The liberal love affair with illegal immigration

Until the Obama presidency, liberals actually had a fairly moderate view on illegal immigration: they supported border enforcement and the enforcement of immigration laws. They also talked about how low skilled labor undermines the wages of American workers. If you go back and hear speeches by Bill Clinton and even then Senators Obama and Clinton, their position is not too different from the GOP's current position.

But now, they've gone bonkers. The Democrats realized that their long-term political strategy rests on granting amnesty and citizenship to the 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, thereby adding millions of new voters to their party. Ultimately, that is the core principle guiding their love affair with illegal aliens.

Most conservatives, myself included, are OK with granting legal status to DACA recipients and even to illegal aliens broadly speaking, but in return for several key provisions: 1) no amnesty or citizenship to illegal aliens, 2) mandatory e-verify, 3) border enforcement, 4) elimination of visa lotteries and chain migration, 5) skills based legal immigration system similar to the one used by Canada.

When I hear liberals talk about this issue, they're now saying that immigration law does not matter, that we should selectively enforce the law or ignore it altogether, and they are taking the sides of illegal aliens over Americans. They support using taxpayer dollars to provide services and benefits to illegal aliens, support sanctuary cities, and have displayed zero concern for American low-skilled workers who are most hurt by illegal immigration.

Is this the hill that Democrats are willing to die on? Is their message to voters that they are willing to shut down the federal government because they want amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegal aliens?

We are truly living in absurd times.

Hi Anonymous Monkey, upload your resume and land a job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (133)

Jan 17, 2018

Democrats play the incrementalism game well, and understand that as more illegals pour in, they will become part of communities, have kids with Americans, become part of American families, etc. They also understand that no widescale deportation effort for 12 million folks will ever happen-so why not go all in on amnesty? DACA is just the camel nose in the tent

Conservatives have proven to be amnesty shills themselves for the most part-how'd we not manage to make Mandatory e-verify law of the land is confounding. Guys like McCain and Rubio-even going as far back as Dubya himself, have always been wobbly on the issue, so if they won't mount an adequate defense why shouldn't Dems go all in? Blue states already offer de facto amnesty for the most part, any talk against illegal immigration gets you branded a racist, anchor babies are Constitutionally protected, and chain migration is a given whenever children are legalized. Dems can't be blamed for pressing their advantage here.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 17, 2018
TheGrind:

Democrats play the incrementalism game well, and understand that as more illegals pour in, they will become part of communities, have kids with Americans, become part of American families, etc. They also understand that no widescale deportation effort for 12 million folks will ever happen-so why not go all in on amnesty? DACA is just the camel nose in the tent

Conservatives have proven to be amnesty shills themselves for the most part-how'd we not manage to make Mandatory e-verify law of the land is confounding. Guys like McCain and Rubio-even going as far back as Dubya himself, have always been wobbly on the issue, so if they won't mount an adequate defense why shouldn't Dems go all in? Blue states already offer de facto amnesty for the most part, any talk against illegal immigration gets you branded a racist, anchor babies are Constitutionally protected, and chain migration is a given whenever children are legalized. Dems can't be blamed for pressing their advantage here.

Very good points. Bush, McCain, Rubio, and other Republicans beholden to corporate lobbies, have balked at passing mandatory e-verify and want cheap labor for their donors. For too long, GOP leadership used working class Americans for their votes while implementing policies that hurt them. Trump's capturing of the GOP nomination was in large part the result of this disconnect between the party elite and its voters.

Democrats genuinely want to transform America into a third world country, where people are dependent on government programs, redistribution of wealth, endless affirmative action, and identity politics. Since the New Deal, the Democrats have been a coalition party of various interest groups that want something from the government while since Reagan, the GOP has largely been an ideological party based on principles.

Jan 17, 2018

Its a stupid policy, among other things. Democrats believe this will give them a permanent politcal edge. When in reality that isn't how politics works. People aren't static drones who have one political view for life. The last time Amnesty happened the democrats thought the same thing, turns out that didn't work.

Also quit calling them liberals, they aren't liberal. They are fucking lunatic left-fascists.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 2
Jan 17, 2018
heister:

Its a stupid policy, among other things. Democrats believe this will give them a permanent politcal edge. When in reality that isn't how politics works. People aren't static drones who have one political view for life. The last time Amnesty happened the democrats thought the same thing, turns out that didn't work.

Also quit calling them liberals, they aren't liberal. They are fucking lunatic left-fascists.

What are you referring to? Reagan committed an grievous mistake in 1986 by granting amnesty to 3 million illegals. Latinos have consistently voted for Democrats; even when Reagan won a 49-state landslide in 1984, he only received around 30-35% of the latino vote.

Recent immigrants lean pretty left and want more big government programs and benefits.

Jan 17, 2018

Not really, those numbers are skewed because of generational demographics. A huge percentage of the Hispanic voter base is extremely young. Which tends to trend towards democratic voting. As people age they get more conservative. This is true among all racial groups. The reasons has more to do with age demographic makeups than really racial demographic makeups. If you look at say 50+ for people of hispanic heritage they have a pretty even divide on actual policy. It also doesn't help that most of their options for racial identity voting happen to be democratic. The country works at an equalibrium, if one group grows in power too much their policies will shift until they leave people behind.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 17, 2018
heister:

Not really, those numbers are skewed because of generational demographics. A huge percentage of the Hispanic voter base is extremely young. Which tends to trend towards democratic voting. As people age they get more conservative. This is true among all racial groups. The reasons has more to do with age demographic makeups than really racial demographic makeups. If you look at say 50+ for people of hispanic heritage they have a pretty even divide on actual policy. It also doesn't help that most of their options for racial identity voting happen to be democratic. The country works at an equalibrium, if one group grows in power too much their policies will shift until they leave people behind.

I wish I were as optimistic as you. Recent immigrants are not as educated and skilled and thus need government programs more than others. Also, assimilation has slowed considerably due to technology enabling immigrants to keep in touch with their home countries and large ethnic enclaves discouraging assimilation. For instance, a Chinese or Korean immigrant can live in certain parts of L.A. and Orange County that are literally 70%+ East Asian. They can thus be on U.S. soil but for all intents and purposes, not assimilate into our country. I think the only solution to this is to drastically reduce the # of legal immigrants for say 20-30 years, so we can enable comprehensive assimilation to occur. At this rate, we are going to become a society entirely divided along racial lines, with no common history, cultural identity, or core values.

    • 1
Jan 17, 2018

I do not disagree with the assimalation problem. What I am talking about is the bad logic that amnesty will give democrats a permanent political edge. That would require muiltiple things that quite frankly aren't reality. 1) That everyone in this group will vote democrat for life. 2) That everyone who now votes democrat will continue to do so. 3) That previously politically inactive people will contine to remain so. 4) That these immigants even give a fuck about politics. I do not doubt that in the short term it will be a benefit for the democrats. However I and anyone else who analyzes this critically should agree that this will not last more than a short sprint. Besides it is a moot point because of how the house of represenatives is structured. This is not something the President alone can do.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 17, 2018

The illegals are just a pawn in their game. Remember that illegal aliens are generally in support of liberals and leftist policies and obviously the liberals know this so they want give illegals amnesty so they get their vote and therefore would pretty much win every presidential election in the future and thus be able to perpetuate their leftist paradigm even further. If you think they truly care about the illegals they don't.

Jan 17, 2018
TheROI:

The illegals are just a pawn in their game. Remember that illegal aliens are generally in support of liberals and leftist policies and obviously the liberals know this so they want give illegals amnesty so they get their vote and therefore would pretty much win every presidential election in the future and thus be able to perpetuate their leftist paradigm. If you think they truly care about the illegals they don't.

Absolutely. If the illegal aliens were conservative, the Democrats would be putting them on the next flight to their home countries.

    • 1
Jan 17, 2018

Isn't it possible that we're being just a little cynical of the Democrats' intentions here? Couldn't it be plausible that maybe, just maybe, the senators and representatives of the Democratic party don't want to deport the shit out of 12 Million people who have family members here because it's just kinda a shitty thing to do to communities, businesses that utilize their labor and the families of said deportees.

    • 5
Jan 17, 2018
LReed:

Isn't it possible that we're being just a little cynical of the Democrats' intentions here? Couldn't it be plausible that maybe, just maybe, the senators and representatives of the Democratic party don't want to deport the shit out of 12 Million people who have family members here because it's just kinda a shitty thing to do to communities, businesses that utilize their labor and the families of said deportees.

The vast majority of Republicans do not support deporting 12 million illegal aliens. A majority of them support giving legal status to DACA recipients. If the Democrats were simply telling us to not deport all of them, that wouldn't be an issue. But they are demanding that we give amnesty and path to citizenship to those who broke the law by entering illegally, want to import an endless array of low skilled immigrants through visa lotteries and chain migration, support sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration law, etc.

