The GOP Leviathan on the Border

Republican House Speaker John Boehner pulled the plug on his immigration reform plan after his fellow Republicans gave it a cold reception. Raising an issue on which the party is so hopelessly divided would kill its chances of the winning the Senate in November. That is probably correct, but the bigger issue is why is immigration such a divisive issue for Republicans? One reason is that the anti-immigrant animus of rabble-rousers like Ann Coulter.

No sooner did Boehner release his reform "principles" than she went on the attack bandying surveys showing that immigrants will “wreck the country” with their Big Government-loving ways. “It's not their [Republicans’] position on amnesty that immigrants don't like,” she harrumphed. “It's Republicans' support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.”

“But if Republicans love liberty and small government,” I note in the Washington Examiner, they sure have a weird way of showing it.

In fact, there are at least four ways in which their immigration reform plans will expand the leviathan state and warm Thomas Hobbes heart.

Go here to find out what they are.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    but the bigger issue is why is immigration such a divisive issue for Republicans?

    Because Boehner, and Republicans (in general), are pussies that lack any principles whatsoever.

  • Warrren||

    Goddamn imminents!

  • wareagle||

    if you don't have border security, then why have borders at all?

  • anon||

    Because who would tell me what to do if I didn't know who I belonged to?

  • wareagle||

    everybody belongs to something. A family, a club, a nation. Man's not a solitary creature by nature.

  • Almanian!||

    SAYS YOU! GET OFF MY LAWN!

  • Agammamon||

    The difference between 'belonging' to a club where you chose to associate and 'belonging' to a state where you pay taxes and do what you're told or get killed is huge.

  • ||

    You have borders to keep other nations' worse laws and enforcement out.

    Is this really that hard?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Importing tens of millions of people from a DEMOCRACY with statist laws and enforcement would seem to run counter to the notion of keeping other nations' poor legal systems out.

    I'd rather be a Mexican in Sheriff Joe's prison than an American in, well, any Mexican prison.

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    The purpose of borders is to keep government in. A border marks the outer limit for a government's jurisdiction, so that people have someplace to escape to.

    If people can't cross borders freely, then they have no escape. That's why Freedom of Movement is the most essential freedom there is. Without it, everyone is a prisoner of their respective government.

  • wareagle||

    in your calculus then, there are no nations, those inside the borders you despise have no rights/freedoms to be protected, and the world is a free agent.

    The is the part of libertarian utopia that will never be achieved. As it is, this country is more welcoming, more hospitable, and more accessible to immigrants that just about any other place, to include our neighbors on other side.

  • Dweebston||

    You don't need to agree with drug use as a moral or practical habit to acknowledge that drug policy is desperately in need of reform. You don't need to countenance illegal immigration to acknowledge that rounding up twelve million illegals dispersed in our country and sending them packing really isn't an option, and building and guarding a gigantic thousand-mile long border fence is a massive expense for minimal benefit.

  • Agammamon||

    But it worked so well for the Soviet Union.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not sure what your point is with this.

    If you're serious and comparing us to the USSR, the USSR had no trouble with people streaming into its borders post-WW2, for reasons that had little to do with a fence or enforcement of border laws.

    If you're being sarcastic -- see above.

  • Agammamon||

    Sigh, Tulpa - the SU fenced its nation in, ostensibly for 'national security, had extremely tight immigration controls, and ultimately used that very fence to keep its citizen's *in*.

    Oh and they did it at massive expense for minimal benefit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Seriously dude? Keeping the citizens in was the purpose from the get-go. The stuff about keeping imperialist spies from coming in to sabotage the worker's paradise was silly propaganda, known by everyone involved to be silly propaganda from day one.

    Oh and they did it at massive expense for minimal benefit.

    Their economy and probably the military too would have collapsed within a few years had they not kept their best and brightest from fleeing to the West, so I'd say they got a pretty good benefit for the collective.

  • Agammamon||

    No, I'd say they got a pretty good benefit for the top level of their society and precious little benefit for anyone below that, especially compared to the cost.

    And its amazing how often walls to keep people out get repurposed to keep others in.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'd say they got a pretty good benefit for the top level of their society

    That's what I meant with my tongue-in-cheek call-out to "the collective". The walls did exactly what they wanted them to do.

    And its amazing how often walls to keep people out get repurposed to keep others in.

    Example? I mean, if it's amazingly often you should be able to come up with one.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, the Soviet Union, maybe, for one?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    sigh. That wasn't a repurposing, that was intended to keep people in from day one.

    You claim that there have been fences/walls that were built to keep people out but later were used to keep people in. Name one.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    My chicken cage.

  • Agammamon||

    Why not what? Not countenancing illegal immigration while acknowledging the futility of trying to relocate 12 million people?

    I suppose its not futile if we're willing to go all 'trail of tears' on them again.

  • Agammamon||

    Some of us call it 'morality'.

    If nothing else, because we don't consider it a capital offense to cross a border without permission.

  • Agammamon||

    Deportations isn't. Rounding 12 million people up, keeping them confined while being processed, and then shipped out - that's gonna involve a lot of murder. Like it has every other time someone has tried it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The only thing you're missing from this little Godwin is references to cattle cars and having to wear yellow sombreros.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    It would cost trillions.

  • Agammamon||

    How else are you gonna get them out?

    If asking nicely was enough they'd already be gone.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    How often does attempted deportation to Mexico result in murder of the deportee (not talking about criminal extradition here, just ordinary deportation)?

    The idea is to get control of the border NOW and slowly root out the illegals over time. You're not going to get 12M people overnight of course, and there may be some who slip through our nets for the rest of their lives, but surrendering to illegality is certainly not the only option (and in my opinion it's not a good one either).

    I mean seriously, we talk about legalizing drugs and prostitution and ending police abuses and prosecutorial misconduct, etc.... those things are going to be fucking hard to do if not impossible. Are you going to surrender on those fronts too, or do you just expect the people who disagree with you to surrender when the status quo inertia favors your side.

  • ||

    "How often does attempted deportation to Mexico result in murder of the deportee"

    That could have something to do with us piecemealing it instead of wholesale all 12M at once.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Unless you are going to authorize deadly force, you can NEVER seal the border. PERIOD. Which party is going to propose that?

    Do you have any idea how large an operation it would be to round up 12M people? That's like 1.5 New York Cities, spread out throughout the country. Do you have ANY fucking idea how much something like that would cost. Fuck, just finding them would triple the debt, let alone deporting them.

    You fucking retard Republicans need to face reality, Mr pragmatic utilitarian party of limited government.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'm not saying one would do it overnight. You get control over the border and then work on slowly rooting out the illegals who are already here. It might take years or decades and might never be complete (ie, some illegals would live their entire lives without being caught), but it's better than surrendering to lawlessness.

    You guys are masters at declaring "impossible" things that you don't want to do for ideological reasons.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    1. Unless you're going to lay a minefield, with guard towers within shooting range of each other, which you could NEVER, EVER, EVER do politically or financially speaking, you are NOT going to control the border.

    2. Knowing you are NEVER, EVER, EVER going to control the border, why in the name of Christ do you want to be known as the party who hates the brown people?

    Shoot yourselves in the foot much?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    FdA, this isn't 1920. We have pressure sensors, remote cameras, drones, etc. to aid in the work of border security. And of course you don't have to intercept a violator right at the border; the other side of the "crossing at random remote uninhabited area" strategy is that it won't be hard to track the violator 20 miles into US territory.

    It is odd that you guys are so morally opposed to something that you consider impossible to do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "It is odd that you guys are so morally opposed to something that you consider impossible to do."

    Er, because it would harm many on its futile quest. For example, we think the War on Drugs has an impossible goal, but we oppose it.

  • Christophe||

    I keep forgetting you support our nice little constitution free zones at the borders.

    If you're willing to put up with that, there's no point in arguing it out.

  • ||

    I suppose its not futile if we're willing to go all 'trail of tears' on them again.

    I know it's a bitch trying to keep your brown people straight, but messicans != Cherokee, Choctaw, or Seminole. Those being the people who were, you know, actually relocated in the 'Trail of Tears'.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The bigger issue is why is immigration such a divisive issue for Republicans?"

    It's because legalizing those illegal immigrants and giving them a clear path to citizenship means enfranchising millions of new voters who are openly hostile to the Republican Party.

    Why score baskets for the other team?

    Certainly, the reason the Democrats want to enfranchise millions of illegal immigrants is because they expect that those new voters will be hostile to the GOP.

    It's true that the reason so many immigrants, especially those from Mexico and Central America, are hostile to the Republicans is because the Republicans have been so hostile to them for decades, but in terms of winning or losing elections now, that's entirely beside the point.

    It doesn't matter why newly enfranchised immigrants would hurt the GOP in elections nationally; what matters to the GOP is that they would.

  • Agammamon||

    Which immigrants are you talking about. The Mexican immigrants I know are not fans of the DNC (neither are they partial to the GOP). Most are rather apolitical and don't see it as worth worrying about which party is in power since they'll both screw you in the end.

    And they don't worry about the GOP's anti-immigration stance - a good percentage of these immigrants have children that have, will, or would join the Border Patrol if they got the opportunity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That may be the Mexican immigrants you know, but Mexicans immigrants who know nothing else about American politics know that the Republicans are hostile to them. It's been that way since Prop 187.

    It's unfortunate for the GOP, too, because Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans--and hence skew more religious. That means they're more conservative, culturally, on social issues, and if it weren't for the GOP's reputation for hostility against them, they'd be a natural fit for social conservatives in the GOP.

    The liberals and progressives in Northern California still haven't come to terms with the fact that Prop 8, which banned gay marriage, passed with Latino and African-American support, and we already know how Catholics feel about things like abortion.

    So, anyway, you're right. Mexican immigrants should split or skew toward the GOP. But why would you favor a party that is seen as being completely hostile to your very presence in this country?

  • Agammamon||

    Well, my point was more 'they aren't going to support *either* party' - their antipathy for each has a different source.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans--and hence skew more religious. That means they're more conservative, culturally, on social issues, and if it weren't for the GOP's reputation for hostility against them, they'd be a natural fit for social conservatives in the GOP.

    And an even better fit for leftists promising free shit from big government. But hey, if you think the GOP needs to revive the Bush-Rove-Huckabee welfare state-social conservatism alliance, let's hear you make the argument.

  • ||

    The Mexican immigrants I know are not fans of the DNC (neither are they partial to the GOP). Most are rather apolitical...

    Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans--and hence skew more religious. That means they're more conservative, culturally, on social issues...

    Both of these anecdotes are popular, but not especially true according to Pew's polling on the subject:

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....prc-number

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans--and hence skew more religious. That means they're more conservative, culturally, on social issues..."

    I see them mention that first generation immigrants are more socially conservative than second generation immigrants, and I expect them all to trend to the center, eventually. On social issues, eventually, they'll probably be like the Irish and the Italians.

    When they say that Latinos, in terms of gay marriage, aren't so different from other groups, I have some questions about that. Specifically, are they saying that these Latino immigrants aren't so different from the American people--nationally?

    If you're telling me that they're the same as the average American--with the South included--and I'm talking about how socially conservative they are when compared to the average within California, we're talking apples and oranges. The attitudes of Californians skew tolerant, and even IF new Latino immigrants are about the same as people nationally--including the South--then they're much more socially conservative than the average, white Californian.

    Certainly, the people in San Francisco aren't going to see that as especially tolerant, and of all those immigrants are enfranchised, I think the gay rights supporters of Northern California are going to be in for some serious disappointment.

  • KevinP||

    Perhaps this is also a salient point:

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....prc-number

    Bigger Government or Smaller Government?

    Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

    Amnesty will give the vote to a new bloc of voters who will vote 80% for the big government side. This should advance the cause of libertarianism!

  • JeremyR||

    It's true that the reason so many immigrants, especially those from Mexico and Central America, are hostile to the Republicans is because the Republicans have been so hostile to them for decades

    Or maybe their culture makes their in favor of big government?

    Libertarians fall in the multi-culturism trap. All cultures are equal, so let's everyone in and have a great big party and have a coke!

    But they aren't. Why is Latin America a mess? Not because they are dumber or lack resources. Mexico in particular should be one of the richest countries in the world. It's because of their culture...

    Same with the Middle East. Why are some places a hell hole and other places amazing? Because some are islamists and some aren't...

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is absurd.

    I lived in Mexico for over a year.

    The suggestion that Mexico's government is bigger than ours is ridiculous. Our government is bigger than theirs in every way I can think of--and much less intrusive, too.

    Most of the hiring, for instance, is done under the table. Not a whole lot of people bother to pay taxes. The police are pretty selective in terms of whether or not they enforce the laws, too. Just because the legislature passes a law doesn't mean the local cops are going to enforce it.

    Culturally, I'd say they're more entrepreneurial than we are, too. Every third house seems to run a store or a restaurant out of the front door of their home. And when they come here, they aren't getting jobs in corporate America. They're starting immigrant businesses or working for immigrant businesses.

    Disparage multiculturalism all you want; you seem to have the facts--and their culture--completely wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "and [their government] is much less intrusive, too."

    I meant to say.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There's a big difference between weak government (Mexico) and limited government, Ken.

    Mexico's govt fucks over everyone it can. The fact that its reach is limited does not change its nature.

    I suppose you'd prefer going to jail in Mexico and enjoying their justice system, compared to that of the US?

  • Ken Shultz||

    How does this relate to what we were talking about, Tulpa?

    If our jails are better than theirs, does that mean their government is bigger than ours?

    If our jails are better than theirs, does that mean their culture is inferior and that they're unsuitable for American citizenship?

    How does what you're saying relate to what we were talking about? Are you posting just to read your own posts?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In through one ear and out the other, as always with you Ken.

    How's Libya doing these days, btw?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's not all a shithole!

    I lived in Merida, down in the Yucatan, and I could have lived there for the rest of my life in terms of quality of life. Some of the nicest places are away from the tourist areas. I also lived in a little fishing village on the beach, full of flamingos and restaurants. Life can be great in Mexico. I'd certainly rather live in Merida than any of the major cities I lived in the Northeastern United States.

    The border towns are shit holes, and that's most Americans' experience of the place. It's like that on both sides of the border, really.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anyway, yeah, they've got some political problems, and they've got some problems with the rule of law. The government doesn't do a very good job of protecting people's rights down there, and it's hard to attract investment when your rights are so insecure.

    One of the hardest things to deal with is land. It's very hard to develop their land when so much of it is practically impossible to develop because the ownership of the land is in question. This is in no small part a result of land redistribution schemes in the wake of the Revolution of 1917.

    You couldn't sell ejido land until 1992, and, even now, the ownerships is so convoluted. In order to allow someone else to develop it, you have to get the signature of every single descendent of whomever the land was originally given to--runs into the dozens always--it's practically impossible to develop that land.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._in_Mexico

    Anyway, that's just one example. They have all sorts of problems like that, partially because they didn't run the indigenous people off their land like the Americans did.

  • Agammamon||

    Life isn't very good for manual laborers most anywhere - that's not specific to a country's economic policies and more to do with manual labor has a lot of competition.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's a tendency for people to assume that Mexico's population looks a lot like the immigrants who come here from Mexico. It's sort of the reverse of the "Ugly American" stereotype that the rest of the world paints us all with after seeing our elderly flood their tourist destinations.

    But the average American isn't an uninhibited elderly couple that are dressed as casually as possible and don't give a damn about how they look. And the average Mexican isn't a guy that'll brave human traffickers and 30 miles of desert just for the chance to mow your lawn.

