US President actually can legally bar any group from entering the US

[Citizen T]

No idea. Not like our government would share classified information with the public. Hopefully there was just cause.

Unless he was standing there holding a gun to some poor shmuck's head when the drone strike hit, I cannot even begin to imagine how he as an immediate and direct threat to another person. If that was the case then the drone took out the victim as well. So we have either murder of the target or manslaughter of his intended victim.

[Stormdash]

Yes, it is "more government." The more you pour into protecting and maintaining borders and laws defining them, the more government you have.

"More" and "less" government are not created equal -- also matters whether the 'more' and the 'less' are related to the legitimate, explicit functions of government or on government freelancing unassigned duties for itself. Bigger government in the cause of security the sovereign territory is legitimate in a way that bigger government in the cause of funding studies on the gender identity of water fowl will never be.

[Machismo]

"More" and "less" government are not created equal -- also matters whether the 'more' and the 'less' are related to the legitimate, explicit functions of government or on government freelancing unassigned duties for itself. Bigger government in the cause of security the sovereign territory is legitimate in a way that bigger government in the cause of funding studies on the gender identity of water fowl will never be.

The existence of laws is never a justification for them.

It simply shows that when most conservatives claim to support freedom and less government, they are fucking liars.

[Jinpachi]

"More" and "less" government are not created equal -- also matters whether the 'more' and the 'less' are related to the legitimate, explicit functions of government or on government freelancing unassigned duties for itself. Bigger government in the cause of security the sovereign territory is legitimate in a way that bigger government in the cause of funding studies on the gender identity of water fowl will never be.

ROFL exactly. I suppose being an anarchist is the cool new thing to be nowadays. i wonder how often it gets them laid?

- - - Updated - - -

The existence of laws is never a justification for them.

It simply shows that when most conservatives claim to support freedom and less government, they are fucking liars.

Complete lunacy to suggest that we have no borders, and anyone can come in to our country at any time and do as they please. Get that stupid shit the fuck out of here.

[Machismo]

ROFL exactly. I suppose being an anarchist is the cool new thing to be nowadays. i wonder how often it gets them laid?

I'm merely showing that conservatives are every bit the authoritarians that American liberals are. So, the calls for "less government" are horseshit.

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL exactly. I suppose being an anarchist is the cool new thing to be nowadays. i wonder how often it gets them laid?

- - - Updated - - -



Complete lunacy to suggest that we have no borders, and anyone can come in to our country at any time and do as they please. Get that stupid shit the fuck out of here.

People should be free to do as they like, so long as it does not harm others. Freedom is awesome, it's a shame you don't think so.

[Jinpachi]

I'm merely showing that conservatives are every bit the authoritarians that American liberals are. So, the calls for "less government" are horseshit.

- - - Updated - - -

People should be free to do as they like, so long as it does not harm others. Freedom is awesome, it's a shame you don't think so.

You don't get to live life with no rules, regulations, or boundaries. stop smoking so much weed

[Machismo]

You don't get to live life with no rules, regulations, or boundaries. stop smoking so much weed

Of course I don't get to. There's too many conservatives who want to use the government to tell me how I should live.

[TZucchini]

Unless he was standing there holding a gun to some poor shmuck's head when the drone strike hit, I cannot even begin to imagine how he as an immediate and direct threat to another person. If that was the case then the drone took out the victim as well. So we have either murder of the target or manslaughter of his intended victim.

That's just not true at all. There are many instances in which someone can be a direct and immediate threat to others, without holding a gun to their head.

You're just projecting your hatred for Obama in an unreasonable manner.

[Citizen T]

That's just not true at all. There are many instances in which someone can be a direct and immediate threat to others, without holding a gun to their head.

You're just projecting your hatred for Obama in an unreasonable manner.

So give me a real life example of how some standing thousands of miles away from US soil can present a direct and immediate threat to someone in the US. Putin, Kim JonUn, even people such as Holland could be as they have a nuclear arsenal that could be launched from a distance. This moron we're discussing not so much.