Moreover, are we not supposed to enforce immigration law because deporting people will hurt their feelings? A common argument I hear is that if an illegal alien is working, not hurting anyone, paying taxes, they should be totally immune from deportation. But that would require us to selectively enforce the law and carve out numerous exemptions. We are a nation of laws. Now, as I said in my OP, I'm ok with legal status for illegals who haven't caused trouble since coming here, but it would need to come with fundamental changes to our immigration system.

Finally, the Democrats' radical leftward shift on immigration is a fairly recent development. Obama realized that he had to jack up the latino vote to win re-election in 2012 and used DACA to do so. Democrats soon realized that they can transform the political landscape if the 12 million illegals became citizens.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Speaking here as a moderate liberal, what I see is a series of narrow minded perspectives sprinkled with hyperbole and speculation. To start, you say liberal viewpoints were moderate on immigration UNITL Obama's administration.

Obama actually added to border security, patrols, and overall capacity on top of what was in place during the bush administration. Illegal crossings over the US/Mexico border decreased by 90% from 2005 to 2015, and during Obama's term more illegal immigrants were deported than any other president in history. Most estimate we've been at a net loss for illegal immigrant population now for the better part of a decade. On top of this, there were much wider immigration reforms that were laid on the table by democrats in 2013 that were blocked by the republican held house.

So the question begs, if it seems like democrats statistically were just as tough if not tougher on immigration throughout the Obama administration, why would liberals prefer the democrats' immigration policies? In my view, the democrats have taken a more nuanced approach to immigration that is both sensitive to the plight of these people, while also respecting the law and the interests of american workers. DACA is a prime example in that it addresses a specific demographic within the illegal immigrant population that is least at fault and would be most adversely affected. And this type of critical thinking when it comes to immigration seems a lot more attractive than the populist blanket type policies we're seeing from the right, especially now under the Trump administration.

Take the wall for example. From a practical standpoint, this is dumb. The majority of illegal immigrants now are believed to come from visa overstays, not illegal crossings over the southern border. And spending tens of billions on a wall that crosses 2,000 miles over the most rugged and rural terrain in the world seems all the more unreasonable when it can be easily crossed via tunnels & ladders, which are already used to cross the border anyways. But what is least attractive about that option, more so than the practical aspects, is its broader symbolism. From the perspective of the left, the wall is a physical manifestation of the belief that conservative immigration policies are rooted in irrational fear, scapegoating, or in many cases good ol' fashioned racism, which Trump's base seems to respond ever since "rapists and murderers". On top of that, there's the damage this causes to foreign relations and the world's view of the US as trying to separate itself from everyone else. The wall is not the only immigration policy that has been proposed that applies to this.

What confuses me most though is the timing of your post. You said yourself that you'd likely support DACA, or some form of it. But now, with it being the main point of negotiations for immigration policy, liberals have a "love affair" with illegal immigrants? I saw this posted on fivethirtyeight this morning which I thought gave an insightful perspective https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-been-a.... While people talk about political groups becoming more extreme, perhaps it's not the policies actually changing as much as it is the center of conversations drifting right or left that skews our perspective on what is moderate. This appears to be one of them.

    • 6
Jan 18, 2018
MiserlyGrandpa:

Speaking here as a moderate liberal, what I see is a series of narrow minded perspectives sprinkled with hyperbole and speculation. To start, you say liberal viewpoints were moderate on immigration UNITL Obama's administration.

Obama actually added to border security, patrols, and overall capacity on top of what was in place during the bush administration. Illegal crossings over the US/Mexico border decreased by 90% from 2005 to 2015, and during Obama's term more illegal immigrants were deported than any other president in history. Most estimate we've been at a net loss for illegal immigrant population now for the better part of a decade. On top of this, there were much wider immigration reforms that were laid on the table by democrats in 2013 that were blocked by the republican held house.

So the question begs, if it seems like democrats statistically were just as tough if not tougher on immigration throughout the Obama administration, why would liberals prefer the democrats' immigration policies? In my view, the democrats have taken a more nuanced approach to immigration that is both sensitive to the plight of these people, while also respecting the law and the interests of american workers. DACA is a prime example in that it addresses a specific demographic within the illegal immigrant population that is least at fault and would be most adversely affected. And this type of critical thinking when it comes to immigration seems a lot more attractive than the populist blanket type policies we're seeing from the right, especially now under the Trump administration.

Take the wall for example. From a practical standpoint, this is dumb. The majority of illegal immigrants now are believed to come from visa overstays, not illegal crossings over the southern border. And spending tens of billions on a wall that crosses 2,000 miles over the most rugged and rural terrain in the world seems all the more unreasonable when it can be easily crossed via tunnels & ladders, which are already used to cross the border anyways. But what is least attractive about that option, more so than the practical aspects, is its broader symbolism. From the perspective of the left, the wall is a physical manifestation of the belief that conservative immigration policies are rooted in irrational fear, scapegoating, or in many cases good ol' fashioned racism, which Trump's base seems to respond ever since "rapists and murderers". On top of that, there's the damage this causes to foreign relations and the world's view of the US as trying to separate itself from everyone else. The wall is not the only immigration policy that has been proposed that applies to this.

What confuses me most though is the timing of your post. You said yourself that you'd likely support DACA, or some form of it. But now, with it being the main point of negotiations for immigration policy, liberals have a "love affair" with illegal immigrants? I saw this posted on fivethirtyeight this morning which I thought gave an insightful perspective https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-been-a.... While people talk about political groups becoming more extreme, perhaps it's not the policies actually changing as much as it is the center of conversations drifting right or left that skews our perspective on what is moderate. This appears to be one of them.

This is a well thought out post, although I disagree. I will address some of your points.

  1. The argument that Obama deported the most number of illegal aliens is highly misleading. Here's why. That statistic conflates removals and returns, which are 2 separate categories as defined by DHS. A removal refers to those who are arrested while attempting to illegally enter the United States or very shortly thereafter. Removals are handled by ICE. In contrast, a return is deportation in the true sense of the word because it refers to those who successfully entered our country through illegal means or illegally overstayed their visas and then were subsequently deported. During the Obama presidency, approximately two-thirds of the deportation statistic were removals, not returns. Moreover, Obama selectively enforced existing immigration law by enforcing the "catch and release" program, which instructed border agents to only arrest illegals who satisfy certain criteria. The Obama administration also allowed for arrested illegals to simply be released, at which point many of them would re-enter. Kate Steinle's killer is a prime example of this.
  2. DACA is unconstitutional, period. In 2012, while trying to pump up the latino vote in order to win re-election, Obama unilaterally refused to enforce the removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus ordering 2 million illegal aliens to not be deported. Congress rejected the DREAM Act since it would have provided blanket amnesty without any substantive reforms to immigration. Obama thus used his executive power to implement DACA, circumventing Congress' purview of creating federal immigration law. Although DACA is supposed to be implemented via "prosecutorial discretion," in practice, anyone who meets the criteria and applies, will be granted deferred status, which confers benefits such as work permits, social security number, drivers licenses.

Trump was right to reverse DACA, as it should have never happened in the first place. The ball is in Congress' court, as it is their job to create actual immigration law while the President signs (if he chooses to sign rather than veto) and then execute that said law.

I never said I support DACA. What I said was I'm ok with granting legal status to a fairly large group of illegal aliens in return for the proposals I outlined in my OP. That would be the result of Congressional law, not an executive order, so it would not be DACA but rather a new comprehensive immigration law.

  1. You make a decent point with the wall. I personally don't care too much about this, since if we impose mandatory e-verify and other measures, it will deter illegals from coming here. After all, they only come here for the jobs. Crush the job supply, and one would imagine that far fewer illegals will try to come here. There are also logistical concerns such as building a wall across rugged terrain and the government using eminent domain to seize private lands to build it. I disagree though that the wall is a symbol of racism and hate. That's hysteria. We are a sovereign nation and have the right to defend our border. Unfortunately, the vast majority of illegals enter through the southern border while very few enter through our northern border. The wall would simply be a measure to make it that much harder for illegals to get through. It also goes without saying that if you are a LEGAL immigrant, you can enter our country, wall or no wall. The mere existence of the wall in no way affects those who make it through our process in a legal fashion.
    • 2
Jan 23, 2018

I suppose Dances with Newfoundland and Dances with Dachshunds have sexual relations with one another while draped in Don't Tread on Me flags using Karo syrup as lube and using hickory wood as paddles. I think your arguments are flawed and based in a combination of xenophobia and racism.

When you argue immigration, don't argue the constitution. That's a false appeal to authority. Few reading this forum have read the US Constitution, so you're either more informed than your audience (in which case you're seeking to outsmart them, hoping they won't check your references) or you're less informed that you imagine. In this case, it's the latter. I'd bet both my testicles against your one testicle that you've never read the Constitution cover to cover, and that your argument is (at best) nuanced.

I'm inebriated right now, but I write and argue better than you do at your best. What you mean to say is not just that the wall is foolish and a waste of taxpayers' money, but that it's insufficient for border security and unnecessary given our countries net flow of migrants. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. You argue minutia while missing the main point--we need immigration.

We might have the wrong sort of immigration at the moment, but I'm not even sure that's true. An immigration system similar to the UK's or Canada's won't work for the US precisely because we don't have the same employment challenges. It turns out, we need a great deal more migrant farm laborers than people like you might ideally like. We also need a great deal more H1-B visa workers, we need to let their spouses work while here, we need to end the visa lottery, and phase out chain migration. But our economy requires a growing population, and without immigration (including illegal immigration), we'd have a negligible population growth rate since the late 1970s.

Perhaps you're better than I imagine, but I suspect you're a withering little shit whose dick shrivels at the mere mention of Jews or Asians. And I read your posts with contempt because your mind always tends toward the small and weary, you Lilliputian, lackluster lemon of a man.

    • 11
    • 9
Best Response
Jan 23, 2018

Liberal playbook:

1) Call conservatives racist and xenophobic - check
2) Assume you are smarter and better informed - check
3) Resort to vulgar name calling - check

Well done. I'm sure there's a coherent argument somewhere in your post, but its difficult to parse out from the other garbage you've posted.

    • 11
    • 1
Jan 23, 2018

In France the expression 'illegal immigrant' has been deprecated (if not outright banned) for many years. The PC term is, literally, 'paper-less' (because they lack the appropriate papers to stay legally in the country). This term strongly suggests that the appropriate fix is simply to give them the papers they lack (visa, passport, etc.)

Jan 23, 2018
Schumpeter:

In France the expression 'illegal immigrant' has been deprecated (if not outright banned) for many years. The PC term is, literally, 'paper-less' (because they lack the appropriate papers to stay legally in the country). This term strongly suggests that the appropriate fix is simply to give them the papers they lack (visa, passport, etc.)

I'm reminded of the mildly offensive term WOP used towards italian's in the US. It was commonly used up till 25 years ago or so. Anyways it stood for without papers. So basically anything you call them will eventually wind up being considered pejorative.

Jan 23, 2018

Just say "undocumented".

By the way, there are people who have lived their whole lives here, but are still undocumented, because there's a 10-year wait list to become a citizen. You have to empathize with these people, but I don't like the fact that WHEN they do become citizens, they WILL vote Democrat. That's when we're all fucked.

Jan 23, 2018

People who are here for 10 years and waiting to become Americans or get green cards are not undocuments. They have OPT, they have F-1's, they have H1-B's. They have tons of documents and have every right to be here.

Illegal immigrants are those who came into this country without studying, without a visa, without cause. They come here and do not register. They are breaking the law and are illegally here.

Mexico might not be as great as America, but it isn't Liberia, it isn't Somalia, it isn't Haiti. Mexico has guards preventing Guatemalan's from illegally entering Mexico. Mexico has oil, agriculture, a government. Place isn't that bad.

If I went to any other country without a visa or authorization I would be sent home. Same thing here. Just because Republicans love the slave labor and Democrat's love the future voters doesn't mean it is correct.

This is why mainstream news is trash. Reading it harms you. It dehumanizes a person? The person is breaking the fucking law. How about I take your wallet and then get butt hurt when you call me a thief. Stealing is the crime, I am just relieving you of physical property. Kind of like a mover, but you didn't say it was ok first.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 2
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

People who are here for 10 years and waiting to become Americans or get green cards are not undocuments. They have OPT, they have F-1's, they have H1-B's. They have tons of documents and have every right to be here.

Illegal immigrants are those who came into this country without studying, without a visa, without cause. They come here and do not register. They are breaking the law and are illegally here.

Mexico might not be as great as America, but it isn't Liberia, it isn't Somalia, it isn't Haiti. Mexico has guards preventing Guatemalan's from illegally entering Mexico. Mexico has oil, agriculture, a government. Place isn't that bad.

If I went to any other country without a visa or authorization I would be sent home. Same thing here. Just because Republicans love the slave labor and Democrat's love the future voters doesn't mean it is correct.

This is why mainstream news is trash. Reading it harms you. It dehumanizes a person? The person is breaking the fucking law. How about I take your wallet and then get butt hurt when you call me a thief. Stealing is the crime, I am just relieving you of physical property. Kind of like a mover, but you didn't say it was ok first.

+1

Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

People who are here for 10 years and waiting to become Americans or get green cards are not undocuments. They have OPT, they have F-1's, they have H1-B's. They have tons of documents and have every right to be here.

Illegal immigrants are those who came into this country without studying, without a visa, without cause. They come here and do not register. They are breaking the law and are illegally here.

Mexico might not be as great as America, but it isn't Liberia, it isn't Somalia, it isn't Haiti. Mexico has guards preventing Guatemalan's from illegally entering Mexico. Mexico has oil, agriculture, a government. Place isn't that bad.

If I went to any other country without a visa or authorization I would be sent home. Same thing here. Just because Republicans love the slave labor and Democrat's love the future voters doesn't mean it is correct.

This is why mainstream news is trash. Reading it harms you. It dehumanizes a person? The person is breaking the fucking law. How about I take your wallet and then get butt hurt when you call me a thief. Stealing is the crime, I am just relieving you of physical property. Kind of like a mover, but you didn't say it was ok first.

Yeah. Spot-on.

Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

Just because Republicans love the slave labor and Democrat's love the future voters doesn't mean it is correct.

Literally the most true thing I've ever read.

My drinkin' problem left today, she packed up all her bags and walked away.

Jan 23, 2018

While Mexico is no Somalia, Northern Mexico is becoming the Pakistan of the Americas.

Jan 23, 2018
lasampdoria:

While Mexico is no Somalia, Northern Mexico is becoming the Pakistan of the Americas.

You can thank the USA and our illegal war on freedom (aka drugs) for that. Why the government tries to prevent free people from doing what they want with their bodies is beyond me. All the lives destroyed through jail and now this. Sickening.

A country founded on freedom putting people in jail for ingesting what they freely choose to.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:
lasampdoria:

While Mexico is no Somalia, Northern Mexico is becoming the Pakistan of the Americas.

You can thank the USA and our illegal war on freedom (aka drugs) for that. Why the government tries to prevent free people from doing what they want with their bodies is beyond me. All the lives destroyed through jail and now this. Sickening.

A country founded on freedom putting people in jail for ingesting what they freely choose to.

Couldn't agree more. Banning drugs because of their "harm to society & individual health" is a crock of shit. The amount of people in the cities of Northern Mexico who support complete decriminalization of all "controlled substances" is ridiculous. No one should get their head cut off on LiveLeaks because of a foreign government's policy.

10,000+ lives have been lost because of a direct assault on American freedom.

Jan 23, 2018

Calling someone an undocumented worker is like calling a car thief a "registrationless driver".

Jan 23, 2018

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 2
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

For drugs like marijuana, legalize the crap, there are WAYYYYYY too many harmless potheads in prison running up that bill. For seriously hard/addictive drugs like heroine, I'd suggest simply executing dealers publicly, horrify and exterminate people in that trade and twist them into submission/extinction. The bill for the bullet can be sent to their family. In some ways, we need to grow a heart towards victimless 'crime' and really let it go, and in some ways we seriously need to man up and kick some ass of the people profiting on the misery of others. It's not a one size fits all debate, there are a bunch of different variables at play. The war on drugs, honestly, is a failure and you just have to ask a cop to get that confirmed. In this case, the definition of insanity is going the same thing expecting different results, and the US's drug policy is pretty widely recognized as being obsolete in its current form.

A buddy of mine wrote a book years ago after researching the effects of widening the availability of rehab, and the results were really good. A lot of the people who need it most just can't afford it. Jail, in theory, is supposed to be a place to get clean but there's no shortage of drugs in prison. As for effective eradication policy, look at Brazil: they sent in the military to kill off a drug gang in one neighborhood and the problem never came back. They simply gave them a chance to surrender, and then killed everyone who didn't. Problem solved.

I think everyone agrees: change is needed, or if you prefer....it's time to upgrade to more effective means

Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

Haha. Yeah kid, I am cruel and barbaric. How about you talk to the families of people thrown in jail because of drug laws. People who have gotten HIV and Hepatitis because we don't have needle exchanges. People who have overdosed because of bad drugs. People who have been killed because of the illegal drug trade. Oh, and the untold millions of tax payer money spent to fight this endless and fruitless war.

Libertarians are about liberty. More civilized world during prohibition? You have got to be kidding me. Listen, it is cool. People like you are the reason why a once free nation now has to have a guy filibuster to get the DOJ to say that it won't use drones to kill Americans. Why we've been at war for over a decade with no end in sight.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

Haha. Yeah kid, I am cruel and barbaric. How about you talk to the families of people thrown in jail because of drug laws. People who have gotten HIV and Hepatitis because we don't have needle exchanges. People who have overdosed because of bad drugs. People who have been killed because of the illegal drug trade. Oh, and the untold millions of tax payer money spent to fight this endless and fruitless war.

Libertarians are about liberty. More civilized world during prohibition? You have got to be kidding me. Listen, it is cool. People like you are the reason why a once free nation now has to have a guy filibuster to get the DOJ to say that it won't use drones to kill Americans. Why we've been at war for over a decade with no end in sight.

You obviously lack the intellectual capacity to reason. I take the side of people who are taken advantage of and you take the side of the scum. The point about HIV and Hepatitis is ridiculous and is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make your case. Libertarians, not unlike liberals, can't accept the reality of most things truly being right or wrong.... they would rather take problems with simple answers and try to prove that 1+1=3. Your statements would have been thought provoking decades ago, but now they are the common view of the masses who have been brainwashed by the likes of Alex Jones and a bitter old doctor who proclaims to be an expert on monetary policy. I hope the libertarian movements persists though as I do find the conformity hilarious!

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

Haha. Yeah kid, I am cruel and barbaric. How about you talk to the families of people thrown in jail because of drug laws. People who have gotten HIV and Hepatitis because we don't have needle exchanges. People who have overdosed because of bad drugs. People who have been killed because of the illegal drug trade. Oh, and the untold millions of tax payer money spent to fight this endless and fruitless war.

Libertarians are about liberty. More civilized world during prohibition? You have got to be kidding me. Listen, it is cool. People like you are the reason why a once free nation now has to have a guy filibuster to get the DOJ to say that it won't use drones to kill Americans. Why we've been at war for over a decade with no end in sight.

You obviously lack the intellectual capacity to reason. I take the side of people who are taken advantage of and you take the side of the scum. The point about HIV and Hepatitis is ridiculous and is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make your case. Libertarians, not unlike liberals, can't accept the reality of most things truly being right or wrong.... they would rather take problems with simple answers and try to prove that 1+1=3. Your statements would have been thought provoking decades ago, but now they are the common view of the masses who have been brainwashed by the likes of Alex Jones and a bitter old doctor who proclaims to be an expert on monetary policy. I hope the libertarian movements persists though as I do find the conformity hilarious!

Bring on the insults, just shows you cannot have an intelligent discussion. And I love how you equate drug use to scum, while defending the personal choice of using alcohol. Unlike you I try and not judge how an individual lives or what decisions they make. We are free to make good choices and free to make bad choices. I'd much rather have a few more bad choices than to see liberty curtailed all because YOU think someone should do something.

Oh you're the expert now? Oh wise one please enlighten us on why Ron Paul is wrong when it comes to the horrors of a fiat currency. I am sure you will have no problem proving his stupidity and ignorance.

People should be free to choose. How any American can even argue with this point is beyond me.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

Haha. Yeah kid, I am cruel and barbaric. How about you talk to the families of people thrown in jail because of drug laws. People who have gotten HIV and Hepatitis because we don't have needle exchanges. People who have overdosed because of bad drugs. People who have been killed because of the illegal drug trade. Oh, and the untold millions of tax payer money spent to fight this endless and fruitless war.

Libertarians are about liberty. More civilized world during prohibition? You have got to be kidding me. Listen, it is cool. People like you are the reason why a once free nation now has to have a guy filibuster to get the DOJ to say that it won't use drones to kill Americans. Why we've been at war for over a decade with no end in sight.

You obviously lack the intellectual capacity to reason. I take the side of people who are taken advantage of and you take the side of the scum. The point about HIV and Hepatitis is ridiculous and is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make your case. Libertarians, not unlike liberals, can't accept the reality of most things truly being right or wrong.... they would rather take problems with simple answers and try to prove that 1+1=3. Your statements would have been thought provoking decades ago, but now they are the common view of the masses who have been brainwashed by the likes of Alex Jones and a bitter old doctor who proclaims to be an expert on monetary policy. I hope the libertarian movements persists though as I do find the conformity hilarious!

Bring on the insults, just shows you cannot have an intelligent discussion. And I love how you equate drug use to scum, while defending the personal choice of using alcohol. Unlike you I try and not judge how an individual lives or what decisions they make. We are free to make good choices and free to make bad choices. I'd much rather have a few more bad choices than to see liberty curtailed all because YOU think someone should do something.

Oh you're the expert now? Oh wise one please enlighten us on why Ron Paul is wrong when it comes to the horrors of a fiat currency. I am sure you will have no problem proving his stupidity and ignorance.

People should be free to choose. How any American can even argue with this point is beyond me.

People should be free to choose - YES.

every fiat currency after a deleveraging process will collapse. its inevitable. although a commodity backed standard is beneficial at first - during periods of growth, its not that beneficial because the abiility to create credit new is not that easy and thus has a restrictive effect on growth. however, on the flip side - we would not go through these boom and bust cycles then if it was always backed by commodity standard. but, w.street benefits during booms and busts and you get massive wealth transfers from poor/middle income to rich (during a bust cycle) - so its the preferable alternative.

Jan 23, 2018
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

It would be bad enough to just simply fiddle while Rome is burning, yet libertarians prefer to take it to a whole other level by heaving gasoline on the fire. Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs.... especially the effects it would have on teenagers. Suppose one drug pusher effectively gets 50 people hooked and effectively ruins these peoples lives. Should he just roam the streets? No harm done, no responsibility? And back to the whole argument about containment and how prohibition failed. We lived in a more civilized world without it, but that being said the ease of getting it was reduced dramatically. Sure it still existed and if you wanted to find it you could. An average high school student or college student wouldn't have been exposed though, because they most likely would not have been in search for it. Now if everyone was doing it and it was easily accessible then sure peer pressure kicks in and you drink. To summarize, the position you choose to take on the matter is cruel and barbaric. I encourage you to share your thoughts with the people and their families who have had their lives ruined by these drugs, sometimes it takes a visual example to make people reason.

Haha. Yeah kid, I am cruel and barbaric. How about you talk to the families of people thrown in jail because of drug laws. People who have gotten HIV and Hepatitis because we don't have needle exchanges. People who have overdosed because of bad drugs. People who have been killed because of the illegal drug trade. Oh, and the untold millions of tax payer money spent to fight this endless and fruitless war.

Libertarians are about liberty. More civilized world during prohibition? You have got to be kidding me. Listen, it is cool. People like you are the reason why a once free nation now has to have a guy filibuster to get the DOJ to say that it won't use drones to kill Americans. Why we've been at war for over a decade with no end in sight.

You obviously lack the intellectual capacity to reason. I take the side of people who are taken advantage of and you take the side of the scum. The point about HIV and Hepatitis is ridiculous and is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make your case. Libertarians, not unlike liberals, can't accept the reality of most things truly being right or wrong.... they would rather take problems with simple answers and try to prove that 1+1=3. Your statements would have been thought provoking decades ago, but now they are the common view of the masses who have been brainwashed by the likes of Alex Jones and a bitter old doctor who proclaims to be an expert on monetary policy. I hope the libertarian movements persists though as I do find the conformity hilarious!

Bring on the insults, just shows you cannot have an intelligent discussion. And I love how you equate drug use to scum, while defending the personal choice of using alcohol. Unlike you I try and not judge how an individual lives or what decisions they make. We are free to make good choices and free to make bad choices. I'd much rather have a few more bad choices than to see liberty curtailed all because YOU think someone should do something.

Oh you're the expert now? Oh wise one please enlighten us on why Ron Paul is wrong when it comes to the horrors of a fiat currency. I am sure you will have no problem proving his stupidity and ignorance.

People should be free to choose. How any American can even argue with this point is beyond me.

I couldn't expect more from such a common dullard as yourself. Truth be told, fractional reserve banking may be the single most important reason for the economic success the world has seen over the past 300 years. I don't find it coincidental at all that the industrial revolution and fractional reserve banking took off at more or less the same time. No need to explain this, because it will surely be ignored and combated with some ridiculous argument about the gold standard. BTW I never championed the use of alcohol and I think the world would be a better place without it.

Your illogical rants do however point out the paradoxical minds of libertarians. On one side you seek no laws what so ever, based on the beliefs that you will be more free as a result. On the other hand we all know that liberty was based on the idea of law and order preserving the freedom of the individual. One does not have to bring up how people under the influence of drugs and alcohol infringe the rights of others. Yet the common view lacks the ability to look at the big picture and focuses on the peaceful stoner who just wants to smoke his marijuana cigarette in peace. We'll totally overlook the drunk who gets behind the wheel and takes the lives of others, the coke head who in a fit of rage beats his girlfriend, the psycho on bathsalts who bites off a bums face. The argument that legalization would not cause an uptick in these heinous crimes is just plain silly. People of your view are simply gadfly's who have nothing to contribute to reasonable discussions on societal issues.

    • 2
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:

I couldn't expect more from such a common dullard as yourself. Truth be told, fractional reserve banking may be the single most important reason for the economic success the world has seen over the past 300 years. I don't find it coincidental at all that the industrial revolution and fractional reserve banking took off at more or less the same time. No need to explain this, because it will surely be ignored and combated with some ridiculous argument about the gold standard. BTW I never championed the use of alcohol and I think the world would be a better place without it.

Woohoo! Rockefeller Republican Paternalism for the win! While we're at it, let's make it illegal to walk on a public sidewalk without tying your shoes- that's as dangerous and as harmful to others as driving without your seatbelt on.

Your illogical rants do however point out the paradoxical minds of libertarians. On one side you seek no laws what so ever, based on the beliefs that you will be more free as a result. On the other hand we all know that liberty was based on the idea of law and order preserving the freedom of the individual. One does not have to bring up how people under the influence of drugs and alcohol infringe the rights of others.

Libertarians seek the end to laws that do not enhance liberty. You have a right to not have your rights infringed upon, and when they ARE infringed upon, the government's job is to prosecute the person who infringed on your rights.

States have the authority to regulate marijuana, not the federal government, at least to the extent that the public generally isn't bringing marijuana purchased in Washington into Oregon.

Yet the common view lacks the ability to look at the big picture and focuses on the peaceful stoner who just wants to smoke his marijuana cigarette in peace. We'll totally overlook the drunk who gets behind the wheel and takes the lives of others, the coke head who in a fit of rage beats his girlfriend, the psycho on bathsalts who bites off a bums face.

All of those are addressed by laws. Those people will be spending a lot of time in jail and serve as a deterrent to others who would follow in their footsteps.

I am of the view that the government should permit (not condone) drugs that are not addictive and do not result in more violations of liberty to others than alcohol.

The argument that legalization would not cause an uptick in these heinous crimes is just plain silly. People of your view are simply gadfly's who have nothing to contribute to reasonable discussions on societal issues.

ANT does have some pretty strong views, but he's hardly a gadfly. Most Americans support letting states make decisions on Marijuana. I am fine with Washington permitting it so long as the pot stays in Washington and does not migrate to New Jersey.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:

Alcohol is in no way comparable to hardcore drugs....

If you had alcoholic parents, you might disagree with this.

Maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of opinion.

Jan 23, 2018
TNA:
subrosa:
TNA:

Communist States of America. The larger government gets the less freedom we have. $16T trillion in debt and for what? No bullet train, shitting infrastructure, bunch of military bases in cold war countries, a "war on terror" that is endless and against an enemy that simply wants us off their land (aka Revolutionary America). We tell people what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke.

Imagine if the money that was spent fighting drug use was instead used to build better and safer schools, cut taxes, rebuild roads.

I don't buy into the whole libertarian argument against drug legalization. The culture of the working class in america is so screwed up already that making drugs all the more available would totally end any morality they have left. I envision a potential hunger games type of environment. Besides the same libertarians who are up in arms about not being able to smoke pot, will be just as up in arms when bums are using their food stamps to purchase packs of Marlboro Ganja. But let's not stop there. Take a 16 year old kid in Iowa for instance. His access to cocaine is relatively non-existent. But package up lines in little vials and sell them for twenty bucks a pop and surely some 18 year old will buy it for him. After all, how bad can it be since it legal? These are just silly examples though, because we all make the right choices when we're in high school or even college for that matter. The sad truth is that the vast majority of people can not handle freedom.

1) People get drugs all the time. It is easy. If you can't get drugs you aren't trying or just don't know anyone.

2) You know what fucks people up? Going to jail for a non violent crime. Getting drugs mixed with god knows what.

3) You know what sucks? Paying for prisons and putting citizens in jail when they do nothing but harm themselves.

I'm glad that your imagination is so vivid, but that still doesn't mean it is ok to put people in jail when they harm themselves. We tried a war on alcohol and it failed miserably. Just like this is failing.

We need less government and less rules. The only hope this country has is for a permanent reduction in laws and size of government. Anything else is just another step towards destruction.

+1

Jan 23, 2018

replace "illegal immigrant" w "future post amnesty deal citizens" LOLZ

Jan 23, 2018

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really real growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth. this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too).

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be real AND inflation would be low!

Jan 23, 2018
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = real growth, not using real to mean adjusted for inflation.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be real AND inflation would be low!

Jan 23, 2018
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be real AND inflation would be low!

Jan 23, 2018
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Jan 23, 2018
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Alright for one you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The threat of inflation encourages people to invest not hoard. This produces real growth not just nominal growth over time. Secondly, your incoherent ramblings have no place on this board. This is a board of gentlemen and scholars. You should be forced to wear a dunce hat and go back to economics 101 in professor shitbrains class before you post on here again.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Alright for one you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The threat of inflation encourages people to invest not hoard. This produces real growth not just nominal growth over time. Secondly, your incoherent ramblings have no place on this board. This is a board of gentlemen and scholars. You should be forced to wear a dunce hat and go back to economics 101 in professor shitbrains class before you post on here again.

Yea, invest in what though? Gold? This board isn't for gentlemen and scholars, it's for models and bottles and pokemon and people that like shoes for some reason.

Jan 23, 2018
blastoise:

Yea, invest in what though? Gold? This board isn't for gentlemen and scholars, it's for models and bottles and pokemon and people that like shoes for some reason.

Uhh, dis forum about arnie and simple jack, and dis guy named forrest gump.

Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Alright for one you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The threat of inflation encourages people to invest not hoard. This produces real growth not just nominal growth over time. Secondly, your incoherent ramblings have no place on this board. This is a board of gentlemen and scholars. You should be forced to wear a dunce hat and go back to economics 101 in professor shitbrains class before you post on here again.

maybe a bullet list is better for you:

1) the average person doesnt invest anything they are in debt, the ones that have some saved, albeit a limited amount put their money into CDs or savings accounts. institutions invest in equities - read the fucking chart on the link below:
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/market-edge/chart...

when interest rates are cut. institutions pull there money out of bonds and put it into equities and prices rise as a result of that.

2) real growth = growth adjusted for inflation. nominal growth = actual growth. if there is no inflation or is extremely small real growth = nominal growth. growth as a result of actually selling more prodcuts and services is measured only by nominal growth.

Jan 23, 2018
roofstreet:
subrosa:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Alright for one you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The threat of inflation encourages people to invest not hoard. This produces real growth not just nominal growth over time. Secondly, your incoherent ramblings have no place on this board. This is a board of gentlemen and scholars. You should be forced to wear a dunce hat and go back to economics 101 in professor shitbrains class before you post on here again.

maybe a bullet list is better for you:

1) the average person doesnt invest anything they are in debt, the ones that have some saved, albeit a limited amount put their money into CDs or savings accounts. institutions invest in equities - read the fucking chart on the link below:
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/market-edge/chart...

when interest rates are cut. institutions pull there money out of bonds and put it into equities and prices rise as a result of that.

2) real growth = growth adjusted for inflation. nominal growth = actual growth. if there is no inflation or is extremely small real growth = nominal growth. growth as a result of actually selling more prodcuts and services is measured only by nominal growth.

We're just on totally different levels. Your understanding of this topic needs to be refined before we proceed. Dude seriously though, your taking this down to the individual level??? Cmon bro, you have to better than that. Institutions are that only thing that matter genius. Looks like you haven't moved past a Peter Schiff book lol.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
subrosa:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Alright for one you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The threat of inflation encourages people to invest not hoard. This produces real growth not just nominal growth over time. Secondly, your incoherent ramblings have no place on this board. This is a board of gentlemen and scholars. You should be forced to wear a dunce hat and go back to economics 101 in professor shitbrains class before you post on here again.

maybe a bullet list is better for you:

1) the average person doesnt invest anything they are in debt, the ones that have some saved, albeit a limited amount put their money into CDs or savings accounts. institutions invest in equities - read the fucking chart on the link below:
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/market-edge/chart...

when interest rates are cut. institutions pull there money out of bonds and put it into equities and prices rise as a result of that.

2) real growth = growth adjusted for inflation. nominal growth = actual growth. if there is no inflation or is extremely small real growth = nominal growth. growth as a result of actually selling more prodcuts and services is measured only by nominal growth.

We're just on totally different levels. Your understanding of this topic needs to be refined before we proceed. Dude seriously though, your taking this down to the individual level??? Cmon bro, you have to better than that. Institutions are that only thing that matter genius. Looks like you haven't moved past a Peter Schiff book lol.

eh bro. only the average person (tries to) and institutions (PFs) buy and hold equities to beat inflation.

everybody else (HF, IB desks) = predominantly trade OTC products, they dont invest in equities because of "inflation risk".

Jan 23, 2018
roofstreet:
subrosa:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
roofstreet:
subrosa:
TNA:

Gotta love the name calling. We have a regular savant here boys.

1) Never did I say I support no laws.

2) If someone infringes on another persons freedom then they are committing a crime and should be punished.

3) A fiat currency leads to inflation, over spending and the destruction of value of savers. There is a reason why countries that were on a gold standard left it in times of war.

You want to rule people based on your imagination and contrived scenarios, fine. We are putting people in jail for harming themselves. When you attack someone else, whether on drugs or otherwise, you are committing a crime. This is call assault. Why we try and tell people what to do with their bodies is beyond me. This is not what we create government for.

For someone calling other people names and trying to insult their intelligence you provide extremely cursory and fantasy scenario based arguments. I am still waiting for you to actually engage myself or anyone else on this site with some form of intelligence, especially since you want to establish yourself as some sort of authority. I mean after all you know how others should live their lives and support laws which enforce your own personal opinion.

For starters I will not even address IP as it is apparent he has no credibility from the previous posts I've seen.

Thank You for the savant comment. To give credit where credit is due you seem to be blessed with some form of dual exceptionality, though I won't dare to guess what type. This argument is futile as you will not accept reality. Your view could be extended to legalize every single possible action and deal with the consequences after the fact. The gold standard argument lacks any type of intellectual thought. For one, the discovery of gold deposits has proven time and time again that it cannot keep up with economic growth. The argument of the gold standard being the moral solution for savers does have some merit, but it has no place in the civilized world we live in today. Wealth is not fixed and neither should the money supply be as a result. Inflation encourages people to invest in equities which encourages growth. If there was no inflation and the money supply was fixed, you would actually experience money supply depletion as people would hoard their gold. I find it simply amazing how foolish some can be on this.

You do know what you are saying, right? "inflation leads to growth". its not really growth if its caused by inflation - or put in another way, its artificial growth ("real growth". this ONLY benefits one type of person --- the rich kind (i can go into this in a longer post if you want me too). nominal growth = actual growth.

An ideal system IS backed by a standard, its just that governments like to have control of the money supply. When its backed by a standard, inflation does not occur or its extremely minimal and middle class savers are rewarded.

the average american is in debt. if they go out and purchase goods and services its likely on credit and when they are not able to service that debt - you get a bust. credit growth can be infinite without a standard becuase there is nothing required to back it up. when there is standard the "fed" can only be purchase so many t-bonds and increase the money supply via lending institutions by a limited amount (this may indeed cause liquidity problems) but when the aura is of one prosperity and not fear, lending institutions WILL lend to creditworthy indivudals. In this type of situation, its unlikely that economies will hit bust cycles but growth cycles will not be that great either - instead it would be a slow growth 1-2%/yr BUT it would be purely nominal growth = actual growth AND inflation would be low!

Alright for one you totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The threat of inflation encourages people to invest not hoard. This produces real growth not just nominal growth over time. Secondly, your incoherent ramblings have no place on this board. This is a board of gentlemen and scholars. You should be forced to wear a dunce hat and go back to economics 101 in professor shitbrains class before you post on here again.

maybe a bullet list is better for you:

1) the average person doesnt invest anything they are in debt, the ones that have some saved, albeit a limited amount put their money into CDs or savings accounts. institutions invest in equities - read the fucking chart on the link below:
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/market-edge/chart...

when interest rates are cut. institutions pull there money out of bonds and put it into equities and prices rise as a result of that.

2) real growth = growth adjusted for inflation. nominal growth = actual growth. if there is no inflation or is extremely small real growth = nominal growth. growth as a result of actually selling more prodcuts and services is measured only by nominal growth.

We're just on totally different levels. Your understanding of this topic needs to be refined before we proceed. Dude seriously though, your taking this down to the individual level??? Cmon bro, you have to better than that. Institutions are that only thing that matter genius. Looks like you haven't moved past a Peter Schiff book lol.

eh bro. only the average person (tries to) and institutions (PFs) buy and hold equities to beat inflation.

everybody else (HF, IB desks) = predominantly trade OTC products, they dont invest in equities because of "inflation risk".

Still the direction and current state of the market is irrelevant to the topic. It's pure and simple about a monetary system. So you're taking the discussion into a whole other realm. Now I'm going to retire for the even. I'm already stressed out with the threats coming from your intellectual equal from North Korea and I can't bear to school you any longer.

Jan 23, 2018

.

Jan 23, 2018

.

Jan 23, 2018

Hahaha. So IP is discredited now. Whatever man. This is a pretty good troll attempt, you had me going for a bit.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

Hahaha. So IP is discredited now. Whatever man. This is a pretty good troll attempt, you had me going for a bit.

Call it what you will and we should cease the debate as it's pointless. I wasn't joking about IP though, just between you and me he seems to have a room temperature iq ;)

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018

I think his professional and academic career would contradict this my friend.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
TNA:

I think his professional and academic career would contradict this my friend.

You know you're absolutely right. My egregious comments towards him are deplorable in hindsight. We should all admire such a simple man, who against all odds has made it in a world that will never accept him. I'm ashamed of my attempts to belabor the poor little guy. I feel like one of those bullies in the movie "Radio" who hogtied Cuba Gooding Jr. and stuffed him the shed. It truly was a tasteless move on my part and I vow to be more considerate from now on.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018

LOL, I'm just thrilled someone is ignoring me for once. Unfortunately, it's the first person on WSO to do worse than my room temperature IQ. :(

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 23, 2018

Nevermind the apology, I'm just glad subrosa is seeking the professional help he needs.

Jan 23, 2018
IlliniProgrammer:

Nevermind the apology, I'm just glad subrosa is seeking the professional help he needs.

I am seeking professional help. My dastardly comments about you were so indecent. I picture you just peacefully sitting behind your computer screen trying to make sense of this complex world. Like that character Corky from a life goes on. Your determination is an inspiration to us all.

Jan 23, 2018

This reminds me of Archer "Immigrants! That's how they do, y'know. Just drive around, listening to raps and shooting all the jobs."

Jan 23, 2018

I know, I know. I just find it hilarious that I managed to get you to directly quote someone you called retarded. Dude you just got trolled.

Jan 23, 2018
IlliniProgrammer:

I know, I know. I just find it hilarious that I managed to get you to directly quote someone you called retarded. Dude you just got trolled.

Oh you so clever! You've got a fine brain, don't listen to anyone else. I'll always respond to you bub. You're a special little guy. You make arnie from what's eating gilbert grape look like oppenheimer, simple jack looks like freaking einstein in comparison. Yet you keep on fighting. You've got the heart of a lion! Sweet dreams little fella.

Jan 23, 2018

I'm not sure what's going on in here, but I caught the phrase "room temperature IQ" mentioned and found it absolutely hilarious.

Jan 23, 2018

Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater.
What's Schiff got to do with it?

Oops did I say naughty word?

Jan 23, 2018

So what do we call them if not "illegal immigrant"? Foreign Temps?

Jan 23, 2018

I've read every post subrosa wrote and I am 87% convinced he is one of those individuals paid by special interest groups to divulge/protect an agenda in forums.

Jan 23, 2018
Unforseen:

I've read every post subrosa wrote and I am 87% convinced he is one of those individuals paid by special interest groups to divulge/protect an agenda in forums.

Interesting. I have not read them. Which interests do you think he's protecting/promoting?

Jan 23, 2018
Unforseen:

I've read every post subrosa wrote and I am 87% convinced he is one of those individuals paid by special interest groups to divulge/protect an agenda in forums.

Yeah I'm paid by the reptilians who run the globe! I'm simply a man of reason in an irrational world.

Jan 23, 2018

I still don't know anybody in real life who supports illegal immigrants becoming citizens of the US.

Jan 23, 2018
speeddemon:

I still don't know anybody in real life who supports illegal immigrants becoming citizens of the US.

This is exactly why conservatives have balked at the Democrats' claim that the GOP will die unless it embraces amnesty. My best friend is Hispanic and I know a TON of Hispanic people in general--none of them support lawlessness and open borders. A better LEGAL immigration system is what they want, by and large. "Open borders" is supported by a few radicals and white liberals.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 23, 2018

the human brain cannot handle (on average) certain drugs. opiates are the best example. something like a quarter of the adult male chinese population was addicted until Mao basically shit all over civil rights with mandatory rehab and executions of dealers/producers. now pot should be legal.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 23, 2018

sorry for being awesome.

love,

texas

Jan 23, 2018

I wasn't going to comment, but here goes:

Wow, this has HYPOCRISY written all over it. No one had any problem exploiting cheap labor for the last century, but now that the writing on the wall says the coming generation will be political, they want to try and fake the high ground and throw everyone out? Or toss the kids it they don't have jobs...or a parent? Family values, HAH, bullshit, this is about maintaining power, and while I want our country to have control of its borders [it's just a good idea] this just has bad idea written all over it.

It's about as likely as Chinese democracy at this point: not going to happen.

Jan 23, 2018

Texas Independence Day mother fuckers!!!!!

Jan 23, 2018
ibintx:

Texas Independence Day mother fuckers!!!!!

+1836

Jan 23, 2018

Last time I checked, less than half their country votes. Why should we be worries about mexican immigrants? Didnt Bush carry the Hispanic vote?

Blacks one of the few racial groups that have solid political ties. Southern Republicans tend to moderate their rhetoric to ensure a chunk of the Hispanic vote.

This is about the USA's right to limit how many people come into this country at any given time.

Let me be so bold.

If you are not against illegal immigration, you are not American and a terrorist.

Sorry, I tried to be moderate about it.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 2
Jan 23, 2018

In their defense, they are actually correct: Without the exception, everyone would be in jail.

Also true--- "When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers," Pena said. "It is so common it is overlooked"

Unfortunately these things are so true that I'm not sure the bill would really change anything..

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

I'll take one flaming hot authentic chorizo burrito with some jarito's to wash it down.

This could become a very contentious debate, but at the end of the day what most illegal immigrants, especially in the state of Texas, actually do has absolutely no affect on anyone else. Why be so contentious about an issue that doesn't affect anything you do on a daily basis. I'm going to still wake up every morning, go to work, read my books, and have some beers on the weekend and no increase in illegal immigration will change that. Someone with an opposition towards immigration, illegal or not, should change your paradigm and see things from the other side of their convictions.

Jan 23, 2018
Mr. Cheese:

I'll take one flaming hot authentic chorizo burrito with some jarito's to wash it down.

This could become a very contentious debate, but at the end of the day what most illegal immigrants, especially in the state of Texas, actually do has absolutely no affect on anyone else. Why be so contentious about an issue that doesn't affect anything you do on a daily basis. I'm going to still wake up every morning, go to work, read my books, and have some beers on the weekend and no increase in illegal immigration will change that. Someone with an opposition towards immigration, illegal or not, should change your paradigm and see things from the other side of their convictions.

You stupid fuckhead, ask France and the UK if they want to rewind time and take a harder stance on immigration policy. Try to at least make a logical and coherent argument. You ignore the obvious in free rider problem, unpaid health care (guess where illegals get treated for minor ailments), and citizens who are not educated on American history or issues. Not to mention, they are breaking the law.

Jan 23, 2018

Ummm, if illegal immigration continues, the whole countries quality of life will decline. You cannot be an ostrich your whole life.

Illegal immigration is essentially cancer on a geopolitical scale.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018
ANT:

Ummm, if illegal immigration continues, the whole countries quality of life will decline. You cannot be an ostrich your whole life.

Illegal immigration is essentially cancer on a geopolitical scale.

Oh ANT, you adorable little rascal you!

Jan 23, 2018

Why not look at a thief's perspective? A child molester?

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018
ANT:

Why not look at a thief's perspective? A child molester?

This analogy doesn't require a response. You can do better. Too much subjectivity to approach any logical rebuttal.

Jan 23, 2018
Mr. Cheese:
ANT:

Why not look at a thief's perspective? A child molester?

This analogy doesn't require a response. You can do better. Too much subjectivity to approach any logical rebuttal.

Illegal immigration is a crime. Coming into another country without going through the necessary steps can get you arrested, fined, deported and thrown in jail. I understand the economic motives associated with this and the risk/reward, but it is still wrong. If I did the same to Mexico, UK, China, etc I would have even more serious consequences.

My analogy fits. People who do wrong see things in all kinds of different light. In the end, I do not care. You are entering the USA without respect for our laws or other people who are entering and following the process. The USA has the right to set standards, quotas, etc on immigration. We do not exist to save everyone.

Plenty of tired, hungry and weak from all over the world going through the normal process. We also never allowed large scale illegal immigration. Ellis Island sent plenty of people back.

But god forbid the USA have any restriction on immigration. Out of the whole free world, we are the only ones not allowed to define and protect our borders.

Illegal immigration is cancer, fact. Anyone who supports it is an enemy of the state, fact. Sorry that I don't limp wrist with my words.

**Note, I support expedited immigration since Mexico and the USA share many things. I also have no problem with expanding the DOCUMENTED workers program. I also do not support deportation of existing illegals.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018

I agree with ANT...again. If I didn't have this long PoliSci paper on Reagan to finish I'd elaborate more. But as long as there exists a welfare state and related collective goods that benefit all of society, we can and should limit immigration. If we get rid of everything except say the military (I realize that this provides a collective good but bear with me) and some regulatory agencies, let's have more non-taxpaying low-income immigrants. Free trade of labor essentially. But as of now illegal immigrants pay no taxes (unskilled workers do not either usually) and benefit from our system. Free-riding is encouraged by the dilemma of collective action, but that doesn't mean our government should propagate it by allowing anyone in that wants it if they will provide no benefit to our society. (Money-wise) Don't get me started on the "they do jobs no one else wants", I need to write more about this Iran Contra Congress vs. the President type shit. lol

Jan 23, 2018
midnightoil:

There is no doubt that Southern states are being overran by problems of illegal immigration.

What's the problem? Just that it's technically "illegal" for them to come here? Or are there more tangible problems you're referring to?

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

I'd rather have rights and opportunities go to people that are willing to work hard and provide opportunities to themselves as well as their families that our dollars go to entititlement programs and welfare to those people that are lazy, on drugs and welfare, and scam the system so that they can continue to not provide anything of value to our economic system. Illegal or not, if people aren't causing you any harm nor infringing on your rights in order to provide themselves with a life that, unfortunately most, in this country take for granted, then come on over. We're all humans and just because you won some genetic lottery that provided you material wealth and opportunities doesn't give you the right to say someone doesn't.

Jan 23, 2018

Wow, way to early for such a weak ass argument. The USA, as a sovereign nation, has every right.

Illegal immigration is a crime a d you tacitly support it.

Makes me sick.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018

I support the free movement of capital and the free movement of labor. Sounds like we have a bunch of communists on this board, trying to regulate labor.

To say its breaking the law is a cop out; why is it a law in the first place? Because racists and unions finally had something to vote together on.

    • 1
  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

Solid rhetoric in your arguments there ant. Meh I agree to disagree I approach the issue with simple logical while your too bogged down with whatever emotional bias you have to formulate a reason why, besides "this is america'. Newsflash man, on social issues like this its worthless debating, I'm wrong your right it doesn't matter because this country you love so much and the politicians that making headlines with social issuses-issues that we will never find out who's wrong or who's right because illegal immigration will always be here. It's a lot different up North that in states like California, Arizona, and Mexico. Best to just accept it now

Jan 23, 2018

It is a law because every nation has a right to define it's boarders. I really can't believe we have to have such a basic argument.

Entering Mexico illegally results in prision. Entering China illegally can get you killed. Entering Europe illegally can get you deported.

Entering the USA illegally is a god given right.

Complete bullshit.

Also, prin, talk about a cop out. Racist? Wow. Perfect example of a liberal in action.

Also Cheese, I didn't win any lottery. My great grandparent immigrated to this country LEGALLY.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018

It's just a risk they take. They want a better chance. I am just saying I respect those that try to get a better life for themselves and their kids. Sure it is illegal and stuff, but there's so many other things that are illegal like driving .5mph above the speed limit and such, but who cares?

And before I get bombarded by haters saying that our unemployment is so bad, I say half (note the HALF part) would be present almost no matter what. So the people that are "taking our jobs" are taking the menial jobs mainly that most people wouldn't want to do anyways. Go look at Dirty Jobs. That's what they do for us.

This country is falling hard, and pathetically. We aren't half what we used to be in the earlier years. All that is in our name is a reputation that we can barely uphold and a debt that is bigger than my junk.

Love you guys

It's what you put into it

Jan 23, 2018

Logic? Your argument sounds like emotion to me.

It is worthless arguing. I am correct and you are wrong. Fact.

You believe that people should be allowed to enter the USA because they want to be here. Law means nothing to you as long as the intentions are good.

I believe that the USA has the RIGHT, legally, to define it's boarders and have a LEGAL process to become a citizen. Millions of people have gone through the LEGAL process of immigrating to the USA. I think ALL people should be held to the same standards.

See. Legal, all, standards, law.

Take notes, you might learn something.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018

I respect their right to try. I also respect our right to fortify the border, to militarize it.

Go try illegally entering another Country and see how much sympathy you get.

Also, if we are going to allow immigration based on bleeding heart rhetoric, let's allow all hatians, afghanis, etc free immigration before Mexico. They are all worse countries.

What about the Hatians right to work and be an American? If mexicans are allowed to just come here for a better life, why not allow everyone from even worse countries.

Or maybe you just support the genetic lottery. The one that placed Mexicans right next to the USA.

Hahahahhahaha

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018

I am both for and against it.
Just curious, but what's the main reasons why immigrants don't go through the legalization process...? I mean is it fear of being rejected by America? I know friends that have their parents stay in other countries because they aren't allowed in, but the kids are under education visas and whatnot. Is a work Visa hard to get? Then become a green card while you're here?

It's what you put into it

Jan 23, 2018
rbkchoi:

I am both for and against it.
Just curious, but what's the main reasons why immigrants don't go through the legalization process...?

Cost, time, lack of resources etc.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

Ant. Clearly you have never been to a Texas Cinco de Mayo celebration. This is an absolute outrage. It's in 2 short months. Fajitas, cervesa a la dos equis and corona(lime is a must), beautiful pools and partying all day on into the morning time. Beautifull Latina women flocking like the salmon capistrano. Come on down

    • 1
Jan 23, 2018
Mr. Cheese:

Ant. Clearly you have never been to a Texas Cinco de Mayo celebration. This is an absolute outrage. It's in 2 short months. Fajitas, cervesa a la dos equis and corona(lime is a must), beautiful pools and partying all day on into the morning time. Beautifull Latina women flocking like the salmon capistrano. Come on down

LOL... What are you smoking Cheese? I must not be close enough to the border to see this, and yet I see girls flock the Galleria with their Quinceaneras and their fire hazard dresses.

For future Houston visitors, go to Lupe Tortilla for the best fajitas, not because they are a good price, but also because they are fucking AMAZINGLY good. I swear the Holts slather crack on them, along with that good lime. And for the corona, does the lime actually help? I can't imagine it helping something so disgusting.

It's what you put into it

Jan 23, 2018
Mr. Cheese:

Ant. Clearly you have never been to a Texas Cinco de Mayo celebration. This is an absolute outrage. It's in 2 short months. Fajitas, cervesa a la dos equis and corona(lime is a must), beautiful pools and partying all day on into the morning time. Beautifull Latina women flocking like the salmon capistrano. Come on down

I have no way of proving this via a link, but I read last year that more WHITE people celebrate Cinco de Mayo than do Mexicans. Funny little tidbit I thought. Yes, I will be celebrating it and I'm white.

Jan 23, 2018

Immigration is a bunch of work. My GF, who is getting her H1 LEGALLY, is doing tons of paperwork.

If they want to come here to work, they can get documented worker cards. Not as hard as straight up immigration.

See, the USA allows for free movement labor. People still don't care.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Jan 23, 2018
ANT:

Immigration is a bunch of work. My GF, who is getting her H1 LEGALLY, is doing tons of paperwork.

If they want to come here to work, they can get documented worker cards. Not as hard as straight up immigration.

See, the USA allows for free movement labor. People still don't care.

I really like you ANT :)
No sarcasm really. You are helpful.
+1

It's what you put into it

Jan 23, 2018

I can see the perspective of both sides on this. As much as I empathize with their desire for a better life, you just can't have such a chaotic immigration situation in any country, it just doesn't work. People try to paint those opposed to illegal immigration as racists but aversion to illegal, and legal, immigration is present in almost every society. Its human nature to want to preserve the status quo.

Jan 23, 2018

1) I've been to Texas

2) I have Hispanic friends and have nothing against Hispanic people

3) I support legal immigration from around the world

4) I support expidited immigration with Mezico since we share so many things

Please tell me how this is racist or xenophobic. A country must protect it's borders.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

This debate has given me the courage to oust myself.

I am mexican

You sure know how to cut to the core of me WSO

Jan 23, 2018

No, youre a confused American.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

Ant-
Argument aside. What do you think is a way to solve this. Not theoretical, but something practical? I truly don't think there is any silver bullet to stop illegal immigration. Perhaps a capitalistic approach that involves cutting our welfare system by shipping all the lazy people that don't work to Mexico so they can experience what life is like without opportunities. At the same time letting all who want to work hard and take advantage of the "American Dream" come on it and see what they're made of

Jan 23, 2018
Mr. Cheese:

Ant-
Argument aside. What do you think is a way to solve this. Not theoretical, but something practical? I truly don't think there is any silver bullet to stop illegal immigration. Perhaps a capitalistic approach that involves cutting our welfare system by shipping all the lazy people that don't work to Mexico so they can experience what life is like without opportunities. At the same time letting all who want to work hard and take advantage of the "American Dream" come on it and see what they're made of

I respect the idea of trying to find a practical idea, everyone wants that. But the thought of shipping an American to Mexico is some way to say... wow I have no words. It is just too broad of a subject, encasing too many different aspects of the American economy and things that no one would be in favor of really... Ethical reasons too....

It's what you put into it

Jan 23, 2018

I am completely with Texas on doing everything to rid this country of illegal immigrants (except Maria because if she was gone than me and ChemBanker would have been doing the dishes at Thanksgiving, which is NO BUENO).

Jan 23, 2018
HFFBALLfan123:

I am completely with Texas on doing everything to rid this country of illegal immigrants (except Maria because if she was gone than me and ChemBanker would have been doing the dishes at Thanksgiving, which is NO BUENO).

You said it.....there is no WAY i could have done the dishes esp. after we cracked open the Johnnie Walker Blue Label.

Jan 23, 2018

Back to the OP, this copout of a freaking bill pisses me off. What pisses me off more is that it came from a Tea Party Candidate. It's all or none, no in between.

I heard a few interesting things on the radio this morning. One being an illegal family came to Texas, had something like 4 babies, one of them had some sort of health problem that meant putting it(I say it because I don't know it's gender) into a hospital that cost taxpayers $300k. The "Anchor baby" loophole is a big problem!

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Jan 23, 2018

^^^ this is unfortunate, and definately a travestry. I've read this happens a lot. I actually did a presentation against illegal immigation in college and this was a point I brought up. There are plenty of examples of this too

@rbkchoi. I was being sarcastic. I don't think there is anything to be done about it. Certainly politicians will never arrive at a practical solution, for when have they ever

Jan 23, 2018

I hate how the media and people view this as an Anti-Hispanic issue. Its not at all. Its about right versus wrong. Lawmakers and opponents of Illegal Immigration are not saying they don't like Hispanics or Latinos, but just want respect for the laws and borders of our country.

My dad was born in South America and came to Queens, NY when he was 21, legally I should add. He worked his way up from entry level computer programmer to being CIO for half of a Fortune 100 company. He gets offended when all these fringe groups protest laws that crack down on Illegals by making this a Hispanic vs non-Hispanic issue. America is great because we welcome legal immigrants and they have the opportunity to rise from nothing to successful positions in business and politics. This is not helped by the allowing tons of cheap, illegal labor to flood our country.

Jan 23, 2018

There are only two issues here that matter:

1) States Rights

2) Legal Immigration

Everything else being debated is girl talk.

Jan 23, 2018
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

There are only two issues here that matter:

1) States Rights

2) Legal Immigration

Everything else being debated is girl talk.

I would also like to add that the only attack on American soil that was never avenged was out of Mexico: Pancho Villa.

What this has to do with anything, I don't know. It just seemed somewhat relevant.

Jan 23, 2018

^ what we're doing now should have been done decades ago if they want to match the public rhetoric, but millions of people are here now, so it's going to be a lot of half measures......

that's just the way it is.

and as for Europe: yeah, they're F***ed, good luck to them....hahahaha

Jan 23, 2018

^ agreed that measures shouldve been adopted decades ago and now it's a slippery slope. however, there is a real problem and when deficits get scary, the first ones to go are those who not only don't pay, but also compound our woes.

Jan 23, 2018
econ:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on...

...interesting talk, thanks for the link.

Jan 23, 2018

I just moved to Kansas City. There are a lot of illegals here, but there are far less in the metro area than in my native Washington, D.C. You know what? Whites work at car washes. Whites are doing landscaping here. Blacks are janitors. I really didn't think it was true that illegals took American jobs. Based on pure OBSERVATION (no "facts" or "stats"), it looks to me like a lot of Americans would take a lot of jobs that the illegals currently have. Granted, cost of living in KC is nothing so $10/hour for a job goes further than $10/hour in D.C.

The solution is to shut down the southern border as best we can--walls, cameras, troops, etc. In conjunction with that, we need to enforce labor laws against employers and tenancy laws against apartment communities and land lords. On the other hand, we need to set up very large scale TEMPORARY (say, 7 years) guest worker programs with South and Central American nations because the United States does, in fact, have a special economic relationship with our hemispheric neighbors that we don't have with, say, Zimbabwe or Egypt. We also need to have the Supreme Court clarify the 14th Amendment to mean what it ACTUALLY means--i.e. that no former slave could be denied American citizenship because a former slave state determined them to be unqualified based on their birth as slaves. The way the American Left butchers the Constitution is a travesty to the rule of law.

Jan 23, 2018

Hey Virginia Tech, I think you're forgetting a crucial thing, namely, comparative advantage.

Jan 23, 2018

I need more than that. Comparative advantage in what context?

Jan 23, 2018
Jan 23, 2018
Jan 23, 2018

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 2
Jan 23, 2018

Love your neighbor as yourself. The enemy is rarely the men in opposing uniforms.

Jan 23, 2018