governments don't have rights, they have powers that they are given through their ability to threaten everyone else into letting them do.

The government using your tax dollars isn't charity. Supporting the idea that government should be able to to decide who can and can't enter the country isn't withholding charity either,

Freedom of movement isn't a PC issue. Calling out fascism when i see it isn't a leftist tactic it's pointing out the truth.

The fault in the "just ban certain people from entering this country" argument is once again you are giving government more power over a problem created by government in the first place.

by all means continue to defend trump and his fascist policies, but don't be surprised when the "threat of islam" isn't stopped because building a wall around the whole country won't do jack shit but keep us trapped inside.

i see a lot of self applied labels and the assumption that i'm a leftist. you're talking with a guy that considers taxation as theft.

i'm not asking for you to take care of the homeless or take in a syrian refugee into your home. I'm asking you to be a decent human being and think rationally about what happens when you give the government sweeping powers over the movement of people while excusing relentless bombing campaigns and overthrowing of foreign governments. you think there aren't consequences for allowing those things to happen?

Legality of something is not an argument in favor of it being okay, everything Hitler did was legal

Freedom of movement is a natural right and vital to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
you have no right to deny entry...

Your strawman generator seems to be working overtime tonight!

Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words).  I may not be able to stop radical Islamic terrorism, but I don't have to put a sign out offering free welfare benefits to all (including Muslims coming from an ISIS-controlled region).

Somehow you think these refugees are just going to enter the country, and then what?  Are they going to wander around picking fruit to support themselves and their families?

Once here, they will receive housing, healthcare, assistance under welfare programs for food, and so on.  If that's not charity, what is?  All at tax payer expense, something the US government has no responsibility to provide to foreign-born non-resident refugees.

That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.

If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.

Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.

Oh, so now you're just going to respond with non sequiturs. Got it. Supreme Court rulings on the matter are inconsequential to you.

And your whole "freedom of movement" spiel is nothing but pie-in-the-sky silliness. A country is defined by its borders. We have the right, as a sovereign nation, to determine if we want to allow foreigners in. NO ONE has the right to come here just because they want to.

Oh, and here comes Godwin's Law into play. Nice to see you making the moral equivalence of the two cases I cited with the kangaroo courts in the Third Reich. I'm betting you didn't even read any the two cases listed, but you're going to try and equivocate them with the nonsense of the Nazi judicial system.

do you know what a non sequitur is?

can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?

Yeah, it's the nonsense you wrote, i.e. it does not follow. I made the point that Trump's proposal isn't unconstitutional, and rather than addressing that original point , you respond with nonsensical drivel about "freedom of movement" and "government not having rights". And you threw in a silly Godwin's Law to top it off.

can you point out what part of my argument is a strawman?

the strawman of your argument is the assumption that i support the us govt using taxpayer money to bring refugees into the US. notice i never made such a statement i said allow freedom of movement.

spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation.

do you know what a non sequitur is?

can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?

replace muslim with jew and come back to me  once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.
[/quote

I quoted you to highlight the strawman -- when you attribute ideas and statements to me that I never said or implied, and then argue against them, that's a strawman!!

Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words).

It's a given that tax payers are going to support the refugees.  You arguing we have no moral or legal grounds for denying them entry demonstrates you believe they should be offered the chance to enter the US.  The majority will not have jobs, family or friends here to support them, so you can't escape the logical result:  tax payer funded welfare and subsistence, at least for a period of time.

You cannot use Jew and Muslim interchangeably.  I can't ever remember hearing of "Radical Jewish Terrorists" killing 3,000 US residents with jumbo jets.  My wish is to deny entry to RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.  if you cannot discern those Muslims from those who are not radicals, then it is stupid to open the doors and let them ALL into the country.  There are no records, agencies, or programs to effectively weed out the threats from the no-risk refugees.  That was proven in California last week.

We have NO mandate to accept refugees from anywhere.  If the refugees represent a potential threat, then we can offer monetary support wherever they can get permission to settle.  If they are unable to find a place, please explain why that is OUR problem?

replace muslim with jew and come back to me  once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.

Quote from: Aegis808 on December 09, 2015, 10:26:57 PM

can you point out what part of my argument is a strawman?

the strawman of your argument is the assumption that i support the us govt using taxpayer money to bring refugees into the US. notice i never made such a statement i said allow freedom of movement.

spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation.

do you know what a non sequitur is?

can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?

replace muslim with jew and come back to me  once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.
[/quote

I quoted you to highlight the strawman -- when you attribute ideas and statements to me that I never said or implied, and then argue against them, that's a strawman!!

Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words).

It's a given that tax payers are going to support the refugees.  You arguing we have no moral or legal grounds for denying them entry demonstrates you believe they should be offered the chance to enter the US.  The majority will not have jobs, family or friends here to support them, so you can't escape the logical result:  tax payer funded welfare and subsistence, at least for a period of time.

You cannot use Jew and Muslim interchangeably.  I can't ever remember hearing of "Radical Jewish Terrorists" killing 3,000 US residents with jumbo jets.  My wish is to deny entry to RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.  if you cannot discern those Muslims from those who are not radicals, then it is stupid to open the doors and let them ALL into the country.  There are no records, agencies, or programs to effectively weed out the threats from the no-risk refugees.  That was proven in California last week.

We have NO mandate to accept refugees from anywhere.  If the refugees represent a potential threat, then we can offer monetary support wherever they can get permission to settle.  If they are unable to find a place, please explain why that is OUR problem?

allow me to revise then, refusing immigration from Syrian won't stop the Syrian threat.
As an addendum your argument is the strawman, as i have stated I am against the US govt using tax payer money to bring refugees to the US. I am simply arguing for freedom of movement and denouncing fascist policies that have no merit.

that's not what a non sequitur means at all.

you claimed government has a right.
i pointed out that governments do not have rights and gave a description of what it is governments actually have.

you are also misapplying godwin's law as the fascistic policies suggested by trump are a direct reflection of the policies enacted in Nazi Germany.

It's not a cop out, it's putting your silliness into focus. Tell me how exactly are Jews engaging in global jihadist terrorism again?

Quote from: edster48 on Today at 10:02:17 PM

    That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.

    If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.

    Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.


spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation

I make a point about the constitutionality of Trump's proposal and your response doesn't address that. Yeah, non sequitur.

I claimed the Government has rights? Okay, now you're setting fire to your strawman. And I didn't misapply anything. Just pointed out you using it in a debate, which you did.

Quote from: edster48 on Today at 10:02:17 PM

    That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.

    If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.

    Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.


spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation

That 200 year old piece of paper is not just a piece of paper.  it is a contract between the people and the government.  It's a set of ideas and principles that have made the US different than any nation to come before.  It is a doctrine that entrusts the governance of the nation to the people, not a king or dictator, and not a bunch of elites who happen to own the most property.

The greatest characteristic of the Constitution is that it can be changed.  It's not easy, but the fact remains that the founders were wise enough to know they were not infallible.  They knew they probably made mistakes.  Our nation has made proposed and ratified amendments 27 times.  If there are any other major gaps, and we as a major majority agree to more changes, the option is there.

You can call the Constitution whatever you wish (First Amendment right - one of those "changes").  But to denigrate and insult people as having "blind patriotism," when it is you who are blind to what that document and the ideas behind it represents, is typical of Arrogant Left Wing Academics.

The founders created a COUNTRY, which became the most powerful and prosperous country in the world in an amazingly short time.  What have you created lately, since you seem to view your knowledge and opinions to be superior to the likes of John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington?

constitutionality doesn't mean anything, the government saying it's legal to own slaves doesn't have any bearing on the morality of slavery.

Interesting that you call me a leftist once again. I'm not a leftist at all.

Then you must be in favor of anarchy,if you're unwilling to accept legal precedent that has not been challenged like the Dred Scott decision. Or are you trying to equate slavery with the ability of the sovereign nation to determine who it let's in?

You're quasi-open borders appeal makes you sound like one.

Interesting that you call me a leftist once again. I'm not a leftist at all.