    "Overall, the INEGI study found that the middle class in Mexico includes 39.2 percent (44 million people) of the country’s total population. Mexico’s middle class increased 11.4 percent during between 2000 and 2010."

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/na.....dle-class/

    Mexico has a middle class, and it's growing, but--I'm hoping the point gets across--this isn't about whether it's better to be an American or a Mexican.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Being a manual labors sucks just about everywhere, and the reason Mexicans come here to do manual labor--and stay--is because they think their opportunities are better here than they are back home.

    But what difference does that make? We have a lot of problems in this country--too many people coming here becasue they want to work hard isn't one of them. If having a larger labor pool was bad for economic growth, China would have been the slowest growing economy in the world over the past 20 years. Labor is a resource, and having more of a resource is better.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Better for who? It would definitely be better for Wall Street and the USCoC crony capitalists because it's not a bunch of crony capitalists rushing across to take their jobs. Better for the average joe not so much.

    The PRC is an interesting example. It's true that there's been an amazing amount of wealth created there. Most of it, as always, has benefitted the politically connected; there has been wealth created even among the lower classes, but let's be clear what we're talking about: we're talking about people who lived out in the rural areas on dirt floors and with a rarely full stomach, rising up to live in polluted urban conditions that would make even a low income American puke their guts out, but at least they have food security. Is that the vision you have for the average joe in America, Ken?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Were the border opened the economy would grow because of lower labor costs, just like in China, although per capita incomes would decline and the price of labor would decline."

    One of the great things about Mexico is? You can get anything delivered. And I mean anything you can buy anywhere, you can get it delivered to your door.

    Even the fast food places like McDonalds and Burger King have fleets of mopeds with hot boxes on the backs of them--and they deliver!

    You can do that when the cost of labor is cheap. Think of all the single moms who have a hard time finding affordable daycare. All the elderly people who can't do yard work anymore.

    Having more people around who are willing to work cheap wouldn't lower the standard of living--that's for sure. It would raise the standard, right? If I can get more services for the same or less money, then as a consumer, my standard of living increases.

    Yeah, if you're a meth head, a convicted felon, or a lazy bastard, you're going to have a harder time competing--but more competition would do most of those people some good. Some people need to have to try harder.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If labor is cheap, that's downward pressure on the cost of things and a boost for the standard of living.

    It works that way for trade with China. Being able to substitute expensive American made products for less expensive Chinese made products is good for the standard of living. It would work the same with services; unfortunately, you can't import a haircut.

    Actually, now that I thing of it, you can import a haircut! You just bring the labor in from some other country. My last haircut came from Colombia.

    It's just like increased productivity. Increased productivity often means we don't need as many people employed as before. It also means that it costs less per unit to produce. Things costing less per unit increases the standard of living.

    We are not worse off because robots are building more cars cheaper with fewer workers at less cost. To the contrary, being able to save money on cars makes us richer than we would have been otherwise.

    Cheap labor is like an industrial robot in every way I can think of, and displacing inefficient and costly workers does not hurt our standard of living. Displacing inefficient and costly workers is the stuff that creative destruction is made of.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yeah, if you're a meth head, a convicted felon, or a lazy bastard, you're going to have a harder time competing--but more competition would do most of those people some good. Some people need to have to try harder.

    Why bother when you have Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie's treasured "social safety net" to fall back on.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Our government is "bigger" than the government of Somalia, under which would you rather live?"

    Yeah, there are some qualitative differences there, aren't there...

    But that wasn't the point. Jeremy said that Mexicans (and people from Central America) were culturally more in favor of big government. Actually, the culture they come from gives less importance to government than ours does, and the governments they live under are much smaller than our own.

    If they said we, culturally, favor big government, that might make more sense--I'll give you an example:

    One of the things Mexicans asked me about the U.S. was whether people really sent their grandparents away to live with strangers. To them, that would be like abandoning your children. It's just a culturally disgusting thing to do...some of them can't believe we do it!

    We used to think that way here in the U.S., too! We used to think that it was our responsibility to take care of our elderly parents just like it's our responsibility to take care of our children. Social Security, Medicare, and government programs that pay for nursing homes have changed all that! Now Americans don't think it's their responsibility to take care of their own elderly parents anymore--they think that's the government's job!

    Now, who's culturally more enamored of big government? It ain't the Mexicans. It's the Americans.

  • Christophe||

    No government in detroit? Really now.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Our government is "bigger" than the government of Somalia, under which would you rather live?

    Did we just get Somalia'd by a conservative xenophobe? Is that what shit has come to?

    Fuck the fuck off.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In this case it's a valid point. Shultzie is conflating weak government with limited government.

  • Homple||

    I keep asking, why is immigration reform limited to Mexicans? There is the rest of the world you know. And one would expect immigrants from places other than Mexico to open immigrant businesses, as they already have demonstrated for a couple of centuries.

    Seriously, why?

  • Agammamon||

    I don't agree with this guy on pretty much anything else but he kinda nails it on why immigration reform focuses on the southern border.

    Canadians don't have much incentive to come down south and the Africans and Asians that would like to come here have to cross an ocean, the difficulty of which limits their numbers..

    Mexico is a proxy when talking about immigration from across south America.

    Of course, we *could*, instead of simply trying to keep them out, increase the number of work visas offered to the unskilled from 1,700 a year to something more in line with the number of people actually wanting to come in and work.

    One thing most of you anti-immigration guys fail to understand is that most of these people don't really want to stay here. We talk in a different language, do things weird, family is a long way away - most would be content with coming up for part of the year, working their arses off and then going home.

    But because of the cost and difficulty of getting into the country illegally (legally is pretty much a pipe dream), once here they ain't going to do that again.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In principle I agree with this, Agamammon, but I know damn well that compromise will not be allowed by the other side. It wasn't the GOP that ended the Bracero program (roughly what you're proposing), it was the labor unions.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And I would add stipulations that employers importing workers through these programs have to pay extra taxes and deal with constant inspections to make sure they're not cutting corners w/r/t labor laws. We need to separate situations where employers literally cannot find Americans to do the jobs they need done from the situations where an employer just wants to save a buck and be able to break the law by grabbing illegal labor.

  • Christophe||

    And now you're unleashing your inner labor protectionist. Man this shit is predictable.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    and non-Mexicans tend to be other Hispanics who aren't that different racially or culturally from Mexicans.

    You are incredibly fucking stupid.

  • Flemur||

    So why, as a country and a culture, are they poor? And violent? And corrupt? And uneducated? And want to escape from what they created?

    JeremyR: "Not because they are dumber..."

    It's well documented that they are dumber, e.g. Richwine's data.

    So do you have a cite to back your statement, or are you just another PC parrot?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So why, as a country and a culture, are they poor? And violent? And corrupt? And uneducated?"

    "Richwine's data" shows that low wage immigrants who come here have lower IQs.

    "My dissertation shows that recent immigrants score lower than U.S.-born whites on a variety of cognitive tests."

    ----Jason Richwine

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ad-at-him/

    It isn't the country that he found has lower IQs--it's recent immigrants, who couldn't find jobs at home.

    The U.S. born whites who work manual labor in America almost certainly skew towards lower IQs, too, but you wouldn't just test American day laborers' IQs and then use that to make general statements about the rest of America.

    If I had data showing that American born, white, day laborers have lower IQs than the average American, what would that say about America's level of poverty, violence, corruption, and education?

    The correct answer is absolutely nothing.

    If you think Richwine's data shows Mexico's level of poverty, violence, corruption, and education is a function of the lower IQs of its day laborers, then you're just seeing what you want to see.

  • KevinP||

    You're conflating an ineffective government with a non-intrusive government.

    I grew up in a Third World country before I (legally) immigrated to the US. It is much the same as Mexico - an oppressive and statist government, nominally democratic, where people may have more practical freedom because they ignore the law and bribe the police. This works well… unless you don't have influence or money to bribe the police (which is continuous and ongoing if you own a business).

    I don't see this kind of oppressive but ineffective government as any kind of improvement. And like in Mexico, the vast majority of people in my home country believe that the government should tax others more, spend more on themselves, and oppress others more. I can confidently say that importing vast quantities of my former compatriots would not spell well for America's libertarian future.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In fairness to Mexico, being a drug trade conduit is hardly conducive to prosperity.

  • PH2050||

    Holy shit bro, the fact that you of all people raise this salient point is an indictment of the others commenting here.

  • PH2050||

    And I mean that to apply to myself as well. The WOD is such a huge issue when it comes to Mexican governance that I'm ashamed it wasn't mentioned in my first comment.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    But on the other hand (as I morph into Cathy Young), Mexico was a shithole long before the drug war really ramped up.

  • PH2050||

    And you claim this is unrelated to the Monroe Doctrine?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's funny; it's taken as a given on these here pages that Californians flooding into Colorado and Arizona and Montana bring their state's politics with them. Or that Massachusetts residents moving to NH are turning that state blue. The New York/New Jersey/Marylanders moving to Virginia.

    But somehow we're supposed to believe that Mexicans coming across the border with a different language and a different culture, are a teeming mass of Juan Galts, whose concept of politics is totally different from the I-fuck-you-or-you-fuck-me way politics is done in Mexico. OK.

  • Paul.||

    I don't believe that immigrants making a Run for the Border are a bunch of closet libertarians. But locking people out of your country simply because they might not vote the right way is as dumb as not allowing Californians to move into your state... as admittedly attractive as that sounds after I type it.

  • Paul.||

    Ok, rubber meets the road time. What policy prevents that? How many immigrants do we allow in, from where, and what is the ideology test?

  • Paul.||

    By my estimation, well-educated won't cut it. Paul Krugman, for instance, is well educated.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There's no country that would accept Krugman if we tried to deport him.

  • ||

    You do know that Europeans are even more true blue socialist than Mexicans right?

    It seems silly that we would allow them, but not well educated Hispanics too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Maybe a psych test to make sure their oath of citizenship is really sincere.

    Sort of like Room 101, but with simulated rats instead of the real thing.

  • ||

    Considering native Americans (mostly of the 50 & up variety*) are the ones that implemented, and then continued to reelect the criminals who messed everything up, I'm not that worried about the voting habits of illegal, or legal for that matter, immigrants.

    *Yes I know that is collectivist. Sue me.

  • Christophe||

    Preach it. It's so much easier to believe you can stop socialism by closing the borders.

    It's a lot harder to be hopeful when you realize the natives (esp. the baby boomers) are the biggest pushers of Total State.

  • KevinP||

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....prc-number

    Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

    Compare that support with the less than 50% support of the natives, and see how that works out in close elections, like, say 2012.

  • KevinP||

    It may be impractical to have any ideology test, and you can be sure that Obama and Holder will change the test around so only big government supporters will be able to immigrate.

    However, they won't have to try very hard:

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....prc-number

    Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

  • PH2050||

    Wait a minute Tulpa, this comment seems to fly in the face of the sentiment of your earlier comment regarding Mexico and the drug trade.

    Or do you think the "money talks and bullshit walks" way of life just came out of nowhere and is in no way related to drug money?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Mexico had these problems long before the drug war. I'm not singling them out either; most of the third world has these problems.

    Liberal democracy (using the L-word in its original sense) is a most unnatural system of government, that arose in very peculiar conditions in medieval Britain. It has a hard time rising up on its own and is only kept alive via culture and tradition. You import tens of millions of people from a totally adverse political culture, you're in for trouble.

    And I know someone's going to say, what about the Irish and Germans and Italians in the beginning of the 20th century? Yeah, what about them. Ever heard of Tammany Hall? How about the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Yeah, I thought so. (and I say that as an Irish-American myself)

    They've all but lost it in the UK, it's showing some serious signs of wear here in the US, and it's in dire straits in the other three big Anglosphere countries that worship the queen. Fucking Anglos don't have enough kids.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wait a minute, are you blaming the Fed and the income tax on Irish, German and Italian immigrants?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I mean,

    "Support for the income tax was strongest in the western and southern states and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....nstitution

    Were the western and southern states where the Italian, German and Irish immigrant voting blocs ruled?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Nice try. The northeast was by far the wealthiest part of the country at that time, so the relationship is natural.

    Perhaps you should look at which party's president muscled through those things (along with the original marihuana de facto ban), and what that party's base was in the northeast.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wait a minute.

    If these immigrant groups were responsible for this, then why did states that had less of those groups ratify the amendments first?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "It's funny; it's taken as a given on these here pages that Californians flooding into Colorado and Arizona and Montana bring their state's politics with them."

    Wait a minute. So when people flee a state, for example when the tax policy is insane, that is the kind of person you don't want in your state?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Depends on whether they put 2 and 2 together about the insane tax policy's root cause. Truth be told I'd rather not have dolts from Maryland fleeing across the Potomac to escape Governor Fartin O'Folley's rain tax, etc, and they turn around and vote for Terry McAuliffe to lead their adopted home state.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would think someone who opposed the insane tax policy would be at least ahead of the average voter.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    We're talking about Maryland here, so that's not a very high bar. I'd prefer it if the welfare sows in Berea kept themselves and their little piglets in their own laboratory of democracy, too.

  • RishJoMo||

    Dude you know that is like totally bad ass.

    www.Anon-Works.tk

  • ||

    Swing and a miss anonbot.

  • PH2050||

    I would say the current success of citizen vigilante groups against the Knights Templar cartel would indicate some semblance of support for gun rights as they engaged in such action in defiance of federal law.

    However, fuck Coulter. I love how she mentions "Big Government-loving" in one sentence and then crows about "support for...patriotism" as if patriotism isn't just a form of religious belief in YOUR GOVERNMENT.

    WTF.

  • ||

    Without patriots who died for their country(America) you would probably be living under the King or some other tyrant.

    Not a King. A Queen. And she barely has $1 million to her name. Some tyrant.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If the UK doesn't lose "the Colonies" in 1776-1783, there's no guarantee the Crown devolves into the welfare-funded reality show it is now.

    While Brits always attempt to minimize the loss, reality is they afterward had noplace to send their people other than starved wildernesses.

  • PH2050||

    LOL you give some bullshit definition of patriotism and act like you made a point. That's funny.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't know - we could point out the success this country has enjoyed despite having huge waves of immigrants from very 'un-free' and corrupt countries.

    Countries such as damn near every single western European nation for example. Remember the waves of WOPS, dagos, and mics that were going to destroy this country?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Ever heard of Tammany Hall?

    Federal Reserve? Income tax? Direct election of Senators? Buehler?

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    Are you referring to Epi?

  • ||

    4. In order to deprive Democrats of new voters, Boehner’s principles recommend offering illegal workers legal status but not citizenship. But the problem with this Solomon-like solution is that it will create on American soil a new class of people whom Uncle Sam could tax but who couldn’t vote – shredding America’s bedrock commitment to “no taxation without representation.”

    This class of people is not at all new: it already exists. In fact off the top of my head I can think of several subclasses of this class:

    1. Illegal immigrants
    2. Legal immigrants who have no intention of becoming citizens
    3. Legal immigrants who are on a path to citizenship and haven't yet reached the end
    4. Me, who has never seen someone I voted for elected, and therefore entirely lacks representation

    Yet all these people willingly reside in the US and participate in the US economy. Adding another subclass...

    5. Immigrants given legal residence on the explicit understanding that they are not on a path to citizenship

    ...in no way violates them or their freedom. If they like the terms, they will accept them. If they don't like the terms, they can stay in their home countries where one person may or may not have more representation than the comical amount one of the 315 million people in the US has.

  • ||

    Bluntly put, the ability to legally live and work in the US is well over 95% of the value of citizenship. To deny individuals this fundamental right because it might tarnish a "commitment" as vacuous as "no taxation without representation" is really backwards.

  • Nephilium||

    Hell... as long as we have local city taxes we have taxation without representation. I get taxed by the city I work in, and the city I live in, and I'm only allowed to vote in one of those cities.

  • Agammamon||

    Hmm, how about we give them limited voting rights on taxation issues only?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    They have the right to vote with their feet like everyone else, and considering they've already shown a propensity for border violation they should have no problem doing so.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Curious, why should you be allowed to vote, and how does that not extend to an illegal who has lived and worked in this nation for quite a long time?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    We could start with my presence here not being illegal.

    Of course, the right to vote is a utilitarian thing and has been since the beginning of the Republic. Only white propertied males could vote back then and the electorate has been expanded from time to time either to get more buy-in (propertyless males) or because the powers that be thought the expansion would favor their power (DC having electoral votes, Republicans dividing the Dakota territory into far too many states so they could hold the Senate, etc).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "We could start with my presence here not being illegal."

    That is just question begging, since we are arguing about whether their presence should be or ever have been illegal.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Whether their presence here is illegal is not up for debate. It is.

    The debate is over whether changes should be made in the future.

  • ||

    I'd be inclined to say that if they don't have title to vote, then they aren't required to pay taxes. But then the lines at the Citizenship Renunciation Office would be far too long for any bureaucracy to handle.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'd be inclined to say that if they don't have title to vote, then they aren't required to pay taxes.

    Never really understood that as a matter of principle, particularly when talking about someone who came to work here voluntarily. The income tax has nothing to do with voting, it's about benefitting from the economy the govt protects from theft, fraud, invasion, etc. (yes, I know)

  • ||

    And yet somehow we were able to have those protections for years until the powers that be decided an income tax was the way to go.

    I'm sorry, but no one should have to pay for the "privilege" of working to support themselves and their family.

    (I know your "yes, I know" is like a sld, at least I hope so)

  • KevinP||

    While this might work in principle, Class (5) will quickly vanish:

    a) President Obama and Eric Holder and their ideological kin will find some dubious basis on which to declare this unconstitutional or find an executive action to nullify it. No one will have standing to challenge their action. See: The illegal legalization of Dreamers by executive fiat.

    b) The next combination of Democratic Congress + President (e.g. 2008) will simply pass a law removing this disqualification from citizenship. The illegal alien lobbies will ensure that it will happen.

  • Paul.||

    Because the Jews have never, ever been on the wrong end of Big Government?

  • Paul.||

    The general German people were actually better off materially during the war than any other people of the waring nations, this was accomplished by looting the wealth of other countries.

    That didn't last very long, at all. Once Hitler invaded Russia, things took a very dark turn for the worse.

  • Paul.||

    The Holocaust was not a consequence of "big government." It was a consequence of hatred of the Jewish people.

    And that hatred of the Jewish people was allowed to manifest itself by an utter deference to political leadership and a concentration of power in central government.

    There are people that hate Jews... and other people now. Without the levers to massive power, they just sit in front of their TV and complain.

    Maintain a robust first and second amendment, and an adherence to limited government, and a democratic constituency literally can't do anything with their hate.

  • Paul.||

    Those sentences are in contradiction. A democratic constituency can end the first and second amendments.

    No they cannot. Not when you adhere to limited government which delegates itself with no powers to enact such a policy.

    As I said before, for most of Jewish history, the state was the protector of the Jews.

    The pharaoh's state of Egypt protected the Jews?

    The problem is not government, the problem is Jew hatred.

    You're misdirecting. Yes, hatred of Jews is a problem. But hatred of jews is as old as the old fucking testament. But not every society ended up with a holocaust. To have an institutional process for genocide requires... big government.

    And that's why the organized Jewish communities of most Western countries have been enthusiastic supporters of ridding the lands they live in of free speech where it pertains to views they do not like.

    A foolish persuit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The Holocaust was not a consequence of "big government." It was a consequence of hatred of the Jewish people.

    It's not an either-or.

    Anti-Semitism has been around for centuries; it's as old as the Diaspora itself. Some horrific deeds were done by European peasants (and wealthy people sometimes) against Jews, no doubt. But they were small ball compared to the Holocaust, which would have been impossible without big government.

    It would seem that big govt magnifies the evil nature of man more than anything else. Final solutions for some, class warfare for others.

  • Harun||

    I am Read History of the Jew by Paul Johnson, and you are correct that often the state or king was the protector of Jews in Europe, Africa, and Middle East.

  • Paul.||

    One reason is that the anti-immigrant animus of rabble-rousers like Ann Coulter.

    Maybe. Spend some time speaking to Team Red people in border states-- Arizona, Texas, hell, probably even New Mexico and there's a very strong secure-our-borders sentiment. And to some degree, they see the costs of illegal immigration first hand. The costs, of course, are a complicated subject but they do raise the ire of people who feel they're paying taxes to support what they see is a shadow population.

  • ||

    ...the 6.3 trillion that has to be spent...

    The what?

  • Christophe||

    You know, the entirety of the budget, plus the double secret 3 trillion in welfare for illegals.

    $6.3T/12M = $500M each.

    No wonder they want to come here! They get to live like kings at our expense.

  • PH2050||

    You're right, I think it's fucked up that felons lose their right to vote. Great point, James Cohen!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, we should totally make rights subordinate to team politics!

  • Agammamon||

    Yes, they violated an unjust law.

    I imagine that you believe that the slaves should have stayed on the plantation until 'officially' freed by the benevolent hand of the government.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There's a big difference between slavery and being kept from trespassing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Trespassing? So if I want to hire or rent to an illegal he is 'trespassing' when he comes to make that bargain with me?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If he crosses someone's property without their permission along the way, he's trespassed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    How about if he, like you whenever you go somewhere, travels public lands?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Public lands are not the issue here; the govt-managed border is.

    If I walk through Bob's, Charlotte's, Damon's, Eddie's, Fiona's, and George's tracts of land, and got permission from everyone but Charlotte, guess what, I've trespassed. The fact that another part of the path was legal doesn't matter.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Public lands are not the issue here; the govt-managed border is."

    That is simply question begging, the entire issue is whether public things like the border should be opened.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Cool, so you admit that your freedom of contract gripe is just a red herring?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No, if I want to contract with someone they will need access to public roads to get to me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You're free to make a lease contract with anyone you want. But the govt has no obligation to help your counterparty fulfill his end of the deal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They do not have to help, just not hinder. That is kind of the essence of libertarianism, no?

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa's all for the first amendment, but...
    And that "but" means Tulpa really doesn't get free markets.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Letting him cross their border sounds like help to me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Not stopping him=help?

    Wow.

  • Christophe||

    They don't call him Red Tony for nothing.

    Tony: "Not giving is taking. Not taking is giving."

    Tulpa: "Not stopping is helping."

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:25PM|#
    ..."I would say 200+ million."

    OK, Merkin, fess up.

  • Sevo||

    "Mexico population
    120.85 million (2012)"
    http://www.bing.com/search?q=p.....7835a1603f
    So, no one is left in Mexico,

    "Canadians make up about 0.5% of the world's total population.[2] Estimates have the population around 35 million as of December 2012.[3]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....da_by_year
    Canada has no one left to pump the oil out of those sands,
    And OMG, the landing craft on the CA shore!

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:54PM|#
    "I said Open Borders, as in open to the WORLD."

    Yeah, Merkin, we've heard your slimy crap before.
    Stuff it up your butt.

  • Agammamon||

    Good, I welcome them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's more ominous when you say that in a Dr. Evil voice.

