Obama Hosts Illegal Aliens in Oval Office

[Liberty1911]

I'm not necessarily an advocate of unlimited open border immigration. I'm a bit undecided on the issue. I do think that the vast majority of our complaints about illegal immigrants would disappear if the government wasn't giving them our tax dollars.

The vast majority of complaints about anything would disappear if the government wasn't using our tax dollars, including the legalization of drugs.

The libertarian view that you can have drug legalization, open borders, et. al., without FIRST doing away with the welfare state and establishing personal responsibility is like a man trying to build a house without a foundation, then wondering why the structure collapsed because after all, the walls were sound.

 

[TRWXXA]

Would you guys get off his ass. As the old saying goes: birds of a feather, flock together... so he can't help himself.

Exactly. When I saw the thread title, I just assumed King Barry was having a few of his old Kenyan buddies over to shoot some hoops and reminisce about good times back in the homeland.

 

[johnny45]

Exactly. When I saw the thread title, I just assumed King Barry was having a few of his old Kenyan buddies over to shoot some hoops and reminisce about good times back in the homeland.

Or maybe his aunt who resided here for years illegally while living off of federal assistance.

 

[johnny45]

The vast majority of complaints about anything would disappear if the government wasn't using our tax dollars, including the legalization of drugs.

The libertarian view that you can have drug legalization, open borders, et. al., without FIRST doing away with the welfare state and establishing personal responsibility is like a man trying to build a house without a foundation, then wondering why the structure collapsed because after all, the walls were sound.

We said.

 

[steveh_131]

The libertarian view that you can have drug legalization, open borders, et. al., without FIRST doing away with the welfare state and establishing personal responsibility is like a man trying to build a house without a foundation, then wondering why the structure collapsed because after all, the walls were sound.

The Republican view that you can have firearm freedoms without FIRST doing away with the medical welfare state and establishing personal responsibility is like a man trying to build a house without a foundation, then wondering why the structure collapsed because after all, the walls were sound.

Your philosophies have no consistency. Just be honest with us. You abandon this philosophy as soon as it affects a freedom that you care about.

 

[Liberty1911]

The Republican view that you can have firearm freedoms without FIRST doing away with the medical welfare state and establishing personal responsibility is like a man trying to build a house without a foundation, then wondering why the structure collapsed because after all, the walls were sound.

Your philosophies have no consistency. Just be honest with us. You abandon this philosophy as soon as it affects a freedom that you care about.

Another typical obtuse post by Steve. And you think *I* don't understand logical fallacies.

FYI, we DID have 2A freedoms before medical welfare.

Is your point of view really so bankrupt that you have to resort to inane analogies like the one above? Apparently so, it seems to be your argument of choice, that is, when you're not accusing others of "not getting it".

 

[steveh_131]

Another typical obtuse post by Steve. And you think *I* don't understand logical fallacies.

FYI, we DID have 2A freedoms before medical welfare.

Is your point of view really so bankrupt that you have to resort to inane analogies like the one above? Apparently so, it seems to be your argument of choice, that is, when you're not accusing others of "not getting it".

What does it matter if we had it before? By your logic, we shouldn't have that freedom until we have personal responsibility and get rid of medical welfare, because that would destroy our 'foundation'.

But you like this freedom, so you're going to justify keeping it because we 'had it first'?

 

[Liberty1911]

What does it matter if we had it before? By your logic, we shouldn't have that freedom until we have personal responsibility and get rid of medical welfare, because that would destroy our 'foundation'.

But you like this freedom, so you're going to justify keeping it because we 'had it first'?

I'm not, nor have I ever advocated taking anyone's Constitutional freedom away. And you know that. Just more typical straw man arguments from you.

You really do have a bankrupt worldview. Not to mention the hypocrisy that goes with it, like "let's get government out of marriage" while advocating the government expansion of it.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not, nor have I ever advocated taking anyone's Constitutional freedom away. And you know that. Just more typical straw man arguments from you.

You really do have a bankrupt worldview. Not to mention the hypocrisy that goes with it, like "let's get government out of marriage" while advocating the government expansion of it.

So what is it that makes 2A freedom special and exempt from your otherwise anti-freedom philosophy?

First you said it was because we 'had it first'. Now it's because it's in the constitution. Which is it?

 

[Liberty1911]

So what is it that makes 2A freedom special and exempt from your otherwise anti-freedom philosophy?

First you said it was because we 'had it first'. Now it's because it's in the constitution. Which is it?

I pointed out we had it first because of your stupid analogy. Try to keep up with your own posts.

Show me where we have a "right to use drugs" in the Constitution and I'll be right there with you. Wait, it doesn't exists, just like your fictitious "right to homosexual marriage".

 

[slackerisme]

I pointed out we had it first because of your stupid analogy. Try to keep up with your own posts.

Show me where we have a "right to use drugs" in the Constitution and I'll be right there with you. Wait, it doesn't exists, just like your fictitious "right to homosexual marriage".

The Constitution does not outline our rights, it outlines the federal governments role in the running of a nation. There is no need for "right to use drugs", or a "right to homosexual marriage" in the constitution because the right to control them is not granted to the federal government in the first place. It was meant to stop EXACTLY what we have now, an enormous government stoned on it own power.

 

[calcot7]

What would you guys have to say if guns were illegal and he allowed gun owners in the oval office.

Tyrannical scum with no regard for rule of law?

His regard for the 'rule of law' isn't the real issue here. You just disagree with his stance on immigration.

I'd say WTF are you talking about.
The same thing I am saying now.

 

[steveh_131]

I pointed out we had it first because of your stupid analogy. Try to keep up with your own posts.

Show me where we have a "right to use drugs" in the Constitution and I'll be right there with you. Wait, it doesn't exists, just like your fictitious "right to homosexual marriage".

Oh, I see. Youre one of those who thinks our rights are only those enumerated in the constitution.

I think there is no further need for discussion now.

 

[Liberty1911]

Oh, I see. Youre one of those who thinks our rights are only those enumerated in the constitution.

I think there is no further need for discussion now.

In a Constitutional Republic, that's how it works. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with individual states legalizing drugs or sanctioning homosexual marriage. Since those are not rights defined by the Constitution, then it's left up to the states per 10A.

The problem is, that's not good enough for you. You rant about tyrannical big government, but you have no problem if the same government uses it's power to force everyone to recognize homosexual marriage, or legalize drugs because you happen to agree morally with those positions.

That makes you a hypocrite with zero credibility regarding your faux angst about tyrannical government and makes you no better than those you accuse of using the power of government to shove their morality down the throats of others.

 

[steveh_131]

In a Constitutional Republic, that's how it works. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with individual states legalizing drugs or sanctioning homosexual marriage. Since those are not rights defined by the Constitution, then it's left up to the states per 10A.

The problem is, that's not good enough for you. You rant about tyrannical big government, but you have no problem if the same government uses it's power to force everyone to recognize homosexual marriage, or legalize drugs because you happen to agree morally with those positions.

That makes you a hypocrite with zero credibility regarding your faux angst about tyrannical government and makes you no better than those you accuse of using the power of government to shove their morality down the throats of others.

First of all, no, that's not how it works .

And secondly legalization should be left up to the states, not the feds, and ive never said otherwise.

 

[Liberty1911]

First of all, no, that's not how it works .

And secondly legalization should be left up to the states, not the feds, and ive never said otherwise.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that's not how it works, or at least was supposed to work.

On the other point though, so you're saying you oppose the Federal Government forcing every state to legalize drugs and recognize homosexual marriage?

 

[churchmouse]

Sure.



I didn't say it was legal. But we would be cheering him on if he ignored other tyrannical laws.

The only reason we're not cheering him on here is because we like this law. So it has nothing to do with 'rule of law'.

This argument could be put in the blender and poured out differently every time you tried depending on who was looking and where they stand on any given "Rule" pertaining to law.
You have a point but my "Stance" is that Barry has no regard for any law if it stands in the way of his socialist agenda. He and his cronies are the smartest people on the planet....just ask them.

 

[steveh_131]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that's not how it works, or at least was supposed to work.

So you claim. Many folks smarter than you disagree.

On the other point though, so you're saying you oppose the Federal Government forcing every state to legalize drugs and recognize homosexual marriage?

Absolutely, yes.

This argument could be put in the blender and poured out differently every time you tried depending on who was looking and where they stand on any given "Rule" pertaining to law.
You have a point but my "Stance" is that Barry has no regard for any law if it stands in the way of his socialist agenda. He and his cronies are the smartest people on the planet....just ask them.

I am simply saying that you should place your complaint where it belongs. You want illegal aliens gone, and you're angry that this president doesn't. That's the root of the issue so let's not focus on distractions. We'd all be glad if he chose to ignore laws we considered to be unjust. Rule of law has little to do with it.

 

[slackerisme]

In a Constitutional Republic, that's how it works. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with individual states legalizing drugs or sanctioning homosexual marriage. Since those are not rights defined by the Constitution, then it's left up to the states per 10A.

The problem is, that's not good enough for you. You rant about tyrannical big government, but you have no problem if the same government uses it's power to force everyone to recognize homosexual marriage, or legalize drugs because you happen to agree morally with those positions.

That makes you a hypocrite with zero credibility regarding your faux angst about tyrannical government and makes you no better than those you accuse of using the power of government to shove their morality down the throats of others.

The morality of this nation is nothing more than mass peer pressure and an illusion. We all sat and watched the last dem pres commit adultery and then lie about it on national TV. We condone the murder of truly innocent lives and call it "women’s choice" yet the same women can not sell sex on the street corner.

The point of the matter is, the .gov has VERY limited rights enumerated by the Constitution. Regardless of how many ways you try to twist the original argument, you are wrong.

 

[Liberty1911]

The morality of this nation is nothing more than mass peer pressure and an illusion. We all sat and watched the last dem pres commit adultery and then lie about it on national TV. We condone the murder of truly innocent lives and call it "women’s choice" yet the same women can not sell sex on the street corner.

The point of the matter is, the .gov has VERY limited rights enumerated by the Constitution. Regardless of how many ways you try to twist the original argument, you are wrong.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here. First, .gov doesn't have rights so I have no idea what you mean about that. The Constitution defines specific rights that the states can't infringe upon. The rest is left up to the states per 10A.

If you think I'm "wrong", then cite the part of the Constitution that says otherwise.