Trump doesn't want immigrants from s***hole countries

[helltoupee]

And yet they're demonstrably not, re-read the post I tagged you in. I go through all the demographics that want smaller government....

And yet you failed to show that "smaller government" is a characteristic of Western values, when the entire West is littered with, big governments.

Are western governments a product of western values? If not, what gives with all the big socialistic governments of the West?

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Amazing how dishonest sherdog liberals are. Yes Haiti is a shithole, hell Mexico is a shithole. Sherdog liberals have probably used the term themselves but, when Trump says it (and it is the truth) all of the sudden it’s “wrong” and “racist.”

 

[Greoric]

And yet you failed to show that "smaller government" is a characteristic of Western values, when the entire West is littered with, big governments.

Are western governments a product of western values? If not, what gives with all the big socialistic governments of the West?

Where else was small government created, but for an introduction by a western culture?

Look dude, 94% of libertarians are white men, despite them begging and groveling for other demographics to attend their conventions. Should be a clue.

What's the bottom line to this? The people that we're talking about demonstrably disagree with what this country was founded on. That's limited government and individualism. Western people were the only ones to come up with that form of societal organization.

And what does that mean? They can choose anywhere else to go and they'll fit in better than here.

 

[mudflap mike]

its ok, everyone.

he said sh*thouse, not sh*thole.

all clear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ying-on-trumps-behalf/?utm_term=.0c2477efd18b

 

[helltoupee]

Where else was small government created, but for an introduction by a western culture?

Look dude, 94% of libertarians are white men, despite them begging and groveling for other demographics to attend their conventions. Should be a clue.

I don't care what libertarians are or aren't. Maybe they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and move to a desert island, where they don't have to worry about pesky governments. Show some self-reliance for christ's sakes. Why depend on a state infrastructure for wealth generation, paved roads, and property rights? Such a hypocritical inconvenience.

 

[Greoric]

I don't care what libertarians are or aren't. Maybe they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and move to a desert island, where they don't have to worry about pesky governments. Show some self-reliance for christ's sakes. Why depend on a state infrastructure for wealth generation, paved roads, and property rights?

Or fight for the country they want to have? We did. Or flee? There's over a hundred other countries more compatible with their culture than ours. They can choose one.

Whatever the case, they do not belong here.

 

[helltoupee]

Or fight for the country they want to have? We did. Or flee? There's over a hundred other countries more compatible with their culture than ours. They can choose one.

Whatever the case, they do not belong here.

You aren't being very consistent.

Glad you asked. You were just commenting about how you don't see anything getting done, unless "someone's running it". A little disappointing considering I spent my time trying to educate you on how myopic that is.

 

[Fawlty]

And we're still pretending that the problematic aspect of this is calling bad countries shitholes.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That's limited government and individualism. Western people were the only ones to come up with that form of societal organization.

 

[Limbo Pete]

And we're still pretending that the problematic aspect of this is calling bad countries shitholes.

We're also apparently pretending "the west" "invented ethics" and "limited government".

The arrogance... it's over 9,000!!!!

 

[Jack V Savage]

And we're still pretending that the problematic aspect of this is calling bad countries shitholes.

That's an easier argument to deal with. Though putting aside the real issues, I think it diminishes the country to have such a vulgar, tasteless head of state. And the hypocrisy of these guys is shocking. I'm old enough to remember when Fox News was freaking out about Obama taking his jacket off at work or when right-wingers saying that a brown suit was unpresidential. Now, the president gets quoted in major media swearing, and we find out that he paid off a hooker to keep quiet about their dalliance while he was married, and it barely gets a shrug.

 

[Greoric]

You aren't being very consistent.

Then I suppose you concede the point?

Reads like your head is so clouded with dissonance, I doubt you'll be capable of being genuine, but here you go anyway.

You're just confusing the pragmatic position from the ideal one.
The reality is that we have a government now, whether I want that or not. Within that space, The original constitutional republic is at risk of being presided over by representatives voted in by the kinds of people our current governance was not intended for. People of cultures that do not belong here. That is the way things are.

Ideally do we need a government? No. That point still remains. You don't need the equivalent of a guy with a bullhorn telling people what to do and where to go for things to get done. However, while our current government still declares a monopoly over the initiation of violence, and is susceptible to being usurped by populations of people with cultures antitehtical to our original form of governance, then yes, I want them to use defensive force to exclude people from the arbitrarily defined borders of the US.

 

[Greoric]

Where'd you find my picture at?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Where'd you find my picture at?

 

[Greoric]

We're also apparently pretending "the west" "invented ethics" and "limited government".

The arrogance... it's over 9,000!!!!

You're intentionally misrepresenting, right? I mean, I must have corrected you a half a dozen times on this statement.

 

[helltoupee]

Where else was small government created, but for an introduction by a western culture?

Look dude, 94% of libertarians are white men, despite them begging and groveling for other demographics to attend their conventions. Should be a clue.

What's the bottom line to this? The people that we're talking about demonstrably disagree with what this country was founded on. That's limited government and individualism. Western people were the only ones to come up with that form of societal organization.

And what does that mean? They can choose anywhere else to go and they'll fit in better than here.

I'll just address the bolded, since it seems to be some sort of ninja edit - something you seem to frown upon, but oh well.

When you say "limited government" you are talking about a government with limitations, checks and balances, not "smaller government", which is the term you've been using throughout this thread. Not the same.

I would imagine most immigrants, just like everyone else, want a government that provides for equal opportunity, due process, the right to petition, etc. That's a limited government.

 

[Limbo Pete]

You're intentionally misrepresenting, right? I mean, I must have corrected you a half a dozen times on this statement.

Mmmmhmmm mhhmm

 

[Greoric]

I'll just address the bolded, since it seems to be some sort of ninja edit - something you seem to frown upon, but oh well.

When you say "limited government" you are talking about a government with limitations, checks and balances, not "smaller government", which is the term you've been using throughout this thread. Not the same.

I would imagine most immigrants, just like everyone else, want a government that provides for equal opportunity, due process, the right to petition, etc. That's a limited government.

I'm using limited and smaller interchangeably. Again, the demographics of non-western people as groups universally want larger government. If they want that, they have plenty of other choices to choose from.

 

[Fawlty]

That's an easier argument to deal with. Though putting aside the real issues, I think it diminishes the country to have such a vulgar, tasteless head of state. And the hypocrisy of these guys is shocking. I'm old enough to remember when Fox News was freaking out about Obama taking his jacket off at work or when right-wingers saying that a brown suit was unpresidential. Now, the president gets quoted in major media swearing, and we find out that he paid off a hooker to keep quiet about their dalliance while he was married, and it barely gets a shrug.

Sure, it's yet another absolute scandal and shame on our nation, but the stated appeal of Trump is that he would say all the dumb things we say when we've had a couple of beers. I would say that Haiti is a shithole in the right context.

So they get to be phony, ignore the horrible bullshit completely, and fight their stupid sub-battle on the word "shithole," based on that every day Joe appeal. Meanwhile this is more seriously about the fully inhumane and juvenile practice of banning individuals based only on the yuckiness of their countries.

 

[helltoupee]

Then I suppose you concede the point?

Reads like your head is so clouded with dissonance, I doubt you'll be capable of being genuine, but here you go anyway.

You're just confusing the pragmatic position from the ideal one.
The reality is that we have a government now, whether I want that or not. Within that space, The original constitutional republic is at risk of being presided over by representatives voted in by the kinds of people our current governance was not intended for. People of cultures that do not belong here. That is the way things are.

Ideally do we need a government? No. That point still remains. You don't need the equivalent of a guy with a bullhorn telling people what to do and where to go for things to get done. However, while our current government still declares a monopoly over the initiation of violence, and is susceptible to being usurped by populations of people with cultures antitehtical to our original form of governance, then yes, I want them to use defensive force to exclude people from the arbitrarily defined boarders of the US.

You don't seem to be a big fan of the US government either, certainly your visions of anarchy is not something that 99% of the population agrees with. So who's the bigger danger? Maybe you should leave, lest we have more Greorics running around trying to bring down the government?

Anarchy sounds pretty anti-ethical to what the Founders had in mind, yes or no?

I would be very careful about using the word genuine. You are an anarchy guy who screams about extortive taxes every chance you get, but you are all for limiting my ability to hire someone who has emigrated legally from a different country. Just bow out gracefully. I can tell you resort to passive agressive insults when you get frustrated. Not a good look.