• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

65 Percent of People Taken by ICE Had No Convictions, 93 Percent No Violent Convictions

Uncensored2008 said:
The National Socialist Democrat Party.

View attachment 67579383



Illegal immigration is a problem, and has been since the 1950's at least. Your complaint is Trump told the truth while democrats lied.

Of course every administration since Truman has spoken against illegal immigration, with the Eisenhower administration carrying out mass deportation far more sweeping than those of Trump.



What a foolish lie.

en.wikipedia.org

1994 California Proposition 187 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

BTW - that was "democracy," but democrats HATE democracy and overruled the overwhelming vote of the people using unelected NSDP judges.



For the drones of the NSDP hive, there is no yesterday and no tomorrow, only an eternal now that conforms to the goals of the party.
Click to expand...

Rotflmao!

This post is too stupid for words.
Immigration was a nothing burger until Trump.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Is it dishonesty or reading comprehension issues?

{citizenship was limited to "white persons" as of 1790, and naturalization was subject to five-year residency requirement as of 1802.}
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Were you being dishonest when you conflated citizenship and naturalization with open borders, was it a reading comprehension issue? Limitations on citizenship are not the same as restrictions on entering the country.

Uncensored2008 said:
I support property rights. Including the right of free people to form a nation with borders and as with all property owners have the right to regulate who may enter their property.
Click to expand...

So you support property rights, including the right of free people to form a nation, regulate who may enter their property, impose whatever rents or taxes they like on people who want to live or do business on their property, and use the money from their collected taxes to provide the people on their property with UBI, Universal Healthcare, cradle-to-grave safetey nets etc?

Sounds very Libertarian of you.

Uncensored2008 said:
Welcoming legal immigrants is laudable. Where the imperialists fail is in refusing to distinguish between legal immigrants who are indeed welcomed, and illegal aliens who are like thieves breaking into our homes. Imperialist import millions of colonizers in an effort to dilute and dissolve the national identity and American culture.
Click to expand...

Laws restricting immigration are an imposition of force by the State. They are the most unlibertarian thing.
Uncensored2008 said:
Context matters.
Click to expand...

The context was that Libertarians are opposed to immigration laws.

Uncensored2008 said:
All ideals evolve out of earlier ones. Rothbard came out of Ayn Rand's movement. He became disillusioned with the religious zeal of Objectivists who operated under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy you are employing here.
Click to expand...
Your ideals are exactly contrary to the defining ideals of Libertariansm. Claiming that someone born and raised in Oakland California and descended from Italians is no True Scotsman isn't a fallacy. They just really are not a Scotsman in any way.

Uncensored2008 said:
LOL - no.
Click to expand...

LOL - yes.

Uncensored2008 said:
Again - this is a representative republic. We operate under a Constitution which empowers the national, federal government to protect and secure our borders. That you oppose this nation is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't oppose the nation. I think leveraging the public ownership to impose taxes and fund things like universal healthcare, welfare benefits, etc. is fine. But then, I'm not the one claiming to be a Libertarian here.

Uncensored2008 said:
You deny that we have a constitution and enumerated rights, and that we elect our representatives and may fire them if they fail to perform as we desire.
Click to expand...

Where do you imagine I denied that?

Uncensored2008 said:
No true Scotsman....
Click to expand...

If the US is the property of the US public, then the public gets to decide who is allowed to engage in what kind of business on our property. If we decide that we want a public monopoly of all production collectively controlled on our property, that is our right as property owners.

You are literally justifying Communism here, and imagining it to be Right Libertarianism. A French citizen living in Paris is not a Scotsman. That isn't a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. They just really aren't a Scotsman in any reasonable sense of the word.
 
Last edited:
AConcernedCitizen said:
I'm not sure. Were you being dishonest when you conflated citizenship and naturalization with open borders, was it a reading comprehension issue? Limitations on citizenship are not the same as restrictions on entering the country.



So you support property rights, including the right of free people to form a nation, regulate who may enter their property, impose whatever rents or taxes they like on people who want to live or do business on their property, and use the money from their collected taxes to provide the people on their property with UBI, Universal Healthcare, cradle-to-grave safetey nets etc?

Sounds very Libertarian of you.



Laws restricting immigration are an imposition of force by the State. They are the most unlibertarian thing.


The context was that Libertarians are opposed to immigration laws.


Your ideals are exactly contrary to the defining ideals of Libertariansm. Claiming that someone born and raised in Oakland California and descended from Italians is no True Scotsman isn't a fallacy. They just really are not a Scotsman in any way.



LOL - yes.



I don't oppose the nation. I think leveraging the public ownership to impose taxes and fund things like universal healthcare, welfare benefits, etc. is fine. But then, I'm not the one claiming to be a Libertarian here.



Where do you imagine I denied that?



If the US is the property of the US public, then the public gets to decide who is allowed to engage in what kind of business on our property. If we decide that we want a public monopoly of all production collectively controlled on our property, that is our right as property owners.

You are literally justifying Communism here, and imagining it to be Right Libertarianism. A French citizen living in Paris is not a Scotsman. That isn't a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. They just really aren't a Scotsman in any reasonable sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Repeating your earlier, spurious arguments makes them no less spurious.
 
noonereal said:
Rotflmao!

This post is too stupid for words.
Immigration was a nothing burger until Trump.
Click to expand...

Lying doesn't change reality - even if you truly hate Emmanuel Goldstein with all your soul.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
If you just lie a little harder, reality will too change - Sieg Heil and Uber Alles democrat. Reality MUST submit to the party.
Click to expand...

For go your god and embrace reason, logic and truth.
 
You can't expect ICE to arrest the dangerous ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom