Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 07:33:11 AM
Trip. And use the quote function ya freakin rock head!

His moniker was Trip, and quite fitting, because the guy really was a Trip.
Though not the same guy here, Trip was at least smart, nuts, but smart, but like this one, suffered the same mental malady of ignoring pragmatism as well as human nature.

Sorry, I was making a point so brilliant that it could not be reliant on any words ever spoken previously.  It was stand-alone social commentary, that needed to exist in a vacuum for purity.  You know, the "clean room" of posting.............

Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 07:07:02 AM
Holy Shit! Andy was right, you are an ignorant arrogant little piss ant.
Now you're claiming our Republic and it's claim to sovereignty is illegitimate,

Actually, to memory that hasn't been referenced before, but now that it has, let's analyze that.

What is American sovereignty? As I understand it, it is the aggregate of the individual sovereignty of all living here.

We can say American sovereignty has been violated, when and only when an individual American has been harmed or will likely be harmed by another's actions.

This  is why I say you must look for illness or Ill intent. Either would harm an individual American, so can trespass on private property. It's individual culpability we have to look for.

QuoteYou may want to reflect on that. Because like it or not, your ideas are not inline with reality.

Once again, Judge Napolitano:

"The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.

The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.

...the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently, we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born."

Well, that's two I guess.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Now that is how evidence is presented. While I do not agree with you it is at least evidence that you have a brain, which is found wanting among the other member's I've noticed so far.

Edit: Alaska Sim, in today's modern world of suitcase nukes, chemical agents, biological agents, and a number of other potential atrocities that are more easily committed now than ever, I must reject the hypothesis that is "freedom to travel." Equally, we used to have "freedom of use of information" but ever since the 70s, corporations have moved to state that any idea of theirs can belong to them indefinitely with no end date, being immortal in all things, just like people are ... oh wait, people die all the time, I guess. But then corporations are people, so obviously at least there are SOME people that can live forever. Mommy, Daddy, I wanna become a Corporation when I grow up so I can live forever and never get into any real trouble. But that is neither here nor there. The point is, if people are going to want to come into this country, we have a supply of "Citizenship" that they have a strong demand for ... therefore in exchange I see it only fitting for them to promise military service. Perhaps an illegal immigrant that signs up for a 2 year contract gets a work visa? And maybe after serving in the military for 5 years it becomes a permanent work visa for not just him but any spouse too? I like the sound of that, maybe we can see what avenues to legalization we can create that makes the most of these illegals, into something useful to our good ole US of A.

Quote from: Aristophanes on August 22, 2014, 07:45:04 AM
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Now that is how evidence is presented. While I do not agree with you it is at least evidence that you have a brain, which is found wanting among the other member's I've noticed so far.

Please use the quote function, as it helps our guest follow the flow.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 07:18:50 AM

This just feels like the same guy, re-packaged as "young genius guy fresh from MIT-Cornell-Stanford".

Nah, I went to a state school. 3rd in the nation for aviation degrees, pretty top notch simulator program. ( I had an Australian instructor suspected of being a Belgian terrorist. I had to provide evidence of my American citizenship to him. )

Otherwise, nothing special. Hated graduation, they were extolling one liberal cause after the next the school was into. The Folks were annoyed too.

Quote from: Aristophanes on August 22, 2014, 07:45:04 AM
Perhaps an illegal immigrant that signs up for a 2 year contract gets a work visa? And maybe after serving in the military for 5 years it becomes a permanent work visa for not just him but any spouse too?

That may work, Singapore requires two years service for citizens and 2nd generation permanent residents. I'm not sure though if we could afford to expand the military by that much, I'd need to see some sort of estimate.

Quote from: walkstall on August 22, 2014, 07:50:08 AM
Please use the quote function, as it helps our guest follow the flow.

lol, I was taken aback at the accolades from the ancient Greeks  !

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 08:03:59 AM
Nah, I went to a state school. 3rd in the nation for aviation degrees, pretty top notch simulator program. ( I had an Australian instructor suspected of being a Belgian terrorist. I had to provide evidence of my American citizenship to him. )

Otherwise, nothing special. Hated graduation, they were extolling one liberal cause after the next the school was into. The Folks were annoyed too.

It's funny, I can't figure out if you're not as bad as my suspicions......or if you're just pretty good at playing possum, and stretching out the nonsense for max effect......by not arguing too much.

Embry Riddle  ?

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 07:41:18 AM
Actually, to memory that hasn't been referenced before, but now that it has, let's analyze that.

What is American sovereignty? As I understand it, it is the aggregate of the individual sovereignty of all living here.

We can say American sovereignty has been violated, when and only when an individual American has been harmed or will likely be harmed by another's actions.

This  is why I say you must look for illness or Ill intent. Either would harm an individual American, so can trespass on private property. It's individual culpability we have to look for.
Once again, Judge Napolitano:

"The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.

The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.

...the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently, we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born."

Well, that's two I guess.

The harm is easy - freeloading, stealing, and wasting the money that's been forcibly taken from me, thereby making it unavailable to the things that I should receive in exchange for my funding of the govt.

And  natural rights from God are not without qualifications or controls.  Nothing in life, from God or man, is.  Yes, you may wander the earth as you like, but you can't just saunter into any place without acknowledging the inhabitants or owners, or their attempts to keep things safe, secure, fair, and orderly.  Not my house, not a country, not a business, not a municipal venue like a school or hospital.

Natural rights do not confer the right to pursue / create anarchy.

Quote from: Aristophanes on August 22, 2014, 07:45:04 AM
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Now that is how evidence is presented. While I do not agree with you it is at least evidence that you have a brain, which is found wanting among the other member's I've noticed so far.

Edit: Alaska Sim, in today's modern world of suitcase nukes, chemical agents, biological agents, and a number of other potential atrocities that are more easily committed now than ever, I must reject the hypothesis that is "freedom to travel." Equally, we used to have "freedom of use of information" but ever since the 70s, corporations have moved to state that any idea of theirs can belong to them indefinitely with no end date, being immortal in all things, just like people are ... oh wait, people die all the time, I guess. But then corporations are people, so obviously at least there are SOME people that can live forever. Mommy, Daddy, I wanna become a Corporation when I grow up so I can live forever and never get into any real trouble. But that is neither here nor there. The point is, if people are going to want to come into this country, we have a supply of "Citizenship" that they have a strong demand for ... therefore in exchange I see it only fitting for them to promise military service. Perhaps an illegal immigrant that signs up for a 2 year contract gets a work visa? And maybe after serving in the military for 5 years it becomes a permanent work visa for not just him but any spouse too? I like the sound of that, maybe we can see what avenues to legalization we can create that makes the most of these illegals, into something useful to our good ole US of A.

Woops...your I hate corporations is showing.

Corporations do indeed get the protections and opportunities of individuals, because they are the absolute property of individual people.

It is that simple.  Just as you would like to scoff that a corporation "is a person"......I can scoff at the notion that it becomes just some asset of the socialist state that somehow has no connection to the owner / creator, but instead becomes just a state vehicle to deliver "living wage" and medicine and retirement.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 08:14:48 AM
It's funny, I can't figure out if you're not as bad as my suspicions......or if you're just pretty good at playing possum,

I have the will to fight you to the death over values, things that matter, but about myself? I don't take *me* too seriously.

Something I learned through experience. Opinion of guys on the internet? It doesn't matter, it's the internet. If you don't like me and make a point about that, I can just move on. Moved on from the political forum... Or I may just gotten bored.

Quote
Embry Riddle  ?

Oh hecks no, way too rich for my blood, and you'd only really go there if you had your heart set on being a pilot. Which I don't.

I do like flying, but not to the degree that I wanted to suffer through the process of becoming a commercial pilot. It's almost as bad as medical interning, only your sleep deprived while possibly holding at 20,000 feet.

Oddly enough, pilots at my school would switch into my degree track, as it was common for them not to get enough hours to graduate in the piloting track.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 07:41:18 AM
Actually, to memory that hasn't been referenced before, but now that it has, let's analyze that.

What is American sovereignty? As I understand it, it is the aggregate of the individual sovereignty of all living here.

We can say American sovereignty has been violated, when and only when an individual American has been harmed or will likely be harmed by another's actions.

This  is why I say you must look for illness or Ill intent. Either would harm an individual American, so can trespass on private property. It's individual culpability we have to look for.
Once again, Judge Napolitano:

"The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.

The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.

...the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently, we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born."

Well, that's two I guess.

Amazing! So if I move into your home, eat your food, watch your TV, all done with no intent to harm, then using your logic, I'm following my Right of Natural Law?

Because that's exactly how you explain illegal immigration.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 22, 2014, 08:24:55 AM
The harm is easy - freeloading, stealing, and wasting the money that's been forcibly taken from me, thereby making it unavailable to the things that I should receive in exchange for my funding of the govt.

True, but that's a problem with the welfare system, not the immigrant.

Seeing as how that system is more frequently abused by poor Americans to start with, it needs fixing anyway.

And as I said before in citing my Mexican-American coworker, I think we would find, if we inquired, that there's a pretty broad consensus to draw a wall around the welfare state.

As to qualifications, those again have to be based on individual culpability, not collective.

If someone is sick with a contagious disease? Yes, block them until such time that they become better.

Has inclinations to being a killer or terrorist? Sure, block 'em.

Just low-skilled and uneducated? No. Let them in, and let the market decide what to do with them.

Their presence alone does not violate the natural rights of any of us, my liberty nor property, nor life are injured by theirs. That only happens if they act against me, just as it would be with any American.

Equally, " secure fair and orderly" was achieved under open borders, and far better in estimations I've been shown of the period. We don't have to go back to that, but we should have an immigration policy that keeps Natural Law in mind, and respects the immigrants as sovereign individuals.

None of us much like our tax code or the IRS because it disrespects us, so why is it okay to pass off an even more onerous bureaucracy on poor people just trying to come and work here? It doesn't make us safer, and it only incentivizes people to break the law.

Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2014, 08:33:22 AM
Amazing! So if I move into your home,

Nah, that analogy is pretty wonky.

How exactly, for instance, do you model the businesses who are trying to hire the illegals in that?

That's like saying theres someone else living in your home who runs a business, and who upon meeting the "intruder", hires them on the spot to go mow the lawn. Pretty weird.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
True, but that's a problem with the welfare system, not the immigrant.

Seeing as how that system is more frequently abused by poor Americans to start with, it needs fixing anyway.

And as I said before in citing my Mexican-American coworker, I think we would find, if we inquired, that there's a pretty broad consensus to draw a wall around the welfare state.

As to qualifications, those again have to be based on individual culpability, not collective.

If someone is sick with a contagious disease? Yes, block them until such time that they become better.

Has inclinations to being a killer or terrorist? Sure, block 'em.

Just low-skilled and uneducated? No. Let them in, and let the market decide what to do with them.

Their presence alone does not violate the natural rights of any of us, my liberty nor property, nor life are injured by theirs. That only happens if they act against me, just as it would be with any American.

Equally, " secure fair and orderly" was achieved under open borders, and far better in estimations I've been shown of the period. We don't have to go back to that, but we should have an immigration policy that keeps Natural Law in mind, and respects the immigrants as sovereign individuals.

None of us much like our tax code or the IRS because it disrespects us, so why is it okay to pass off an even more onerous bureaucracy on poor people just trying to come and work here? It doesn't make us safer, and it only incentivizes people to break the law.
Nah, that analogy is pretty wonky.

How exactly, for instance, do you model the businesses who are trying to hire the illegals in that?

That's like saying theres someone else living in your home who runs a business, and who upon meeting the "intruder", hires them on the spot to go mow the lawn. Pretty weird.

The illegal immigrant is creating his own private welfare system when he saunters across the border.  Of course he's being supported by an employer, and Obama / Holder creating off-the-cuff reparations for him.  Which should both be indicted and prosecuted.

But none of this gives credence to any Natural Law or Rights to do so.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
True, but that's a problem with the welfare system, not the immigrant.

Seeing as how that system is more frequently abused by poor Americans to start with, it needs fixing anyway.

And as I said before in citing my Mexican-American coworker, I think we would find, if we inquired, that there's a pretty broad consensus to draw a wall around the welfare state.

As to qualifications, those again have to be based on individual culpability, not collective.

If someone is sick with a contagious disease? Yes, block them until such time that they become better.

Has inclinations to being a killer or terrorist? Sure, block 'em.

Just low-skilled and uneducated? No. Let them in, and let the market decide what to do with them.

Their presence alone does not violate the natural rights of any of us, my liberty nor property, nor life are injured by theirs. That only happens if they act against me, just as it would be with any American.

Equally, " secure fair and orderly" was achieved under open borders, and far better in estimations I've been shown of the period. We don't have to go back to that, but we should have an immigration policy that keeps Natural Law in mind, and respects the immigrants as sovereign individuals.

None of us much like our tax code or the IRS because it disrespects us, so why is it okay to pass off an even more onerous bureaucracy on poor people just trying to come and work here? It doesn't make us safer, and it only incentivizes people to break the law.

Free mkt does not dictate the law, the mkt works within the boundaries of the law.

QuoteNah, that analogy is pretty wonky.

How exactly, for instance, do you model the businesses who are trying to hire the illegals in that?

That's like saying theres someone else living in your home who runs a business, and who upon meeting the "intruder", hires them on the spot to go mow the lawn. Pretty weird.

No it's not "Wonky"!
Natural law dictates I can take everything you own, simply because I can kick your ass.
Law of the jungle is natural law! And don't bother quoting Locke, he completely ignores the fact that we are a part of the animal kingdom, just luckily at the top of the food chain.

I'm moving this thread to the Nut House, quite befitting I might add.