>

Monday, June 18, 2018

Even Bill O'Reilly....

...is better on the child separation question than some so-called libertarians.
-RW  

27 comments:

  1. RW, you sound so sanctimonious. If you're down to bragging that Bill O'reilly and Laura Bush agree with you...???

    You highlighted my comment. You replied to it. I refuted your points one by one. You keep posting but you never replied. The comments have turned against you, and you still don't reply.

    You are conflating multiple issues to virtue signal. It really is getting juvenile.

    So I ask again:

    Differentiate in your analysis between illegals and immigrants.

    Tell us how many people you believe should be allowed to just cross the border uninvited? (at present your logic is that ALL 7 billion people on earth should be allowed)

    Tell us why you think illegals should have more rights than citizens when apprehended for a crime? (US citizen parents are separated from their children every day)

    Tell us why you think Trump is worse on this issue than Obama and Bush, and why you didn't ever protest before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      --- Differentiate in your analysis between illegals and immigrants. ---

      The 'difference' is irrelevant.

      --- Tell us why you think illegals should have more rights than citizens when apprehended for a crime? ---

      The government is the one acting criminally. You prefer to believe in the moral authority of the State and therefore make these queation-begging arguments.

      Trump is worse because he's imposing a policy and then lying about it like a coward.

      Delete
    2. Honestly, Francisco, if you think the "'difference' is irrelevant," then you are a moron or a liar. I don't think morons read this blog.

      Care to take another stab at it? Differentiate in your analysis between illegals and immigrants.

      Delete
    3. One has a permission slip from a politician?

      Delete
    4. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ─ Honestly, Francisco, if you think the "'difference' is irrelevant," then you are a moron or a liar. ─

      Neither. It IS irrelevant, like calling gambling "illegal gambling" or calling drugs "illegal drugs". What makes them "illegal" is a definition by the State and not something special about gambling or drugs. That means: The only reason they're considered illegal (gambling, drugs or some immigrants) is because the government says they're illegal, which represents undue deference to government on what should be dictated by reason alone.

      ── Care to take another stab at it? ──

      Do you mean beat that dead horse again?

      ── Differentiate in your analysis between illegals and immigrants. ──

      They're the same immigrants. The same. Just like a hair braider is a hair braider even without the 2000-hour cosmetology requirement imposed on her by the State. The ONLY difference between a "legal" immigrant and an "illegal" immigrant: The permission slip from The Almighty State.

      In terms of ECONOMICS, it makes NO difference, as labor is always productive. In terms of REASON and MORALITY, it makes NO difference, as immigrants are invited in by The Market. In terms of your paranoid fantasies about armies of brown people coming to take over your neighborhood, that's between you and the orderly at the psychiatric hospital dangling your meds in front of your face.

      Delete
    5. @ Evan
      Wrong! Cute attempt, though. Care to try again?

      Delete
    6. Umm... one makes “law and order” right wingers more butthurt?

      Delete
  2. These children live in dirt floor huts with sugarcane stalks for siding. They're now staying in shelters nicer than 99% of any rent subsidized, cockroach infested apartment buildings above the corner bodega.

    Where were these penniless parents planning on taking their kids after smuggling them over the border anyway? The Four Seasons? No, wait - it's unventilated shipping containers and dilapidated labor camps. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/05/02/struggle-to-provide-housing-for-migrant-farmworkers

    You virtue signaling people are dumb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Stuffed Pimento

      --- These children live in dirt floor huts with sugarcane stalks for siding. ---


      Germans used to think that Jews were better off in the concentration camps, your ridiculously backward view of the living conditions of people in other countries notwithstanding.

      --- Where were these penniless parents planning on taking their kids after smuggling them over the border anyway? The Four Seasons? ---

      There are plenty of places. Immigrants are invited in by The Market. The fact that you harbor this fantastic view of collective ownership of all property inside the imaginary line on the map does not mean YOU get to say who others can contract or agree with, even when dealing with undocumented immigrants, you Communist.

      Delete
    2. You don't get it, Pimento, they are hoping these kids die so that they can blame Trump.

      They didn't care when it was worse under Obama (or, at best, the same).

      And you can tell they are lying dissemblers because if you don't agree with them they don't argue the point, they call you Trumpistas.

      And I have never seen RW make worse arguments. It's like watching my grandmother's facebook feed (RIP). Of course, it's becoming more obvious that he has realized his thinking is muddled and obvious, as he highlighted and fisked my comment as if he believed he was contradicting my points--but got real quiet when I responded point-by-point.

      I used to be impressed by his logical mind, and his adherence to it. But after noticing the logic go out the window vis a vis things that either A) affect his pocketbook personally; or, B) affect his particular and necessary "worldview," I must re-evaluate.

      It's like when Jon Stewart seemed so libertarian and anti-State when Bush was president, but then you saw his true colors when Obama was anointed.

      Also, RW still hasn't looked up Moral Hazard. Advertising loudly that if you bring your kids along while you commit a crime you will be separated will cause a drop in the number of parents dragging their kids across the desert, or paying coyotes to do the same (after raping the kids, of course).

      RW, I have asked many questions. You saw fit to highlight my comment; fisked it; yet you now won't reply to any of my lengthy criticisms of your flighty answers. Why? Do you regret posting my comment?

      Delete
    3. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ─ And you can tell they are lying dissemblers because if you don't agree with them they don't argue the point, they call you Trumpistas. ─

      That's a lie. In the first place, they're not calling you a Trumpista. In the second: I am the one allocating that perfectly-defined adjective to those who argue against Markets and natural rights. For instance: YOU.