[Reeve]

As flowery as it sounds, the law has already been pretty concretely settled that "affects different religions differently" isn't really how the 1st Amendment, or 14th Amendment, are applied, especially not after Employment Division v. Smith. That is not, to be clear, to imply that case is anything to do with immigration law, but rather to counter the idea that the ethos of American jurisprudence is as protective of religion as a constitutional law issue as you might think.

Employment Division v. Smith basically said that if you were caught breaking drug laws, regardless of your religion, you could still be denied unemployment. That actually supports the idea that the government has to treat all religions and no religion equally, since they don't let the guy use his religion as a defense for illegal drug practices.

And the new premise of banning immigration from countries that are sufficiently compromised by jihadist activity is... simply unassailable as a constitutional law issue.

That I can agree with, perhaps the first time we've agreed, Stormdash.

[Felya]

Having secure, well defined borders isn't "more government". You're so deluded its actually sad. Lets just push north into Canada under your logic and see how well they like it, or even put up with it.

Because securing the border is an abstract, not actually what is being proposed. Your argument is the same one dictators use to instill Marshall law. As in, protecting the populace is not "more government"... Right?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't get to live life with no rules, regulations, or boundaries. stop smoking so much weed

Does he also not get to critique the laws currently applied? You don't get to hide behind smaller government and then push the authoritarian 'just shut up and do as you are told'.

[Damajin]

Because securing the border is an abstract, not actually what is being proposed. Your argument is the same one dictators use to instill Marshall law. As in, protecting the populace is not "more government"... Right?

- - - Updated - - -



Does he also not get to critique the laws currently applied? You don't get to hide behind smaller government and then push the authoritarian 'just shut up and do as you are told'.

He can critique whatever he likes, it's just ultimately irrelevant as his borderless, limitless freedom notion is pure anarchy in practice and pure stupidity in theory, so his critique is and has been quite consistently roasted since he started making it last night.

[Felya]

He can critique whatever he likes, it's just ultimately irrelevant as his borderless, limitless freedom notion is pure anarchy in practice and pure stupidity in theory, so his critique is and has been quite consistently roasted since he started making it last night.

Quote him saying anything about pure anarchy...

[Machismo]

He can critique whatever he likes, it's just ultimately irrelevant as his borderless, limitless freedom notion is pure anarchy in practice and pure stupidity in theory, so his critique is and has been quite consistently roasted since he started making it last night.

I don't believe in unlimited freedom. It's a mathematical impossibility, because the very same outliers that lead to society wanting to create government in the first place, would restrict people's freedoms in the absence of government.

What I was doing, was mocking all the conservatives who whine about big government, yet preach for the very same thing. Liberals and conservatives both want more government, but at least liberals aren't hypocrites by trying to deny it. For all the talk about freedom, personal responsibility and limited government, it's clear they don't actually mean it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

if he owns around 500 businesses, and 4 went bankrupt, how is that a bad average? its true the economy took a dive back then, maybe what hes saying is its sometimes impossible to have every business turn into a rousing success?

Except that his number of businesses is nowhere close to that, and half of them have straight up folded. 30% of big business moguls only ever bankrupt a business once, meanwhile Trump has succeeded in doing it 4 times.

All of his early business money came from daddy, and daddy co-signed on all of his business deals and of course in nearly all of them had to come in and save Trump from his failure.

Trump regularly lies to business partners and investors about his own personal wealth and the value of his holdings, the value of a deal, the potential for earning, etc. He's a pathological liar when it comes to talking about his worth, chances for success, potential for success. When it comes to business, he's lost far more money than he has ever personally earned, and the only reason he has any money now is big daddy Trump continuously bailing him out of debt, and eventually Trump began letting others run his businesses.

A man with that level of incompetence (and dishonesty as the icing on the cake) has no business being in the white house.

- - - Updated - - -

So give me a real life example of how some standing thousands of miles away from US soil can present a direct and immediate threat to someone in the US. Putin, Kim JonUn, even people such as Holland could be as they have a nuclear arsenal that could be launched from a distance. This moron we're discussing not so much.

"Convince me of something I'll never be convinced of because I hate Obama so much."

[Felya]

I don't believe in unlimited freedom. It's a mathematical impossibility, because the very same outliers that lead to society wanting to create government in the first place, would restrict people's freedoms in the absence of government.

What I was doing, was mocking all the conservatives who whine about big government, yet preach for the very same thing. Liberals and conservatives both want more government, but at least liberals aren't hypocrites by trying to deny it. For all the talk about freedom, personal responsibility and limited government, it's clear they don't actually mean it.

Because things like 'small government' are intentionally abstract concepts. Taken litteraly, you can be talking about a government with hight or weight limits. In reality, it's exactly as you stated. They both want to expand government, but in different directions. With even those direction pretty much leading to the same spot, but from different perspectives.

What people don't get, is that both, the idea of introducing sexuality or specifically naming a religion in law, is a far greater expanding of government, than banning microbeads or plastic bags. By introducing those terms into law, what you are asking or giving the government authority, to define both. It litteraly, without any exaggeration, makes government in the power to define what constitutes faith and what constitutes sexuality. It's why I believe the GOP is expanding government, far greater than DNC, without ignoring that DNC does it and RNC claims to want the opposite.

[Paranoid Android]

Except that his number of businesses is nowhere close to that, and half of them have straight up folded. 30% of big business moguls only ever bankrupt a business once, meanwhile Trump has succeeded in doing it 4 times.

All of his early business money came from daddy, and daddy co-signed on all of his business deals and of course in nearly all of them had to come in and save Trump from his failure.

Trump regularly lies to business partners and investors about his own personal wealth and the value of his holdings, the value of a deal, the potential for earning, etc. He's a pathological liar when it comes to talking about his worth, chances for success, potential for success. When it comes to business, he's lost far more money than he has ever personally earned, and the only reason he has any money now is big daddy Trump continuously bailing him out of debt, and eventually Trump began letting others run his businesses.

A man with that level of incompetence (and dishonesty as the icing on the cake) has no business being in the white house.

I will also add such as the other day when he talked about sacrifices and the Thousands of Jobs, probably TENS of Thousand of jobs. All that bullshit, especially recently is him putting his name: TRUMP on shit and thus he puts it under his umbrella as brilliant business man and job creator. Technically it is still investors and other people who are creating the jobs. If it wasn't Trump they would put some other name on it. He is probably more of a parasite than a business man.

[Deleted]

The existence of laws is never a justification for them.

It simply shows that when most conservatives claim to support freedom and less government, they are fucking liars.

You define 'more government' as more government spending, its 'size'
When the vast majority of people against 'big' government, are talking about its activities -

Small government is government which minimizes its own activities. It is an important topic in libertarianism and classical liberalism.

Defending the border is #1 in terms of government priorities - You cannot have a smaller government than one that does this duty.
And then it doesn't matter if that consume 25% of GDP.

[Machismo]

You define 'more government' as more government spending, its 'size'
When the vast majority of people against 'big' government, are talking about its activities -

Defending the border is #1 in terms of government priorities - You cannot have a smaller government than one that does this duty.
And then it doesn't matter if that consume 25% of GDP.

I'm talking about both definitions. Both liberals and conservatives seem to want more government in both aspects. Defending the border is the #1 priority for you, but not for me. I have no need to live in fear of the unknown. I'm not terrified of illegal immigrants or Muslims. You can always have a smaller government. The only thing thst gets in the way, is the desire that people have to control the lives of other people.

[Deleted]

Defending the border is the #1 priority for you, but not for me.

No it is for the state.
A state that does not maintain its monopoly on violence, is no longer a state.

The only thing thst gets in the way, is the desire that people have to control the lives of other people.

Which is why we should have a small government - So its harder to make the state into an agent of evil.