Come on now that was a great speech

[HisArpy]

My guiding economic and political philosophies are very close to those of our founders.

So, you're saying that it's ok to be publicly humiliated and pilloried for engaging in non-marital sex? For your information, the meaning of "stocks and bonds" is somewhat different today.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, you're saying that it's ok to be publicly humiliated and pilloried for engaging in non-marital sex? For your information, the meaning of "stocks and bonds" is somewhat different today.

This is an insane reply replete and full of ignorance.

Like so many today, you want to nationalize local examples to tar the whole.

Have you even read The Federalist Papers?

 

[HisArpy]

More like, "I saw it in the NYT/Snopes/Wikipedia/RationalWiki so it's true." And it almost always is.

I stand by my former statement. IRL is NOT the interwebz. Reading and believing what someone else says doesn't make it true. 500 years ago, the common wisdom of most publications and scholars and theorists was that the world was flat.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Are you one of those people who believe:

The Catholic Church should be defined by a few Priests?

Islam should be judged by the radical element?

White people should be judged by the KKK?

Black people should be judged by Calypso Louie???

 

[HisArpy]

This is an insane reply replete and full of ignorance.

Like so many today, you want to nationalize local examples to tar the whole.

Have you even read The Federalist Papers?

First, it was meant to be humorous. This IS lit after all...

Second, the founding fathers had all sorts of irrational ideas that made their way into the nation. Extra marital sex is a solid part of the national makeup. The ideas of the puritans STILL resonate today in obscenity laws, nude beaches and on and on and on.

The 3/5ths compromise is another example of the ideology of the founders not being in step with today. Women's suffrage is another.

You cannot come here and proclaim that your personal ideology follows that of the founders without also acknowledging that their ideology was flawed in some way or another else we wouldn't have seen the changes we've wrought as a nation in the last 200 years. Stasis is stupid both economically and politically.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I stand by my former statement. IRL is NOT the interwebz. Reading and believing what someone else says doesn't make it true.

It usually does if "someone else" is a scientist addressing matters within his field of expertise, an MSM journalist, or a contributor to an iteratively-corrected online encyclopedia or similar source. Those are reliable sources. What they say is almost always true, and you know it.

Consensus reality. Learn it. Live it. Be it. For every Galileo there are at least a thousand Timecube Guys.

500 years ago, the common wisdom of most publications and scholars and theorists was that the world was flat.

No, it wasn't.

Medieval Europeans did not believe Earth was flat; in fact, from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, belief in a spherical Earth remained almost universal among European intellectuals. As a result, Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.[124] If the Americas had not existed, he would surely have run out of supplies before reaching Asia.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/misconceptions.png

 

[HisArpy]

Are you one of those people who believe:

The Catholic Church should be defined by a few Priests?

Islam should be judged by the radical element?

White people should be judged by the KKK?

Black people should be judged by Calypso Louie???

The public FACE of the church (or any institution) will ALWAYS be defined by their actions. If a few pedo priests are not discouraged, revealed or punished, what conclusion should the general public draw? Denial in the face of ongoing and continued misfeasance doesn't change that perception no matter how much you want it to.

ISLAM isn't being judged. The people involved in TERRORISM are.

I could go on but I'll stop because I have other things to do and you should get the point I'm making. But, in case you don't, spin works if the one who believes wants to believe.

 

[HisArpy]

It usually does if "someone else" is a scientist addressing matters within his field of expertise, an MSM journalist, or a contributor to an iteratively-corrected online encyclopedia or similar source. Those are reliable sources. What they say is almost always true.

Consensus reality. Learn it. Live it. Be it. For every Galileo there are at least a thousand Timecube Guys.

Like Bill Nye, the science guy, saying global warming is settled science? When the scientific community as a whole disagrees?

No, it wasn't.

Yes it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century.

Apparently you can't count. The 1600's (17th century) were only ~ 400 years ago. I knew this and you apparently didn't.

Like I said, your google skills are pretty good. But you lack real life knowledge. With real life experiences you learn about things called skepticism and analysis. Because without those (and a few other mad skilz) you're as easy to con as a midwest farmgirl fresh off the bus in NYC.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Like Bill Nye, the science guy, saying global warming is settled science? When the scientific community as a whole disagrees?

The scientific community as a whole agrees.

Yes it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth



Apparently you can't count. The 1600's (17th century) were only ~ 400 years ago. I knew this and you apparently didn't.

Like I said, your google skills are pretty good. But you lack real life knowledge. With real life experiences you learn about things called skepticism and analysis. Because without those (and a few other mad skilz) you're as easy to con as a midwest farmgirl fresh off the bus in NYC.