  • Agammamon||

    I want 200 . . . *million* immigrants.


    Uh, I mean 200 BILLION!

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 10:43PM|#
    "Fun Fact: Average height decreased during the industrial period in both America and Europe, reflecting a decrease in the wealth of working classes during a period of "progress":"
    Uh, no. What you claim as fact is supposition. You should read what you post.

    "But Dalmia assured me that labor is not subject to the laws of supply and demand! You can increase the supply of labor and it's price will not be affected at all!"
    Cite missing.

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 10:58PM|#
    "You can't have your cake and eat it too. Small government, democracy, multiculturalism. Pick two."

    Assertion, not argument.

  • Agammamon||

    WE HAVE THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE FIRST CENTURY OF THE UNITED STATE'S EXISTENCE AS EVIDENCE.

    *You* don't have evidence to back up your claim that unrestricted immigration will destroy this country.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well said, Agammamon.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Right because a country with vast amounts of land to be settled, and a burgeoning industrial economy, and an exploding native population is totally comparable to the US in 2014.

  • Sevo||

    "Right because a country with vast amounts of land to be settled, and a burgeoning industrial economy, and an exploding native population is totally comparable to the US in 2014."

    OK, valid, but you've yet to suggest why there would be damage.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, yeah.

    We've got huuuge . . . tracts of land held by the federal government with nary a soul living on them.

    We have a huge burgeoning service sector.

    And you know how the US' population 'exploded' at that time - through IMMIGRATION!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    We've got huuuge . . . tracts of land held by the federal government with nary a soul living on them.

    Mostly tundra and desert. There's very little unoccupied land left that's conducive to human habitation.

    We have a huge burgeoning service sector.

    Leeching off the wealth we built up as an industrial powerhouse and exporter. Oh I forgot, it's part of the libertarian credo that trade deficits don't matter, because faerie dust or something.

    And you know how the US' population 'exploded' at that time - through IMMIGRATION!

    As Cohen said, it was mostly through an enormous birthrate among existing Americans.

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:31PM|#
    "You have no counterexample,"

    Uh, you made as assertion; I need no counter example for something you merely claim.
    You are Merkin, aren't you"

  • Paul.||

    What is the policy, exactly, that keeps multiculturalism away?

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:27PM|#
    What is the policy, exactly, that keeps multiculturalism away?
    "Japan has managed it pretty well since the end of the war."
    Along with a stagnant economy for the last 20 years.

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:59PM|#
    "That is actually propaganda, Japans Per Capita Growth rate on average has been about the same as America for the last decade."

    Nice cherry picking there, Merkin.
    Now, what sort of slimy racism are you promoting this evening?

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.8.14 @ 12:14AM|#
    "Don't reply to me anymore."

    Don't post lies anymore.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Japans Per Capita Growth rate on average has been about the same as America for the last decade.

    So, stagnant economy it is.

  • Paul.||

    Japan is culturally different than we are. Their current form of government was forced upon them by the U.S. after WWII, but their core culture and ethos can't be stamped out.

    I'm not sure emulating a tribal, warrior culture is really a possibility here.

  • Agammamon||

    Plus, ask the Ainu how nice it is to live in a place that you're *native* to and have the other natives treat you like shit. No casinos for them!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    "The weak and cowardly have no place in shuffleboard, sir."

  • Christophe||

    Bullshit. There is zero evidence that you can have both small government & democracy in the long run.

    The real choice is small government or unfettered democracy. Pick one.

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:06PM|#
    ..."But people here"...

    Cite missing.
    Sorry, you seem very certain of 'facts' which are not and quite certain others have made claims which you don't show.
    What is your point?

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 10:35PM|#
    "More often big governments were the only thing standing between the Jews and the peasants, who hated them."

    Uh, that doesn't require "big" government.
    I'm pretty sure by now you've started with a point and have wasted quite a bit of time not really proving it, but offering one bit of mendacity after the other in an attempt at sleight-of-hand.
    Once more, what is your point? And are you Merkin in a new suit?

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 11:30PM|#
    "You obviously know very little about Jewish history."

    'Hey! Look over there!'
    Any more sleazy attempts at misdirection? Or are you going to answer the question?

  • Sevo||

    James Cohen|2.8.14 @ 12:01AM|#
    "I already answered the question but because you know so little about Jewish history you were incapable of understanding it."

    No, Merkin, you did nothing of the sort.
    I'm copying your comments so when they toss your ass again, people reading the thread will have some idea of the crap you post.

  • Derpetologist||

    I have trouble coming up with a single example of a government that protected Jews.

    The Romans massacred them and drove them from their homeland.

    The Muslims massacred and forcibly converted many.

    The Spanish killed them during the Inquisition and then expelled the rest from the country.

    Czarist Russia did nothing to protect them from pogroms.

    And on it goes.

  • Derpetologist||

    Really? If they were the elite, why did they get expelled from Spain? Or confined to a ghetto in Rome by the Pope? Or banned from numerous professions throughout Europe?

    There were never part of the elite.

  • SweatingGin||

    Show us on the doll where the jew touched you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Show us on the doll where the jew touched you.

    Does the doll have a foreskin?

  • SweatingGin||

    How do you think a small tribe on the east end of the Mediterranean, descended, genetics tells us, from less than 5,000 settlers, became a nation of fourteen million in 1939?

    Duh, the tetragramaton was good at Civ (IV) and got a couple of crucial technologies early. Then sent missionaries everywhere, so he wouldn't have to worry about money.

  • PH2050||

    LMAO best response evar!

  • PH2050||

    That was in response to SG's Civilization reference.

  • SweatingGin||

    PH2050|2.8.14 @ 1:00AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    That was in response to SG's Civilization reference.

    Thank you, Fram.

  • PH2050||

    Haha, if you prefer to think of me as the oil filter I'm cool with it.

    BTW it's Tetragrammaton and I wish I could get his (His?) starting bonuses.

  • PH2050||

    HOLY FUCK IS THAT YOUR BLOG?!

    SOBER PRIVILEGE, THAT IS GENIUS!

  • SweatingGin||

    PH2050|2.8.14 @ 1:43AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    HOLY FUCK IS THAT YOUR BLOG?!

    SOBER PRIVILEGE, THAT IS GENIUS!

    I lollled.

    No, not mine. Just a fan.

  • Derpetologist||

    Jews weren't part of the Muslim court. They were second-class citizens who were tolerated. There was never a Jewish king who ruled over Muslim subjects.

    As for your second point, the answer is population growth.

  • Derpetologist||

    Exponential growth. Even if we take you bullshit claim about a starting population of 5,000, it would only need to double 11 times to get above 10 million.

    England had about 1 million people in the year 1000 and had about 50 by 1939.

  • PH2050||

    Math is hard for racists herp derp

  • Harun||

    Are you sure that Jews were never part of the Muslim court?

    In Baghdad, the caliph made people respect the Jewish leadership there and made people bow down when the leader came to visit the Caliph (who was higher, of course.)

    In Egypt they often were doctors to the Caliph...that's very close to being part of the court.

    History is a really, really long time.

  • Harun||

    You need to read History of the Jews by Paul Johnson...really great book by a great historian.

    Jews were often protected by the state who viewed them as an easy source of taxes.

    The state sometimes failed, especially during times of religious upheaval.

    Though at other times, the state was the oppressor, for sure.

  • Almanian!||

    Ah - this must be the retard thread tonight. You kids try not to hurt yourselves - I'll head elsewhere.

  • Sevo||

    I called american socialist names over on the "O-care/unemployment" thread.
    Maybe the asshole has returned the favor.

  • jester||

    Effing up the economy seems to be the best deterrent to immigration. These supposed potentially ignorant immigrant voters will inadvertently and effectively close the border by not making anyone want to relo to the USA.
    So all you immigrant haters should love economy destroying policies. You fit right in to current policy.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, everybody! Merkin's got a new handle!
    Same slimy racism.