      ─ Also, RW still hasn't looked up Moral Hazard. ─

      As a matter of fact it is YOU who doesn't know what Moral Hazard means or entails. Parents aren't dragging their kids through perils because of a false sense of security (which is what moral hazard entails) but because the barrier of entry has been risen by the past three administrations and the current one to the point that parents risk much more by leaving their kids alone in the country they're leaving.

      ─ Advertising loudly that if you bring your kids along while you commit a crime you will be separated ─

      Sure, just like the Romans did when they crucified Jesus Christ - a sterner message they could not have given. After all, Jesus was tried as a criminal...

      Delete
    4. @Francisco
      So you don't understand moral hazard, either. Previous administrations made it clear that you could come in and get on welfare. They advertised it. The current admin is trying to send the opposite message. Can you think of why?

      No, you can't. Because you're a dense dissembler. I mean, bringing Jesus into it... lol

      I really didn't need to reply, as your comment is incoherent, but I thought I'd give you one last bit of attention.

      Delete
    5. @Francisco If Mr. Market invited these invaders, then why do they enter the country through the back door? You're literally arguing in favor of a policy of a borderless society ruled by the State, yet I'm the Communist?

      @NAP good luck debating with these faux-libertarians. They argue public policy as if we already lived without the State in Libertopia. I'm sure they're already on the Gold Standard and stopped paying taxes years ago.

      Delete
    6. @Pimento
      RW and the Gang: "We've figured out a better method of transporting pigs. We just have them fly."

      Real-world libertarians: "Ok, in a future where pigs can fly we'll definitely try that, but for now we're gonna have to use trucks."

      RW&tG: "Sick Trumpistas! That is ass-backward physics! It is idiocy to let the actual world as it be a part of your calculation on how to get to the world as you want it to be."

      And they all flew away. Not on pigs, of course. Those can't fly. And they wouldn't take their own advice IN REALITY. That's why they lock their doors. (Try being in Wenzel's house when he gets home, eating his food, and wearing his underwear. Just be sure to tell him that--even though you don't have a job or your own place yet, and you no no one in town--he can't call the cops because Wenzel PAYS PROPERTY TAX and thus admits that the State OWNS his property and thus Wenzel cannot prevent anyone from entering or expel them)

      Delete
    7. Re: Netwon Acton Paxton,

      ── So you don't understand moral hazard, either. ──

      Blah, blah, blah.

      ── Previous administrations made it clear that you could come in and get on welfare. ──

      Liar.

      ── The current admin is trying to send the opposite message. Can you think of why? ──

      Because they're evil? Because the base is made of ignorant boobs who would rather blame others for their own mediocrity?

      ── No, you can't. ──

      Again: Blah, blah, blah.


      Delete
  3. Neocons have always supported open immigration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So have consistent libertarians

      Delete
    2. Re: Twerking Surgeon

      ─Neocons have always supported open immigration─

      That's actually a LIE. Neocons are known for supporting perpetual war and world government but they have never been particularly friendly towards immigration. Or Markets, for that matter.

      Libertarians support borders open to trade, to the free exchange of goods, of services, of capital and, yes, of labor.

      What Trumpistas and Fascists think is 'Open Borders' is an actual impossibility, since Market Forces already regulate migration; it is a fact that Trumpistas and Fascists alike are also quite hostile towards Markets, thus their penchant for protectionist schemes, be it tariffs or limited immigration, even eugenics.

      Delete
    3. @Francisco
      Since you're obsessed with Trump, can I ask? Are you of Mexican (via Spain) heritage?

      Delete
    4. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ── Since you're obsessed with Trump, can I ask? Are you of Mexican (via Spain) heritage? ──

      Oh, that question is correctly answered with "It is NONE of your gawddamned business."

      And I am not obsessed with anything. I am a person of very strict moral principles, which include the Non Aggression Principle, Voluntarysm, not being a mendacious f*ck (that is, not be a Trumpista), etc. and one who holds the nutty idea that each human individual of will is born with rights and is a unique creation, deserving of respect.

      Delete
  4. It's easy to spot all the tough guys around here. Just look for the "men" cheering on violence against children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Donxon
      Can you show me the "violence against children" that you're referring to? It would be helpful. Because I, for one, am against it. I know that you and RW might be cool with using kids as political props and putting their lives in danger illegally crossing a dangerous border, but I am not.
      I also believe that, if you love your kids and want to make a better life somewhere else, that you should go set up and make sure your kids will have a safe trip and a safe place to stay when they get there. You guys apparently believe that kids just gotta suck it up, and if they die on the way that's their tough luck?

      You grown men who would use children like that, or cheer for those who do, don't deserve or have balls.

      Delete
    2. Your precious government is the only one endangering these children.

      Delete
    3. @Evan
      Again, with your nothing burger comment. OOOOOh, "your precious government"! Burn.

      Delete
    4. I just think it’s funny that you point out (correctly) that these parents are endangering their children by bringing them into the jurisdiction of vicious federal agents... while at the same time arguing that these federal agents need to be given even more authority!

      Delete
    5. @Evan
      The trip across the "dangerous border" is dangerous. As with the Jon Stewart comment, why can't you just read what is written? Are you trolling or unable to comprehend a sentence? I don't want to be done with you (like Francisco), but this is annoying and unproductive. If you keep it up (or can't keep up) I'm going to have to ignore you.

      Delete