You wrote of "the common wisdom of most publications and scholars and theorists." All such in Europe in Columbus' day knew the Earth is round. Only uneducated peasants might have thought otherwise, if they thought about the matter at all. And not even they would have thought it in the 1600s; even peasants would have heard of the discovery of the New World. (The flat-Earth theory might have persisted longer in Asia and Africa.)

And I'm a personal injury lawyer and used to be a newspaper reporter. That adds up to a lot of real-life knowledge.

 

[EternalFantasies]

My guiding economic and political philosophies are very close to those of our founders.

Those are not exact science. They are also contextual, with hopes of progress. Which makes the contemporary version rather debatable. No?

Ludwig von Mises made Economics an exact Science when he united micro and macroeconomics.

The only thing that makes economics in the future unpredictable is Human Action.

But the laws are pretty much immutable.

Your initial foundation / claim is that they are close to the founders' concepts/intentions, etc. So my reply is to that, not whether economics is an exact science or not.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ludwig von Mises did not make economics scientific. His Austrian school is entirely pseudoscientific and non-falsifiable, working from axioms and rejecting empirical evidence as irrelevant. You get to do that in math, but not in science. Scientists base their theories on what they observe, not on what they assume, and not on what they want to believe.

"Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith."

—Paul Krugman, "Fine Austrian Whines"[1]

Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is a school of economic thought that eschews mathematical modeling and empirical testing in favor of a narrative approach termed "praxeology."[2][3]

Libertarianism is a very simple idea, backed up by a mountain of econobabble for the purpose of shoehorning that simple idea into every situation possible. Enter the Austrian school. Some, like Gary Becker, thought basic economic models could and should be applied to everything in life, no matter how mundane.[4]

As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify through empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), it is generally considered to be a heterodox approach[5] or outright pseudoscience. Austrian arguments as to why statistical methods cannot adequately describe human behavior can seem intuitively compelling, but they fail to provide the mathematical proof demonstrating why normally unbiased estimates suddenly become biased simply because they are dealing with people who make decisions. In this sense, the Austrian school is to economics as a certain other Austrian school was to psychology. Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding,[6] and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs.

 

[Conager]

Ludwig von Mises did not make economics scientific. His Austrian school is entirely pseudoscientific and non-falsifiable, working from axioms and rejecting empirical evidence as irrelevant. You get to do that in math, but not in science. Scientists base their theories on what they observe, not on what they assume, and not on what they want to believe.

This has layer upon layer of wrong I wouldn't even know where to begin.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This has layer upon layer of wrong I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Begin where you like; I'll be patient.

 

[Adre]

Begin where you like; I'll be patient.

Oh, Lord, this will be ten thousand words of bullshit I won't read.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Begin where you like; I'll be patient.

In fact, I'll start a whole new thread for the purpose.

 

[zipman]

The speech was a mix of patriotic platitudes, fear mongering, lies and exaggerations.

What was good about it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

The speech was a mix of patriotic platitudes, fear mongering, lies and exaggerations.

What was good about it?

He didn't once say "bigly."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Calling illegal immigration a victimless crime does not imply an open-borders policy. And you're insane if you want 11 million people deported; that would be really bad for the economy.

If farmers can't hire immigrant labor, you're going to find yourself paying a lot more for produce. And if you need any home improvement or landscaping work done cheap, you're gonna be really disappointed with the absence of Mexicans in the Home Depot parking lot. And, Mexico being a major trading partner, what is bad for their economy is not good for ours.

Since these two statements were posted four minutes apart, I am assuming they are related.

My question is why? What does employing millions of legal immigrants have to do with deporting illegal aliens who have knowingly violated our laws? Are you actually implying that farmers have no method by which to hire seasonal immigrant laborers legally under current immigration law? You've never heard of H-2A and H-2B visas?

And you're a lawyer?

Speaking of which, rather than emphasizing the alleged "victimless" nature of illegal residency would you do me the courtesy of applying your legal analytical skills to the sovereign right and wisdom of ANY country, including the United States, to set any and all conditions for the entry of foreign nationals into its borders including the establishment and enforcement of civil and criminal penalties for the willful violation of those conditions?

Because this is a philosophical and legal question your side blatantly ignores. Quite simply, are the existence of immigration laws "reasonable" on their face? If so, why are the enforcement of those laws any LESS so?

By all means, in your discussion feel free to offer legitimate reasons why someone is compelled to violate those laws and why the aggrieved government should feel "responsively compelled" to ignore enforcement of those laws as a result, and, finally, give it your best shot as to exactly HOW that extreme, "desperate-but-rational" compulsion actually applies to EACH of the alleged 11 million people facing deportation.

Of course you're not going to do that because you can't possibly know the details that would mitigate for or against enforcement of the law relative to 11 million specific individuals.

Which is why the blanket amnesty toward 11 million people is every bit as foolish as deporting every last one of them, isn't it?

Just nod your head "yes" if you agree.

Thank you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since these two statements were posted four minutes apart, I am assuming they are related.

My question is why? What does employing millions of legal immigrants have to do with deporting illegal aliens who have knowingly violated our laws? Are you actually implying that farmers have no method by which to hire seasonal immigrant laborers legally under current immigration law? You've never heard of H-2A and H-2B visas?

It's a matter of supply. Most of the kinds of immigrants who do farm work are probably undocumented. There's nothing a farmer can do to regularize their status.

Speaking of which, rather than emphasizing the alleged "victimless" nature of illegal residency would you do me the courtesy of applying your legal analytical skills to the sovereign right and wisdom of ANY country, including the United States, to set any and all conditions for the entry of foreign nationals into its borders including the establishment and enforcement of civil and criminal penalties for the willful violation of those conditions?

I am not questioning the legitimacy of the government's authority to deport 11 million people, I am saying it is a very bad idea. It's a policy question, not a legal question

 

[HisArpy]

And I'm a personal injury lawyer and used to be a newspaper reporter. That adds up to a lot of real-life knowledge.

Two things to say to this.

One is that I will not say whether I believe your professional standing or not. HOWEVER, if you are an attorney, then you know that people disagree over facts all the time and that YOUR OPINION is worthless. Citing to studies, experts and the like cannot overcome that lack of value on it's face. It is only when you can convince others that your version of the facts is the most correct that you win. Note that I said most correct, not THE correct. Your constant single view diatribe and citations to internet authority ignore competing sources that you don't like in order to spin your OPINION as the only facts that are available.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. Nor can you substitute opinion for facts.

Secondly, journalists are the most UNethical people I've ever dealt with. They falsely proclaim journalistic ETHICS while allowing deceit and falsity to be the mainstream of their existence. Citing to that as a past endeavor on your part wins you no love from this IP address.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The speech was a mix of patriotic platitudes, fear mongering, lies and exaggerations.

What was good about it?

You beautiful little man.

Just when I was thinking I have lost my favorite snow flake to laugh at you show up with your tear stained face and babbling lies.

Thank you!!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Two things to say to this.

One is that I will not say whether I believe your professional standing or not. HOWEVER, if you are an attorney, then you know that people disagree over facts all the time and that YOUR OPINION is worthless. Citing to studies, experts and the like cannot overcome that lack of value on it's face.

Of course they can. If I'm trying to persuade a judge as to a matter of scientific or historical fact, that is exactly the kind of proof I will present and that will be most persuasive.

It is only when you can convince others that your version of the facts is the most correct that you win.

The facts are the facts regardless of who accepts or rejects them and regardless of who "wins" a debate.

Secondly, journalists are the most UNethical people I've ever dealt with. They falsely proclaim journalistic ETHICS while allowing deceit and falsity to be the mainstream of their existence. Citing to that as a past endeavor on your part wins you no love from this IP address.

My experience of them has been entirely otherwise. MSM journalists worship the truth. Reporting something that turns out not to be true is an occasion of the deepest shame (and potentially exposes the journalist and publication to liability for libel).

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's a matter of supply. Most of the kinds of immigrants who do farm work are probably undocumented. There's nothing a farmer can do to regularize their status.

But since we clearly have a program DESIGNED specifically for these laborers, why would you not support their continued deportation as a reasonable means to force a higher degree of compliance with that program by the illegals themselves? It is THEIR responsibility, first and foremost, to obey the law, not the farmers. Are you going to tell me that the H-2A and H-2B visa programs place an undue burden on the very workers they are designed to assist?

I am not questioning the legitimacy of the government's authority to deport 11 million people, I am saying it is a very bad idea as a matter of public policy.

I don't think President Trump is even suggesting anything different. So is it bad policy to deport ANY of those 11 million? You got an acceptable number off the top of your head?

 

[HisArpy]

It's a matter of supply. Most of the kinds of immigrants who do farm work are probably undocumented. There's nothing a farmer can do to regularize their status.

Excuse me? Try NOT HIRING them unless they can produce valid ID's and can pass the eVerify check.

 

[KingOrfeo]

But since we clearly have a program DESIGNED specifically for these laborers, why would you not support their continued deportation as a reasonable means to force a higher degree of compliance with that program by the illegals themselves? It is THEIR responsibility, first and foremost, to obey the law, not the farmers. Are you going to tell me that the H-2A and H-2B visa programs place an undue burden on the very workers they are designed to assist?

Of course it does, it's a guest-worker program, i.e., a form of peonage; it provides no path to citizenship, time spent in the U.S. under it does not count as time in residence for citizenship purposes, workers have no rights under it, and if you make any trouble the boss can have you deported.