  • ||

    ITT: JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZZ TUK UR JERB HERR DERRR HERRR *derp*

  • Sevo||

    So you agree it smells sort of, shall we say, ripe?

  • Sevo||

    No blind links; what might that be?

  • Agammamon||

    Given the commenters name, does it matter? I'm not clicking on it.

  • ||

    It's a retarded Yahoo Answers link. 10/10 would laugh at derp again.

  • SweatingGin||

    DEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!!!!!

  • Derpetologist||

    I love it when liberals pretend to be racists.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    My first thought. She's probably making a video about how racist libertarians are.

  • playa manhattan||

    Like I said before, my bad. But he needs to learn to hit the reply button.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    But he needs to learn to hit the reply button.

    Meh, that's his thing. It's not that annoying as long as it's just him.

    For the life of me, I don't understand why people prefer non threaded comments to threaded.

  • SweatingGin||

    For the life of me, I don't understand why people prefer non threaded comments to threaded

    I, too, miss the more civilized days before the threading.

    And I long to return to those days.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    How do you know who's replying to whom?

  • SweatingGin||

    Francisco d Anconia|2.8.14 @ 1:35AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    How do you know who's replying to whom?

    Not knowing is the best part. Like a glory hole.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's usually fairly obvious to all but the dullest readers.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That was a reply to Francisco d Anconia.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That would point to either Messiah-grade powers over trolls (rather than demons), or the trolls being a creation of those same persons.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Back when registration started there was some scuttlebut about certain commenters having the ability to identify and eliminate the disruptive trolls. Both names were bandied about. I don't know for sure if it was real or was in jest, but I've seen some evidence suggesting it's real.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Wait, they have moderator powers is what you're suggesting? My continued existence on the forum is proof to the contrary.

    I wouldn't trust Epi with a superhuman goldfish, let alone a high visibility blog.

  • SweatingGin||

    I wouldn't trust Epi with a superhuman goldfish, let alone a high visibility blog.

    Nice to know you're still human, and will presumably be on the human side in the SkyEpi wars.

  • Agammamon||

    Nice to know you're still human, and will presumably be on the human side in the SkyEpi wars.

    It doesn't matter who wins - we lose.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Wait, they have moderator powers is what you're suggesting?

    Yes.

    You are a first class ass, but you aren't disruptive. Same with a handful of others.

  • ||

    You're not all bad Tulpa.

  • playa manhattan||

    ?Que?

  • SweatingGin||

    Didn't his response seem a little knowing? (paraphrasing) "Don't know what you're talking about...I didn't see anything..."

    Jebus. It's like we live in a Soviet Surveillance State... OH SHIT.

  • Lou Dobz||

    "Jebus. It's like we live in a Soviet Surveillance State... OH SHIT."

    Free minds and free markets.
    And secret mods.
    And snitches!

  • playa manhattan||

    The response was a little bit muted. If it were me, I would be on the warpath, or at least a little bit curious. He has a lot of practice being a dick to people on the internet, though.

    I would like to think that he was out enjoying the Super Bowl victory with his buddies, and was too hung over the next morning to give a fuck.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I would bet money that post-registration Tony is one or more regulars pulling our collective legs. He seemed to lose a lot of the zip in his arguments and now is just a tired shell of his former self.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I think Tony is real. I've seen him come back to dead threads. Socks wouldn't do that.

  • playa manhattan||

    That's the only logical thing she does. John is probably at work by 9am EST, and Epi probably doesn't roll out of bed until 10am PST on some mornings. She's gotta allocate the troll resources efficiently...

  • SweatingGin||

    Long day for Mary. She should get at least $15/hour. OH SHIT.

  • playa manhattan||

    It's possible that she already does, from OFA.

  • Udi Beano||

    That's a very good comment and my inbred cousin Mary lost her job strangling rabbits and found out about this great opportunity. I can't believe she made $68982 just last month working on the computer from home for $388 an hour.

  • SweatingGin||

    Udi Beano|2.8.14 @ 1:59AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    That's a very good comment and my inbred cousin Mary lost her job strangling rabbits and found out about this great opportunity. I can't believe she made $68982 just last month working on the computer from home for $388 an hour.

    Still Strangling rabbits? 'cause if so, I bet we can get above $388 per hour. At like 100 rabbits per week. Paying clean money for a source of rabbits.

  • playa manhattan||

    Thank you for this, whoever you are.

  • Gene||

    5 bucks says you will be deleted by the time I get home from work, in about an hour.

  • Gene||

    Oh well.

  • Lou Dobz||

    In Soviet Reason, the politburo and the gulag are separated by a single comment.

  • Agammamon||

    So anyway - I got into The Elder Scrolls Online beta.

  • SweatingGin||

    So, I got Rush TimeMachine / Live 2011.

  • SweatingGin||

    Alex looks old as fuck in 2011. Neil and Geddy merely look old.

    Mrs. Gin commented on the washing machines behind them. "yes, those are washing machines".

    Camera men made a valiant effort to find all 4 women in the audience.

  • Agammamon||

    So, sounds as meh and disappointing as TESO is.

  • SweatingGin||

    The Extra Special Olympics?

    It's fine as a concert. Musicianship is tight, sound is good. They look old,but not any older than, say, Rolling Stones.

  • Agammamon||

    So they look like soulless monsters who have thrown off the shackles of mortality and will live a deathless existence feeding off the life-force of concert attendees?

  • Christophe||

    NTTAWWT

  • PH2050||

    Damn dude, it sucks? I'm no Skyrim fanboy but I haz a sad. I was picturing Morrowind and Oblivion with my friends and you just shattered my dreams.

  • Agammamon||

    It *doesn't* suck. Its just meh and certainly not worth the subscription fee.

    If it was a GW type of deal - pay once and play or even f2p it'd be a decent competitor to other MMO offerings.

  • PH2050||

    I did WoW for years, I thought GW was decent but didn't have the time, now the only one I play and pay a sub for is EVE Online. You thinking about checking out Star Citizen or Wildstar?

  • Agammamon||

    I've applied for the Wildstar beta but no response yet. And I'm looking at Star Citizen but its not multiplayer I thought.

    I played Eve for a while but it seems (at least to me) that you can't really play 'casually'. Either you're an active member of a corp or you stay in carebear space because going into low-sec alone gets you eaten alive.

  • PH2050||

    I would have to agree with your assessment of EVE Online - even in carebear mode you can get suicide ganked and there are tons of people who do just that, usually bored douches with tons of ISK and waiting on long skills to train. It's why I think the game will never really catch on like other MMOs; it's too punishing to new players.

  • SweatingGin||

    I had the right idea. surrogate EVE addict. Had a coworker get addicted to eve so I din't have to.

    Eve Learning Curve

  • Agammamon||

    I had the right idea. surrogate EVE addict. Had a coworker get addicted to eve so I din't have to.

    The best part of the Eve experience is the news stories anyway.

    For example, that last big battle they had. Reads like some awesome dystopian sci-fi story. Power grabs, incompetence, massive war caused by someone's fuck-up.

    The reality is so many people were there that the game basically slows to a crawl (they slow the game clock in places with a large server load) so actions that normally would take seconds to execute now take *minutes*.

  • SweatingGin||

    Indeed. Best experienced through a surrogate Orphan.

    Don't forget massive heists of ill-gotten-gains!

  • PH2050||

    If there is a deity I will sacrifice my firstborn to it for Blizzard to make a "World of StarCraft"...been wanting that ever since Ghost got cancelled.

  • Agammamon||

    Five years ago I would have done the same. And I'd actually have to *get* a firstborn first.

    After Diablo 3 though . . .

  • PH2050||

    Right?! But a guy can dream, can't he?

    Path of Exile is fun as hell though and f2p.

  • PH2050||

    I'm jelly, give me a review.

  • Agammamon||

    Combat is more than just hitting a hotbar rotation - its pretty Skyrimy - and you can move around while attacking (which is rare in an MMO).

    Skills are improved by using them (TES standard) but you only *level up* by gaining XP - can only unlock new skills this way.

    You're pretty much locked into a scripted story with no real escape. I guess once you reach the end of the story you're expected to do nothing but raids.

    The story, so far is ridiculous. I'm killed and sent to a version of this world's hell and have to escape - not too bad a start. Except I happen to escape at *exactly* the right time as this other dude who happens to be really powerful, but he needs my help anyway. Sketchy, but I'm in hell and I'll take that risk.

    Then I get back to reality - I'm still shackled into this guy's agenda. This guy I know absolutely nothing about. No way to not do what he wants short of just not playing the game. Apparently the story is predicated on me somehow knowing that he's not going to betray me and that his goals are something I care to further. Typical 'but though must' gameplay.

    Then I get dumped among a band of pirates. But 'good' pirates (the dude tells me he senses 'no real malice' from them). Good pirates that kill and rob people (but the deserved it and not while I was around so that makes it ok? Like Captain Jack Sparrow's crew!).

    I'm throwing up in my mouth a little bit just thinking about the shit I've had to read.

  • Agammamon||

    No open world at all. Everything is level-gated. That means your starter areas will be empty unless you can keep a constant influx of new players after the initial surge at release - and you never can. Dead starter areas means the new players you do get get pissed off because there's no-one to play with so they leave.

    It looks pretty decent (visually), especially after seeing the mess that was TOR.

    Stealth is worthless (par for the course for an MMO) except for backstabby rogues.

    Forced into classes - though supposedly you can branch out, I'm not seeing it. Very un-TES-like that.

    Final review - its gonna crash faster than Warhammer Online.

  • playa manhattan||

    WTF are you guys talking about?

  • PH2050||

    He's basically crushing my dreams of what I thought Elder Scrolls Online would be like.

  • Agammamon||

    A computer game. Shush now and go back to your real world with drinking and women and sex in it.

  • playa manhattan||

    My wife has a baby inside of her. I don't really have any sex in my "real world".

  • Agammamon||

    But you had sex, at least once, right?

    If not, get ye to a lawyer!

  • SweatingGin||

    playa manhattan|2.8.14 @ 2:07AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    My wife has a baby inside of her. I don't really have any sex in my "real world".
    Agammamon|2.8.14 @ 2:12AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    But you had sex, at least once, right?

    Powned. Fuck all of you threaded comment advocates. P. Brookes++

  • playa manhattan||

    I meant my "current real world". My other kids look so much like me, I'm not even sure they're hers.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Wait until she gets around 6 or 7 months or so.

  • Derpetologist||

    Let's pivot to something slightly less retarded than late night trolls- like Aaron Sorkin's Newsroom. Here, we learn that the OKC bombing and the assassination of Ronald Reagan were the result of Christian extremists:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpZJOAkAVsA

  • ||

    What's that...I don't even...huh?

  • Derpetologist||

    It's derp, my friend! Fabulous, magnificent, splendid derp!

  • Lou Dobz||

    It's a drama, not a documentary.
    Funny how so many people don't know the difference.

  • ||

    It's fucktarded is what it is.

  • PH2050||

    Fuck, you are making my head hurt with all these videos and I'm running out of alcohol.

  • Derpetologist||

    Have no fear! Watching Newsroom clips has the same effect on the brain as chugging a bottle of pop-skull plastic bottle vodka. Here's their take on libertarians and Ron Paul:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9ERbWTsClU

  • SweatingGin||

    I couldb't read that without thinking "Have no fear, Underzog is here!"

  • PH2050||

    "THOSE CRAZY LIBERTARIANS AND THAT LOONY RON PAUL!"

    /cue eye-roll

    Dat propaganda. Fuck Sorkin and all those writers.

  • PH2050||

    I hold no religious beliefs but that is just crazy as fuck to say that...wait a minute...dude notice the weasel way he says "done by Christians" about the last 3 events, differentiating them from shit like the KKK and Neo-Nazis where he says "done in the name of white Christian supremacy"

  • PH2050||

    *last 4 events, whatever

  • Derpetologist||

    Yeah, kinda interesting how they gloss over the fact the Hinckley was trying to impress Jodie Foster and Chapman was inspired by Catcher in the Rye. And McVeigh was an agnostic who said science was his religion.

    And the whole "we weren't attacked by Muslims" thing- pure derp gold.

  • PH2050||

    LOL so let's ignore *Bin Laden's stated reason for the attack* and act like their religion had nothing to do with it. I'm sure it's super easy to convince guys to die for infidels occupying a holy land they don't even believe in!

  • playa manhattan||

    The sickle and hammer part is on now (on the west coast).

  • PH2050||

    So now I'm hating on you for not only your better weather (I'm freezing my ass off in Colorado) but also I preferred the times various things came on television when I lived in California.

  • playa manhattan||

    In this case, you got it an hour earlier. The parade of nations was a snooze fest (outside of some good looking womenz).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I disagreed with the commentators on the meaning of the giant cylindrical locomotive during the "Russian history lesson in interpretive dance" that followed. It doesn't represent propaganda, it's Putin's schlong. Duh.

  • PH2050||

    Lol, Tulpa did you see the athlete that's supposedly his girlfriend? Pretty hot IMO

  • PH2050||

    Ha, that's the only reason why I watched. I usually can't stand sports because it makes me feel othered due to my inability to play any.

  • playa manhattan||

    I liked Brazil and Sweden, among others.

  • PH2050||

    My ex-wife is Brazilian.

    Don't fall for that gorgeous booty, IT'S A TRAP

  • SweatingGin||

    WOLVERINES!

  • playa manhattan||

    Maria Sharpova bringing in the torch, eh? I hope she gets home soon (so I can see her at Starbucks).

  • Agammamon||

    Has anyone noticed that Lonewacko has written himself a page in the Reason wiki?

    http://reason-magazine.wikia.com/wiki/Lonewacko

  • PH2050||

    Wow, I didn't even know there was a Reason wiki. That's funny as hell.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It looks like Lonewacko started it.

  • playa manhattan||

    Is that easily defaceable? I don't know anything about wikia.

  • playa manhattan||

    I answered my own question. Check out the last sentence.

  • PH2050||

    Lol, EPIC

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Why no entry for lobster girl

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    The Lonewacko entry seems to be the ONLY entry. Did he blank the rest of the wiki?

  • ||

    We had another wiki with lobster girl in it.

    No idea what happened to it. Looks like it has been deleted and taken over by bronies.

    http://reason.wikia.com

    I totally wrote a bunch of lies about her in it.

  • Agammamon||

    I thought we had a 'real' wiki somewhere. You know, one with more than one entry.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    meet the aussie Justin Bieber

  • SweatingGin||

    Not sure I buy it being written by lone wacko.

  • SweatingGin||

    Should be here.

  • playa manhattan||

    So you do like threaded comments.

  • PH2050||

    Did Lonewacko always talk about immigration? That's what the blog that's linked is mainly about.

  • Agammamon||

    Eh, sometimes about The JOOOZ!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Don't tell me you actually went to his blog...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Night.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • SweatingGin||

    The Canucks/Oilers game is over. Go to bed Canada. Grapes is sleeping. Rob McClean is almost asleep. Good night, Canada.

    Go to sleep, you hosers.

  • SweatingGin||

    Goodnight, Francisco.

  • playa manhattan||

    You'll be back.

  • ||

    warm Thomas Hobbes heart

    Leave Hobbes alone!!!

  • RishJoMo||

    Sometimes mdude you jsut have to roll with it.
    www.Anon-Works.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement