Politics > Politics-USA > Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences (was Re: Cuacaracha'syou gotta love/ hate them.
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Tiny Human Ferret" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2005 08:27:45 PM |
| Object: |
Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences (was Re: Cuacaracha'syou gotta love/ hate them. |
Michael A. Clem wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
If you make it impossible for illegal aliens to work here, they will
not be able to live here, if they cannot live here, they will not come
here.
So the way to stop illegal immigration is to further violate the rights
of Americans? This is really starting to get bizarre.
Which civil rights of Americans do you believe will be violated by
making it impossible for those to work here who have no right to work here?
While the generally accepted definition of "criminal" is that it
violates the law, I find that a useless definition. "Criminal" ought to
be when somebody violates somebody's rights. If nobody's rights are
violated, it's not a crime.
You're arguing ideology, not legality.
The government's legitimate concern should be with protecting rights,
not enforcing arbitrary non-criminal restrictions. Additionally, if
they were to focus on protecting rights, they would probably be able to
do a better job of it.
Every American citizen and legal non-citizen resident has the right to
expect that the US government will protect them from encroachments by
foreigners who have no right to be here.
If an illegal alien is here to work, that indicates a rather high
degree of responsibility and voluntary cooperation, not criminal
activity. I can't see the justification for interfering with voluntary
contractual relations, or putting additional burdens on businesses.
Ah. Another Libertarian.
You appear to believe that your businesses profit motive trumps the law
of the land. To briefly summarize, "no fucking way you profiteering and
traitorous piece of despicable *****". Are we clear on that topic?
I notice that you're not complaining about them getting welfare, which
is a typical complaint.
Illegal aliens should get nothing more than due process of law, and the
equal protection of the laws, emergency hospital care, and inescapable
confinement until they have had their deportation hearing and are
thereafter deported.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
.
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: The Problem With Immigration |
13 Feb 2005 06:26:13 AM |
|
|
British-born actress Jane Seymour becomes a U.S. citizen
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Actress Jane Seymour waived a small U.S. flag and
cheered after she and about 9,000 other immigrants became citizens
Friday morning during a naturalization ceremony.
The British-born actress, best known for her TV series Dr. Quinn,
Medicine Woman, said she's been living in the United States since
1976.
"I've realized that I've been living here longer than in my home
country. America has given me unbelievable opportunities," she said.
"I realized that with the U.S. elections I wanted to vote and I
couldn't. I felt the time had come to participate more fully."
Seymour, 53, wore a cream-colored suit to the ceremony held at the
downtown Los Angeles Convention Center. She sat between more than a
dozen U.S. military personnel who also received their citizenship.
Her sons, 9-year-old twins John and Kristopher, said they were excited
to see their mom become a U.S. citizen.
"She's not an alien anymore," John said.
***********
If you look back at the history of England, you'll find one of the
most bellicose in the history of the world. The English enslaved a
large part of Africa and India for centuries and openly imported opium
turning millions of Chinese into junkies. In the United States, the
limey bastards not only opposed US independance, but, thirty years
later held Washington DC seige and even burned the White House.
Now the US government, under the control of treasonous AngloPhiles, is
willing to let this scum just come to America, and steal jobs from
decent, hardworking Americans like Meryl Streep.
Contact your representatives in Congess TODAY and urge them to stem
the flood of English invasding our country.
It may already be too late.
After Seymour, who will be in the next wave of this invasion attacking
our shores? Micahael Caine? Jude Law? Fucking ELTON JOHN?
Send the Brits back to tea and crumpet land.
Fred
"John," he quoth, "rollest not the doobie too tight, for it shall not
draw easy unto my breath, nor misseth any seeds nor stems for they art
an abomination and tasteth foul. Neither shalt thou tearest the paper
for it is delicate and will lose much smoke, nor shalt thee bogart
even though thou hast rolled from thine own stash, for thy brethren
art not yet pie eyed.
(Testament of Scrotus 7:20-25)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les oh kay tee ar six" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem With Immigration |
13 Feb 2005 02:12:32 PM |
|
|
"lao fei zhu" <lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6kfu01hbmci1j76hmntj1pjlq3l6glc9r1@4ax.com...
<snip>
Now the US government, under the control of treasonous AngloPhiles, is
willing to let this scum just come to America, and steal jobs from
decent, hardworking Americans like Meryl Streep.
I hear China has the same problem letting US citizens move there and steal
jobs.
Lay off the opium Fred.
Les
.
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem With Immigration |
13 Feb 2005 04:18:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:12:32 -0600, "Les" <oh kay tee ar six
ar@cox.net> wrote:
"lao fei zhu" <lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6kfu01hbmci1j76hmntj1pjlq3l6glc9r1@4ax.com...
<snip>
Now the US government, under the control of treasonous AngloPhiles, is
willing to let this scum just come to America, and steal jobs from
decent, hardworking Americans like Meryl Streep.
I hear China has the same problem letting US citizens move there and steal
jobs.
Lay off the opium Fred.
Actually, no.
The government is actively encouraging westerners (lao wai) to locate
here and trying to entice foreign born Chinese to come back to the
motherland.
The lao wai call them ABC's (American or Australian Born Chinese) or
CBC's (Canadian Born Chinese) but the Chinese call them xiang jiao.
Bananas.
The Chinese have a problem with keeping educated people here. They
finish school and *poof* off to Australia.
Or the US.
Or Japan, like Wode Baby Girl.
She called me this week, on New Year's Day. I was glad to hear she's
settling in. Japanese generally don't treat Chinese very well.
Or anyone else for that matter.
And the Chinese fucking *hate* the Japanese.
Think Nanjing.
In fact, the night the Chinese played the Japanese in World Cup
football, the Japanese Embassy contacted citizens here and told them
to stay indoors. Probably a good thing. There was one controversial
call for the Japanese that cost China the game. I didn't watch, but
both Wode Baby Girl and Snow Flower were upset.
CCTV 9, the English-language TV station, in fact, has a compelling ad
for Gui Lin, a very beautiful city in the south of China.
Think Atlanta on the Li River.
Only the city is 2000 years old.
In it, a strapping young lao wai, complete with beard and fashionably
longish hair, comes out of the rain forest to meet a beautiful young
Chinese girl.
"The first time you see her, you fall iin love."
Then they cut to the same girl in a red qi pau, her wedding dress.
She walks to take her place next to lao wai and he takes her hand.
The commercial ends as the newlywewds get in a boat on the Li River
and they sail into the sunset.
Then the name of the city comes up and the announcer says "Gui Lin.
Come to the home you haven't seen yet."
The City of Heaven, on the other hand, is as cold as a well digger's
***** in Machuria.
It didn't work that way for me, of course. After Wode Baby Girl and I
split up last summer, well, kinda sorta because we remained good
friends and occasional ***** buddies, I was down to a short list of
potential future Chinese Weenie Warmers(tm).
In Oklahoma, of course, the only thing better than having a 9 year old
girl as your Weenie Warmer(tm) is having her 6 year old brother.
But Chinese coeds rock.
It was the Foxy Felatrice(tm), My Beautiful Chinese Lover(tm), and the
Most Beautiful Woman in China(tm).
The Most Beautiful Woman in China(tm) had a Chinese guy at the time.
I assured her she had the wrong boyfriend, but backed off.
Now she's free again.
Go figure.
The Foxy Felatrice(tm) really wasn't a good fit.
But she sucks ***** like a Baptist preacher man.
I had all but given up on My Beautiful Chinese Lover(tm), "Chinese
girls don't do," when, lo and a behold, she knocked on my door one
morning.
At six.
And I had class at 8:30.
She has her own key now.
Good to hear from you.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! |
15 Feb 2005 01:14:27 AM |
|
|
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! |
15 Feb 2005 01:18:31 AM |
|
|
"lao fei zhu" <lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6q7311d8t3m0nvvmm2blmtc884195k6n5n@4ax.com...
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
For what?
Neither Kris nor I are mid-30s black men.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! |
15 Feb 2005 01:47:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:18:31 -0600, "Steve Henderson"
<etaoinshrdlu@cox.net> wrote:
"lao fei zhu" <lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6q7311d8t3m0nvvmm2blmtc884195k6n5n@4ax.com...
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
For what?
Neither Kris nor I are mid-30s black men.
You're not?
Well, I'm not Chinese, either by race or nationality.
But Ivan seems convinced I am.
Let's not tell him.
But i'm dying to see what he has.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! |
15 Feb 2005 04:35:27 PM |
|
|
"lao fei zhu" <lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:av9311lh9r1sj5sm6q6s014su0nltsr5ds@4ax.com...
Kris? Get ready.
For what?
Neither Kris nor I are mid-30s black men.
You're not?
Well, I'm not Chinese, either by race or nationality.
But Ivan seems convinced I am.
He's convinced of quite a number of things that are in no way related to
reality.
Let's not tell him.
Not this time.
But i'm dying to see what he has.
I could use a good laugh.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! |
16 Feb 2005 10:31:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
.
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! Day 8 |
21 Feb 2005 03:34:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
Damn, Juanito pendajito.
It's been a week since you announced you had my credit report and 8
days since I first asked you to post .
I've seen you post here in the meantime under new aliases like
fuckedinthehead and goldencornhole, but you still haven't posted it.
Or Kris'.
Or Steve's criminal record.
I wonder why that is?
I mean, you promised.
In the meantime, why don't I let your new friends in
alt.politics.immigation read your criminal record?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1079149&db=Tulsa
I'm sure they'll be pleaed to know their playing with a wife beater.
Hey, some of them might even get off on that *****.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
.
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! Day 11 |
24 Feb 2005 05:53:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:34:26 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
Damn, Juanito pendajito.
It's been a week since you announced you had my credit report and 8
days since I first asked you to post .
I've seen you post here in the meantime under new aliases like
fuckedinthehead and goldencornhole, but you still haven't posted it.
Or Kris'.
Or Steve's criminal record.
I wonder why that is?
I mean, you promised.
In the meantime, why don't I let your new friends in
alt.politics.immigation read your criminal record?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1079149&db=Tulsa
I'm sure they'll be pleaed to know their playing with a wife beater.
Hey, some of them might even get off on that *****.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
Hey, Juanito, pendajito cabron!
Still waiting.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to post whatever you have.
I know I'm dying of curiosity.
By the way, I saw where your photographs are featured this month at
www.upskirtlolitavoyeur.com.
Comgratulations.
Glad your photography is finally getting the recognition it deserves.
Fred
"Rabbi," asked the Apostle Cletus. "how shall we treat Okies who wish
to leave the homeland?"
"Verily, I say unto you, ere an Okie flee Oklahomistan, clubbeth him
at the border, before he can escape. Pity not the Okies, nor showeth
them mercy, for surely ignorance and poverty shall follow all the days
of their lives."
(Testament of Scrotus 65:10-12)
.
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! Day 16! |
28 Feb 2005 05:09:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:53:32 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:34:26 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
Damn, Juanito pendajito.
It's been a week since you announced you had my credit report and 8
days since I first asked you to post .
I've seen you post here in the meantime under new aliases like
fuckedinthehead and goldencornhole, but you still haven't posted it.
Or Kris'.
Or Steve's criminal record.
I wonder why that is?
I mean, you promised.
In the meantime, why don't I let your new friends in
alt.politics.immigation read your criminal record?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1079149&db=Tulsa
I'm sure they'll be pleaed to know their playing with a wife beater.
Hey, some of them might even get off on that *****.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
Hey, Juanito, pendajito cabron!
Still waiting.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to post whatever you have.
I know I'm dying of curiosity.
By the way, I saw where your photographs are featured this month at
www.upskirtlolitavoyeur.com.
Comgratulations.
Glad your photography is finally getting the recognition it deserves.
Fred
"Rabbi," asked the Apostle Cletus. "how shall we treat Okies who wish
to leave the homeland?"
"Verily, I say unto you, ere an Okie flee Oklahomistan, clubbeth him
at the border, before he can escape. Pity not the Okies, nor showeth
them mercy, for surely ignorance and poverty shall follow all the days
of their lives."
(Testament of Scrotus 65:10-12)
Hey Juan!
Still waiting for you to post my credit report.
You promised to show the world that I was a deadbeat by posting my
credit report.
Instead you posted a link to the Oklahoma court records showing that
Kris Cook once had a fallout with a landlord that was eventully
resolved *in his favor.*
So when will you post my credit report?
No tienes cojones?
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Shadow Knows..." |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! Day 16! |
01 Mar 2005 12:08:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:09:10 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:53:32 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:34:26 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
Damn, Juanito pendajito.
It's been a week since you announced you had my credit report and 8
days since I first asked you to post .
I've seen you post here in the meantime under new aliases like
fuckedinthehead and goldencornhole, but you still haven't posted it.
Or Kris'.
Or Steve's criminal record.
I wonder why that is?
I mean, you promised.
In the meantime, why don't I let your new friends in
alt.politics.immigation read your criminal record?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1079149&db=Tulsa
I'm sure they'll be pleaed to know their playing with a wife beater.
Hey, some of them might even get off on that *****.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
Hey, Juanito, pendajito cabron!
Still waiting.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to post whatever you have.
I know I'm dying of curiosity.
By the way, I saw where your photographs are featured this month at
www.upskirtlolitavoyeur.com.
Comgratulations.
Glad your photography is finally getting the recognition it deserves.
Fred
"Rabbi," asked the Apostle Cletus. "how shall we treat Okies who wish
to leave the homeland?"
"Verily, I say unto you, ere an Okie flee Oklahomistan, clubbeth him
at the border, before he can escape. Pity not the Okies, nor showeth
them mercy, for surely ignorance and poverty shall follow all the days
of their lives."
(Testament of Scrotus 65:10-12)
Hey Juan!
Still waiting for you to post my credit report.
You promised to show the world that I was a deadbeat by posting my
credit report.
Instead you posted a link to the Oklahoma court records showing that
Kris Cook once had a fallout with a landlord that was eventully
resolved *in his favor.*
I loved that, not only did he get my name wrong, the fuckhead is too
stupid to even read the document he's trying to impugn me with. The
fact that it was a dismissed case in my favor seems to elude him. It
shows what a petty coward he is - and I frankly don't have time for
him any longer.
So when will you post my credit report?
No tienes cojones?
No, he's just a pathological liar and has been caught in another
lie, so he runs away. Either he ran away or he's up in Wichita trying
to defend Dennis Rader, who strikes me as very much a role model for
Ivan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Shadow Knows..." |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! Day 11 |
24 Feb 2005 12:28:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:53:32 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:34:26 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
Damn, Juanito pendajito.
It's been a week since you announced you had my credit report and 8
days since I first asked you to post .
I've seen you post here in the meantime under new aliases like
fuckedinthehead and goldencornhole, but you still haven't posted it.
Or Kris'.
Or Steve's criminal record.
I wonder why that is?
I mean, you promised.
In the meantime, why don't I let your new friends in
alt.politics.immigation read your criminal record?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1079149&db=Tulsa
I'm sure they'll be pleaed to know their playing with a wife beater.
Hey, some of them might even get off on that *****.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
Hey, Juanito, pendajito cabron!
Still waiting.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to post whatever you have.
I know I'm dying of curiosity.
By the way, I saw where your photographs are featured this month at
www.upskirtlolitavoyeur.com.
Comgratulations.
Glad your photography is finally getting the recognition it deserves.
The "crotch shot" of that underage girl in the park? I always
wondered what that girl's parents would think about Ivan putting that
photo online without their permission? And as much as Juanito denies
it, there isn't anything else in that shot that he could possibly have
been focusing on but that girl. Then there was the "I was taking a
picture of the mural on the building" shot - which explains why the
mural was in the left portion of the frame and the two underage girls
in skimpy tops were in the dead center...
.
|
|
|
| User: "lao fei zhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Hey, Ivan, Still Waiting! Day 11 |
25 Feb 2005 08:41:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:28:42 -0600, The Shadow Knows...
<I.am.me.as.you.are.he@the.walrus.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:53:32 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:34:26 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:31:52 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:14:27 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, Ivan!
The other day you said you had copies of credit reports for both me
and for Kris Crook as well as the criminal record for Steve Henderson.
Since I haven't applied for credit *at all* since December 1999 and
haven't even lived in the United States for two years, I know I'm
anxious to see what you have.
When are you going to post them?
Just use this message as a reply.
Kris? Get ready.
Still waiting, Juanito.
Day Four and counting.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
Damn, Juanito pendajito.
It's been a week since you announced you had my credit report and 8
days since I first asked you to post .
I've seen you post here in the meantime under new aliases like
fuckedinthehead and goldencornhole, but you still haven't posted it.
Or Kris'.
Or Steve's criminal record.
I wonder why that is?
I mean, you promised.
In the meantime, why don't I let your new friends in
alt.politics.immigation read your criminal record?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1079149&db=Tulsa
I'm sure they'll be pleaed to know their playing with a wife beater.
Hey, some of them might even get off on that *****.
Fred
Fuckest thou the children as the dogs of the house and the beasts of
the field and makest thine daughter great so that her son shall be
called his own uncle. Go, thus, such that no outsider shall dare
traverse thy border!
(Testament of Scrotus 16:11-16:14)
Hey, Juanito, pendajito cabron!
Still waiting.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to post whatever you have.
I know I'm dying of curiosity.
By the way, I saw where your photographs are featured this month at
www.upskirtlolitavoyeur.com.
Comgratulations.
Glad your photography is finally getting the recognition it deserves.
The "crotch shot" of that underage girl in the park? I always
wondered what that girl's parents would think about Ivan putting that
photo online without their permission? And as much as Juanito denies
it, there isn't anything else in that shot that he could possibly have
been focusing on but that girl. Then there was the "I was taking a
Posting his "candid" shots on the internet has always struck me as
kind of creepy. If he knew the girls and had their permission to
photograph, it wouldn't be so strange, but in reviewing his "art"
galleries, I couldn't help but feel "dirty," like a fourteen year old
at the drugstore thumbing through Penthouse.
Still, the galleries have a kind of "monkey on rollerskates"
spontenaity to them, an unplanned randomness that reflects the
photographer's total rejection of any and all rules of composition.
picture of the mural on the building" shot - which explains why the
mural was in the left portion of the frame and the two underage girls
in skimpy tops were in the dead center...
Hey, you have to admit.
They were great tits.
Fred
for surely, whosoever trespasseth unto the homeland shall pay with his
life.
(Testament of Scrotus 9:11)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Jerry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem With Immigration |
13 Feb 2005 10:42:39 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:26:13 +0800, lao fei zhu
<lightfantastic99@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Contact your representatives in Congess TODAY and urge them to stem
the flood of English invasding our country.
It may already be too late.
After Seymour, who will be in the next wave of this invasion attacking
our shores? Micahael Caine? Jude Law? Fucking ELTON JOHN?
Send the Brits back to tea and crumpet land.
Fred
I've already written letters to Senator Inhofe and Representative
Sullivan demanding they 'do something' to stem the British
Invasion(tm).
We simply can not risk having our nation destroyed by a bunch of
damned limeys. They are after all fucking terrorists that have
repeatedly attacked the United States of America.
I would have written Senator Coburn but I understand all his time is
taken up studying the Lesbian Problem in Southeastern Oklahoma(tm)
and of course proving once and for all that Cherokees aren't really
Indians, performing abortions on women that don't want them and
trying to get all copies of the movie Schindler's List confiscated
worldwide.
Gotta' run, grab my trusty Kimber and get down to the border.
Word is that a bunch of limeys are going to try to cross-over tonight
and us Patriots are gonna' send them packing right back to where they
come from.
- - - -
Get your News of the Okies at:
http://www.bubbaworld.com/recommendedreading.html
Oklahoma the Way It Really Is:
http://www.bubbaworld.com
- - - -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "STATE MILITIA" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem With Immigration |
17 Feb 2005 09:44:34 AM |
|
|
We fail to understand that these immigrants are productive immigrants..
not ones that come to the USA specifically to feed on the welfare
systems meant for legal residents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "North" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem With Immigration |
17 Feb 2005 01:17:51 PM |
|
|
On 17 Feb 2005 07:44:34 -0800, "STATE MILITIA"
<RedOctober90@space.com> said:
We fail to understand that these immigrants are productive immigrants..
not ones that come to the USA specifically to feed on the welfare
systems meant for legal residents.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Clem macsnafuatintergatedotcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
10 Feb 2005 02:16:19 PM |
|
|
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Michael A. Clem wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Which civil rights of Americans do you believe will be violated by
making it impossible for those to work here who have no right to work here?
Primarily the right to free association. Whose rights are they
violating by working here?
You're arguing ideology, not legality.
When legality and morality don't match, the moral becomes "criminal"
and the immoral becomes legal. A good prescription for a messed-up society.
The government's legitimate concern should be with protecting
rights, not enforcing arbitrary non-criminal restrictions.
Additionally, if they were to focus on protecting rights, they would
probably be able to do a better job of it.
Every American citizen and legal non-citizen resident has the right to
expect that the US government will protect them from encroachments by
foreigners who have no right to be here.
They have the right to have their rights protected. "Encroachments" is
a rather vague word.
Ah. Another Libertarian.
You appear to believe that your businesses profit motive trumps the law
of the land. To briefly summarize, "no fucking way you profiteering and
traitorous piece of despicable *****". Are we clear on that topic?
Sure, you're some kind of authoritarian, or maybe you simply don't
understand libertarianism.
Everybody should have equal rights under the law, and those rights
should be universal. The fact that one is engaging in business
shouldn't change his rights, be he employer or employee, business or
customer.
If I haven't adequately made the point that the "law of the land"
isn't necessarily perfect and that slavish devotion to it can be a
mistake, let me make it now. Profit motive doesn't trump rights, but
rather, rights are what makes the profit motive possible. In a broader
sense, an adequate protection of rights does much to enhance profits in
society, in spite of the typical misconceptions many people have about
capitalism and business.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
10 Feb 2005 04:11:55 PM |
|
|
Michael A. Clem wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Michael A. Clem wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Which civil rights of Americans do you believe will be violated by
making it impossible for those to work here who have no right to work
here?
Primarily the right to free association. Whose rights are they
violating by working here?
The rights of the US workers, who have a right to work here, which the
illegals are specifically denied by US Code.
You're arguing ideology, not legality.
When legality and morality don't match, the moral becomes "criminal"
and the immoral becomes legal.
This doesn't follow _necessarily_. Note that you didn't bother
responding to me pointing out that you are arguing ideology, not
legality. Now you're arguing morality, not ideology. Whose ideology and
whose morality are you trying to promulgate here, anyway?
A good prescription for a messed-up
society.
The government's legitimate concern should be with protecting
rights, not enforcing arbitrary non-criminal restrictions.
Additionally, if they were to focus on protecting rights, they would
probably be able to do a better job of it.
Every American citizen and legal non-citizen resident has the right to
expect that the US government will protect them from encroachments by
foreigners who have no right to be here.
They have the right to have their rights protected. "Encroachments" is
a rather vague word.
<dictionary>
Encroachment En*croach"ment, n.
1. The act of entering gradually or silently upon the rights
or possessions of another; unlawful intrusion.
An unconstitutional encroachment of military power
on the civil establishment. --Bancroft.
2. That which is taken by encroaching on another.
3. (Law) An unlawful diminution of the possessions of
another.
</dictionary>
I think we will go with definition (3) here.
Ah. Another Libertarian.
You appear to believe that your businesses profit motive trumps the
law of the land. To briefly summarize, "no fucking way you
profiteering and traitorous piece of despicable *****". Are we clear on
that topic?
Sure, you're some kind of authoritarian, or maybe you simply don't
understand libertarianism.
Libertarians == a pack of wolves clamoring for the repeal of laws
against eating sheep.
Everybody should have equal rights under the law, and those rights
should be universal. The fact that one is engaging in business
shouldn't change his rights, be he employer or employee, business or
customer.
You have a right -- an equal right -- to the equal protection of the
laws. You still have to obey those laws, right?
If the laws regulate your business, that's fine; a business is not an
individual.
If I haven't adequately made the point that the "law of the land"
isn't necessarily perfect and that slavish devotion to it can be a
mistake, let me make it now. Profit motive doesn't trump rights, but
rather, rights are what makes the profit motive possible. In a broader
sense, an adequate protection of rights
Absolutely what has to be had here. Adequate protection of the rights of
citizens not to be displaced by illegal aliens.
does much to enhance profits in
society, in spite of the typical misconceptions many people have about
capitalism and business.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Clem macsnafuatintergatedotcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
11 Feb 2005 01:04:20 AM |
|
|
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Primarily the right to free association. Whose rights are they
violating by working here?
The rights of the US workers, who have a right to work here, which the
illegals are specifically denied by US Code.
Illegals working does not deny US workers the "right to work".
When legality and morality don't match, the moral becomes "criminal"
and the immoral becomes legal.
This doesn't follow _necessarily_. Note that you didn't bother
responding to me pointing out that you are arguing ideology, not
legality. Now you're arguing morality, not ideology. Whose ideology and
whose morality are you trying to promulgate here, anyway?
A law is either just or unjust. You keep arguing legality, overlooking
the obvious point that laws are not necessarily just, fair or
reasonable. How do you judge the justness of a law? Morality.
3. (Law) An unlawful diminution of the possessions of
another.
</dictionary>
I think we will go with definition (3) here.
Okay, No. 3 it is. An unlawful diminution of the possessions of another
basically means theft, assuming the law is just. Theft has not occurred
simply by crossing a border. Theft has not occurred by voluntary
agreement of employer and employee. You don't subscribe to the welfare
complaint, so I won't address it here. Are there any other ways you
might describe illegals as "stealing" from Americans?
Libertarians == a pack of wolves clamoring for the repeal of laws
against eating sheep.
Whatever. Maybe you're both authoritarian AND you don't understand
libertarianism.
Everybody should have equal rights under the law, and those rights
should be universal. The fact that one is engaging in business
shouldn't change his rights, be he employer or employee, business or
customer.
You have a right -- an equal right -- to the equal protection of the
laws. You still have to obey those laws, right?
I don't want equal protection of unjust laws. Enforcement of laws is
not necessarily the same as protection of rights. Some laws violate
citizens' rights instead. I don't believe people have a moral duty to
obey unjust laws.
If the laws regulate your business, that's fine; a business is not an
individual.
A business, like any organization, is made up of individuals. The
"rights" of a business is merely the rights of the individuals who make
up the business--no more, no less. Laws regulating businesses very
often violate the rights of the individuals of that business.
Absolutely what has to be had here. Adequate protection of the rights of
citizens not to be displaced by illegal aliens.
Still little substance--illegal aliens aren't displacing anybody's
rights simply by crossing a border and working in America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
11 Feb 2005 08:47:53 AM |
|
|
Michael A. Clem wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Primarily the right to free association. Whose rights are they
violating by working here?
The rights of the US workers, who have a right to work here, which the
illegals are specifically denied by US Code.
Illegals working does not deny US workers the "right to work".
If they are used by unscrupulous employers to evade worker protection
law, they are hired illegally and American workers are illegally passed
over in their job search. This denies the American worker's right to work.
When legality and morality don't match, the moral becomes
"criminal" and the immoral becomes legal.
This doesn't follow _necessarily_. Note that you didn't bother
responding to me pointing out that you are arguing ideology, not
legality. Now you're arguing morality, not ideology. Whose ideology
and whose morality are you trying to promulgate here, anyway?
A law is either just or unjust. You keep arguing legality, overlooking
the obvious point that laws are not necessarily just, fair or
reasonable. How do you judge the justness of a law? Morality.
Honestly, this is one of those cases where it's immoral for an employer
to evade the laws as it causes harm to legal workers and to society as a
whole.
3. (Law) An unlawful diminution of the possessions of
another.
</dictionary>
I think we will go with definition (3) here.
Okay, No. 3 it is. An unlawful diminution of the possessions of another
basically means theft, assuming the law is just. Theft has not occurred
simply by crossing a border. Theft has not occurred by voluntary
agreement of employer and employee. You don't subscribe to the welfare
complaint, so I won't address it here. Are there any other ways you
might describe illegals as "stealing" from Americans?
They consume social services and pay no taxes to support it.
Libertarians == a pack of wolves clamoring for the repeal of laws
against eating sheep.
Whatever. Maybe you're both authoritarian AND you don't understand
libertarianism.
Ordinarily I am rather anti-authoritarian. As you suggest, there are
laws which are moral, or useful and beneficial. I fully support laws
which prevent harm of the constituents. Illegal aliens are not
constituents.
Everybody should have equal rights under the law, and those rights
should be universal. The fact that one is engaging in business
shouldn't change his rights, be he employer or employee, business or
customer.
You have a right -- an equal right -- to the equal protection of the
laws. You still have to obey those laws, right?
I don't want equal protection of unjust laws.
It's not your place to decide the morality or justice of laws. Try
looking up the basic concept behind justice "people will get what they
deserve".
Enforcement of laws is
not necessarily the same as protection of rights. Some laws violate
citizens' rights instead. I don't believe people have a moral duty to
obey unjust laws.
No, they don't. They can certainly expect the consequences for violating
them, and they can certainly expect people who feel the laws are just,
and protective of themselves, to seek to see you prosecuted for violation.
If the laws regulate your business, that's fine; a business is not an
individual.
A business, like any organization, is made up of individuals. The
"rights" of a business is merely the rights of the individuals who make
up the business--no more, no less. Laws regulating businesses very
often violate the rights of the individuals of that business.
That's fine. If one person commits a crime, it might be a misdemeanor;
when an aggregation of individuals commit that crime, it's the Felony of
Conspiracy. Your argument falls flat.
Absolutely what has to be had here. Adequate protection of the rights
of citizens not to be displaced by illegal aliens.
Still little substance--illegal aliens aren't displacing anybody's
rights simply by crossing a border and working in America.
They enable violation of worker protection laws.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Clem macsnafuatintergatedotcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
12 Feb 2005 04:04:05 PM |
|
|
Illegals working does not deny US workers the "right to work".
If they are used by unscrupulous employers to evade worker protection
law, they are hired illegally and American workers are illegally passed
over in their job search. This denies the American worker's right to work.
More people may keep some people from getting certain jobs, but more
people also creates more economic demand, and thus creates more jobs in
other areas of the economy.
They consume social services and pay no taxes to support it.
I thought you weren't going to use the welfare argument? Socialistic
services are based upon the idea that the government has a right to
force its citizens to pay for them. This occurs with or without illegal
immigrants, who are not the source or cause of such services.
Charitable services, of course, are not coercive, but paid for willingly.
It's not your place to decide the morality or justice of laws. Try
looking up the basic concept behind justice "people will get what they
deserve".
You say you're ordinarily anti-authoritarian. But if citizens don't get
to decide the morality or justice of laws, then precisely who does, and
where did they get the authority to eforce that morality on the rest of us?
No, they don't. They can certainly expect the consequences for violating
them, and they can certainly expect people who feel the laws are just,
and protective of themselves, to seek to see you prosecuted for violation.
Again, who is the authority on which laws are just and unjust?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Human Ferret" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
12 Feb 2005 05:18:59 PM |
|
|
Michael A. Clem wrote:
Illegals working does not deny US workers the "right to work".
If they are used by unscrupulous employers to evade worker protection
law, they are hired illegally and American workers are illegally
passed over in their job search. This denies the American worker's
right to work.
More people may keep some people from getting certain jobs, but more
people also creates more economic demand, and thus creates more jobs in
other areas of the economy.
Not exactly. Most of our goods are now produced overseas. Thus, more
people here -- working at a very low wage which means they consume very
little -- mostly benefits foreign economies, not the US economy.
Further, we've already got an overpopulation problem, no need to add to
it with illegal-alien undesirables.
They consume social services and pay no taxes to support it.
I thought you weren't going to use the welfare argument? Socialistic
services are based upon the idea that the government has a right to
force its citizens to pay for them. This occurs with or without illegal
immigrants, who are not the source or cause of such services.
Charitable services, of course, are not coercive, but paid for willingly.
You're a Libertarian. That means that you are very out of step with the
majority of Americans, who not only tolerate, but insist upon, a certain
degree of services which you label "socialistic". This part of the
argument is over, as, in terms of any rational discussion on this issue,
your ideology makes you effectively insane.
It's not your place to decide the morality or justice of laws. Try
looking up the basic concept behind justice "people will get what they
deserve".
You say you're ordinarily anti-authoritarian. But if citizens don't get
to decide the morality or justice of laws, then precisely who does, and
where did they get the authority to eforce that morality on the rest of us?
US Constitution, as Amended.
Judges decide on whether laws are Constitutional. Whether or not they
are moral is mostly of no consequence except as a cause for the public
to agitate for their repeal. In the meantime, they should be enforced.
No, they don't. They can certainly expect the consequences for
violating them, and they can certainly expect people who feel the laws
are just, and protective of themselves, to seek to see you prosecuted
for violation.
Again, who is the authority on which laws are just and unjust?
Vox populi, res publica.
Certainly you are not.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Cargill" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
13 Feb 2005 01:58:22 PM |
|
|
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Michael A. Clem wrote:
<snip>
You're a Libertarian. That means that you are very out of step with the
majority of Americans, who not only tolerate, but insist upon, a certain
degree of services which you label "socialistic".
Americans largely agree with Libertarian principles, in
principle. They just don't agree with them when the
effects of the principles are explained in detail.
In other words, like all of us, they want a free lunch.
Well, TANSTAAFL.
This part of the
argument is over, as, in terms of any rational discussion on this issue,
your ideology makes you effectively insane.
Uh huh. So we can add ad homenim to the unfounded claims?
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scipio" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
13 Feb 2005 03:17:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:58:22 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com>
wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Michael A. Clem wrote:
<snip>
You're a Libertarian. That means that you are very out of step with the
majority of Americans, who not only tolerate, but insist upon, a certain
degree of services which you label "socialistic".
Americans largely agree with Libertarian principles, in
principle. They just don't agree with them when the
effects of the principles are explained in detail.
In other words, like all of us, they want a free lunch.
There are, actually, a number of things that people feel to be
desirable and necessary, regardless of the notorious free lunch.
Social Security is preeminent there. Terribly implemented as it is,
people would still keep it with that knowledge. It serves a very
desirable function for a majority of the people. At the least, they
don't wish to see the heartbreaking sight of old, impoverished folk
begging and dying on the street, people who used to work productively
and never earned enough to save enough for Retirement.
Read on early 18th-century England, the society Walpole "***** Robin"
brought into existence, the eventual backlash, Foundling Institutions,
etc. What Libertarians have in mind brings about a situation just as
intolerable as that which Socialist authoritarian government brings.
The principle problem with Libertarianism is that the flock redefines
everything according to the strictures of their beliefs, rather than
vice versa. Gee, ain't that special. Same thing that religionist
hardcases have done forever. It is very much like modern American
Liberalism, in that it amounts to a secular cult.
Well, TANSTAAFL.
This part of the
argument is over, as, in terms of any rational discussion on this issue,
your ideology makes you effectively insane.
Uh huh. So we can add ad homenim to the unfounded claims?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strabo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
14 Feb 2005 01:27:27 PM |
|
|
In Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences on
Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:17:34 -0800, by Scipio, we read:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:58:22 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com>
wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Michael A. Clem wrote:
<snip>
You're a Libertarian. That means that you are very out of step with the
majority of Americans, who not only tolerate, but insist upon, a certain
degree of services which you label "socialistic".
Americans largely agree with Libertarian principles, in
principle. They just don't agree with them when the
effects of the principles are explained in detail.
In other words, like all of us, they want a free lunch.
There are, actually, a number of things that people feel to be
desirable and necessary, regardless of the notorious free lunch.
Social Security is preeminent there. Terribly implemented as it is,
people would still keep it with that knowledge. It serves a very
desirable function for a majority of the people. At the least, they
don't wish to see the heartbreaking sight of old, impoverished folk
begging and dying on the street, people who used to work productively
and never earned enough to save enough for Retirement.
Social security is commendable and understandable and
to some degree it is necessary.
It's the implementation by government confiscation and
redistribution that is the failure.
US government Social Security is an example of moral precepts
being wrested from the people and put into law. For within a few
generations the body politic had forgotten its moral basis and
today relies wholly on government force and largesse.
Read on early 18th-century England, the society Walpole "***** Robin"
brought into existence, the eventual backlash, Foundling Institutions,
etc. What Libertarians have in mind brings about a situation just as
intolerable as that which Socialist authoritarian government brings.
The principle problem with Libertarianism is that the flock redefines
everything according to the strictures of their beliefs, rather than
vice versa. Gee, ain't that special. Same thing that religionist
hardcases have done forever. It is very much like modern American
Liberalism, in that it amounts to a secular cult.
Libertarians can only lead by example. That's why there
can be no true libertarian political party.
The condition of libertarianism has occured only once
in history. That was in 1776 and essentially ended in
1789.
If one bleats like a sheep and claims to be liberatarian, he
ain't.
Well, TANSTAAFL.
This part of the
argument is over, as, in terms of any rational discussion on this issue,
your ideology makes you effectively insane.
Uh huh. So we can add ad homenim to the unfounded claims?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scipio" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
15 Feb 2005 02:42:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:27:27 GMT, Strabo <strabo@flashlight.net>
wrote:
In Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences on
Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:17:34 -0800, by Scipio, we read:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:58:22 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com>
wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Michael A. Clem wrote:
<snip>
You're a Libertarian. That means that you are very out of step with the
majority of Americans, who not only tolerate, but insist upon, a certain
degree of services which you label "socialistic".
Americans largely agree with Libertarian principles, in
principle. They just don't agree with them when the
effects of the principles are explained in detail.
In other words, like all of us, they want a free lunch.
There are, actually, a number of things that people feel to be
desirable and necessary, regardless of the notorious free lunch.
Social Security is preeminent there. Terribly implemented as it is,
people would still keep it with that knowledge. It serves a very
desirable function for a majority of the people. At the least, they
don't wish to see the heartbreaking sight of old, impoverished folk
begging and dying on the street, people who used to work productively
and never earned enough to save enough for Retirement.
Social security is commendable and understandable and
to some degree it is necessary.
It's the implementation by government confiscation and
redistribution that is the failure.
US government Social Security is an example of moral precepts
being wrested from the people and put into law. For within a few
generations the body politic had forgotten its moral basis and
today relies wholly on government force and largesse.
Read on early 18th-century England, the society Walpole "***** Robin"
brought into existence, the eventual backlash, Foundling Institutions,
etc. What Libertarians have in mind brings about a situation just as
intolerable as that which Socialist authoritarian government brings.
The principle problem with Libertarianism is that the flock redefines
everything according to the strictures of their beliefs, rather than
vice versa. Gee, ain't that special. Same thing that religionist
hardcases have done forever. It is very much like modern American
Liberalism, in that it amounts to a secular cult.
Libertarians can only lead by example. That's why there
can be no true libertarian political party.
The condition of libertarianism has occured only once
in history. That was in 1776 and essentially ended in
1789.
If one bleats like a sheep and claims to be liberatarian, he
ain't.
You endeavor to make intelligent arguments around this, so don't take
offense at the following observation. It ain't a personal dig, it's
probably something a lot of Libertarians aren't fully conscience of.
Whereas an educated fellow who is a Libertarian would probably take
notice... if he weren't wrapped up as part of the defense team:
The verbiage you use in the above sentences is the very-same type of
verbiage that was used by Marxist/Leninists in the old USSR. Their
statement was to the effect that they were Socialists, not Communists,
because a "condition of communism" had never been achieved.
That isn't a attack pointed at the articles of libertarian beliefs, as
it doesn't really matter what those beliefs are. The point is that
Libertarianism is a full-member of that handful of political
ideologies that qualify as secular religions. Marxism was the most
famous and widespread of them. National Socialism also qualified,
because of the extreme racial theories put into practice within and
without. American Liberalism qualifies as well, though just barely,
due to the inconveniences of our sometimes-representative democracy.
Again, that isn't a comparison with Libertarianism of the articles of
faith of these other movements. Those don't matter in the end. The
problem here, which was the fundamental problem of these other
political faiths, is that they are faiths. They are not
self-correcting - they are dogmatic. Every problem is explained and
put to bed in terms of dogmatic application of the faith.
It is fundamentally flawed for that reason, and others.
Well, TANSTAAFL.
This part of the
argument is over, as, in terms of any rational discussion on this issue,
your ideology makes you effectively insane.
Uh huh. So we can add ad homenim to the unfounded claims?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strabo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
17 Feb 2005 06:08:32 AM |
|
|
In Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences on
Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:42:59 -0800, by Scipio, we read:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:27:27 GMT, Strabo <strabo@flashlight.net>
wrote:
<snipped>
Social security is commendable and understandable and
to some degree it is necessary.
It's the implementation by government confiscation and
redistribution that is the failure.
US government Social Security is an example of moral precepts
being wrested from the people and put into law. For within a few
generations the body politic had forgotten its moral basis and
today relies wholly on government force and largesse.
Read on early 18th-century England, the society Walpole "***** Robin"
brought into existence, the eventual backlash, Foundling Institutions,
etc. What Libertarians have in mind brings about a situation just as
intolerable as that which Socialist authoritarian government brings.
