I believe in some elements of Libertarianism, and comingle them with my more conservative views. The bottom line for me is to default to more freedoms, liberty, and personal responsibility. I also do not want government in my personal business for the sake of the SOCIAL ENGINEERING (or most other reasons) they are constantly trying to push on people.
The Constitution has been abused, and violated by both politicians, government bureaucrats, and the COURTS. We were never supposed to have the large, powerful, over bearing centralized Fedgov we have today.
-
We have the government we have today because of us, there is no one to blame but ourselves.
We elect and reelect career politicians to represent us. When these career politicians go against our will and start using the national treasury as their slush fund, we keep reelecting them.
The other side of the equation is we've allowed a major portion of our population to be exempt from paying taxes. And those who don't pay taxes, but are recipients of various welfare programs vote, again which is totally wrong.
We have lost all accountability of the fedgov because those who supposedly are there as oversight have their own agendas. All of these problems we are now faced with could easily be solved if we had 535 people in congress and the senate working on our behalf, instead of the establishment.
It's an absolute disgrace to see the same old faces in congress, those with a track record of corruption and self service get reelected over and over. But we are beyond the tipping point now as the establishment are not going to give up power and will do whatever necessary to hold it, even if it means totally corrupting our justice system.
-
Exactly. I think that the problem is that liberty and freedom should be tightly tied to personal responsibility. Responsibility is eroded by politicians giving away "free stuff" in exchange for the love of the people. With less responsibility people abuse their freedom and the downward slide begins. Freedom is removed "for the peoples' own good." Responsibility is removed because of course people can't take care of themselves and on and on.
The end result is zero freedom and zero responsibility. Hello USSR.