The principle problem with Libertarianism is that the flock redefines
everything according to the strictures of their beliefs, rather than
vice versa. Gee, ain't that special. Same thing that religionist
hardcases have done forever. It is very much like modern American
Liberalism, in that it amounts to a secular cult.
Libertarians can only lead by example. That's why there
can be no true libertarian political party.
The condition of libertarianism has occured only once
in history. That was in 1776 and essentially ended in
1789.
If one bleats like a sheep and claims to be liberatarian, he
ain't.
You endeavor to make intelligent arguments around this, so don't take
offense at the following observation. It ain't a personal dig, it's
probably something a lot of Libertarians aren't fully conscience of.
Whereas an educated fellow who is a Libertarian would probably take
notice... if he weren't wrapped up as part of the defense team:
The verbiage you use in the above sentences is the very-same type of
verbiage that was used by Marxist/Leninists in the old USSR. Their
statement was to the effect that they were Socialists, not Communists,
because a "condition of communism" had never been achieved.
That isn't a attack pointed at the articles of libertarian beliefs, as
it doesn't really matter what those beliefs are. The point is that
Libertarianism is a full-member of that handful of political
ideologies that qualify as secular religions. Marxism was the most
famous and widespread of them. National Socialism also qualified,
because of the extreme racial theories put into practice within and
without. American Liberalism qualifies as well, though just barely,
due to the inconveniences of our sometimes-representative democracy.
Again, that isn't a comparison with Libertarianism of the articles of
faith of these other movements. Those don't matter in the end. The
problem here, which was the fundamental problem of these other
political faiths, is that they are faiths. They are not
self-correcting - they are dogmatic. Every problem is explained and
put to bed in terms of dogmatic application of the faith.
It is fundamentally flawed for that reason, and others.
As is your premise.
We are talking about a simple idea; that there are people
who believe in a set of related ideas and goals at the expense
of other values. Faith and religion are not necessary
ingredients.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of life not a political agenda.
Libertarianism, marxism and socialism (of which there are various
forms) are not based on faith. Each has a fundamental set of
operating principles that require only implementation.
Communism on the other hand, like all systems lacking essential
reciprocity, has a stylized sense of utopia. I assure you,
libertarianism does not.
Marxism and socialism are systems of collectivization around
a central control that largely ignore reality.
As to religion, no doubt there are marxists, communists and
socialists who are true to their beliefs, but this is not
predicated on religion or faith.
religion...
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such
belief and worship.
Our chief representatives of ever-present socialism, Stalin and
Hitler, supplanted any notion of a religious relationship
by reputing convention and declaring themselves as god-like, if
not in fact. No faith allowed there. Just obey the leader.
Libertarians on the other hand are repelled by religious
institutions as they intuitively understand the contradictions
and pitfalls. I'd say that most libertarians, as did Jefferson,
Washington and other founding notables, acknowledge a
transcendental universe and understand that mankind has a
spiritual dimension as amplified in the Declaration of
Independence, but this recognition of awareness is not a
a faith.
As for secular...
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body:
secular music.
Combining the two, "secular religion", amounts to a
contradiction.
Libertarians, marxists, communists and socialists are secular
in nature but are not secular religions.
Socialism, et al, are essentially political methodologies that
promote particulate social engineering. They are mechanisms that
define collective economic interests of a people in relation to a
central state. Command and control, grand in scope and messianic
in practice, they pay only lip service to dealing with life in
general.
Libertarianism is quite different. As a way of life it emphasizes
the individual and his obligations and responsibilities to
himself and other individuals. A state or government is not even
necessary.
You might say that libertarianism is the polar opposite of
marxism and socialism.
More to your point, libertarians do not personally need to
proselytize. Humans being what they are, few agree with
libertarian principles. But that's alright. As long as the Rights
of the individual are followed, tolerance is forthcoming.
Politics have entered the realm of libertarians as they see this
as a way to educate others and protect themselves. But they also
know that the corruptive and coercive elements of politics
means that no libertarian party can compete in the arena of
payola and deceit. So libertarian gains are far and few between.
Yes, there are life philosophies that do not directly relate to
politics or religion. Libertarianism is one of these.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Clem macsnafuatintergatedotcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
17 Feb 2005 01:21:53 PM |
|
|
We are talking about a simple idea; that there are people
who believe in a set of related ideas and goals at the expense
of other values. Faith and religion are not necessary
ingredients.
One has to wonder if he thinks of the Golden Rule as an example of
secular religion? After all, what factual evidence do we have that
'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you' is really a good
idea?
Libertarianism is a philosophy of life not a political agenda.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Objectivism is a philosophy of
life--libertarianism is a political philosophy (but more than merely a
political agenda). If libertarianism seems to cover so many areas of
life, that's probably attributable to the prevailing politics that
allows government to cover so many areas of our lives, rather than any
intrinsic concept of libertarianism.
Communism on the other hand, like all systems lacking essential
reciprocity, has a stylized sense of utopia. I assure you,
libertarianism does not.
When debating, it's possible to get "trapped" into defending a utopian
vision, but in reality, libertarianism is not promising a utopia, merely
something better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Cargill" |
|
| Title: Re: Dealing with Illegal Immigration and the Consequences |
17 Feb 2005 09:24:16 PM |
|
|
Michael A. Clem wrote:
We are talking about a simple idea; that there are people who believe
in a set of related ideas and goals at the expense of other values.
Faith and religion are not necessary
ingredients.
One has to wonder if he thinks of the Golden Rule as an example of
secular religion? After all, what factual evidence do we have that
'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you' is really a good
idea?
It's one of those rules that's normative, not
necessarily descriptive. It attempts to encourage
people to think about it before punching somebody
in the face.
Giving some thought to cost before acting seems
pretty Enlightenment, and Rational.
To me, Libertariansm's fundamental principle
is about the skepticism we all must filter events
through. We cannot know everything. We have to therefore
tone it down" until we Know. That's Hayek in a
nutshell - "yes, but what if it doesn't do
what you think it should?"
--
Les Cargill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| < | | | |
