White supremacy

[246corndog]

As long as their are no physical attacks, it falls under free speech. Please not "free' speech does not imply intelligent speech.

This. I do not understand it but I cant really stop it either.

[The Black Forrest]

So much for the whole New Colossus thing, ya know this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[from the sonnet at the Statue of Liberty]

We have enough people and we can be picky these days.

No more immigrants from bad nations either. We should have a 'bad nation list' and nobody from this list would get work/study permits.

The new poem should read: "Give me your educated, your rich, your higher classes yearning to breath free, the wanted people of your teeming shore (so long as this shore is not on the national 'bad nation list') send these, the ambitious, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door and to all else NO VACANCY."

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

[The Black Forrest]

Well yes.... should a white supremacist be saying "blacks are inferior" while beating a black person to death with a baseball bat; it will not be for the verbiage that I will be advocating his arrest and trial.

And judge and put to jail for "racist" crime. Of course.

Will a white being beaten to death by a black will got the same sentence and the exact same trial ?

Hate crime? Sure if there are witnesses to the crime who report that......

[Curiosityness]

Should you be able to be a white supremacist? Yes.
Should you be a white supremacist? No.

bout sums it up

[Freiheit Reich]

Well yes.... should a white supremacist be saying "blacks are inferior" while beating a black person to death with a baseball bat; it will not be for the verbiage that I will be advocating his arrest and trial.

And judge and put to jail for "racist" crime. Of course.

Will a white being beaten to death by a black will got the same sentence and the exact same trial ?

Good point. The hate crime laws are wrong because they make it worse that you are beating a man because of his skin tone or religion instead of simply because you were angry he was playing his music too loud in front of your house or wore a shirt you disliked.

[Trefeqia]

I can't understand if your saying if white supremacy should be illegal or if it's right or wrong. It should be legal, but supremacy is still wrong.

[Tekania]

Well yes.... should a white supremacist be saying "blacks are inferior" while beating a black person to death with a baseball bat; it will not be for the verbiage that I will be advocating his arrest and trial.

And judge and put to jail for "racist" crime. Of course.

Will a white being beaten to death by a black will got the same sentence and the exact same trial ?

If the situation were identical, I would advocate as much.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And judge and put to jail for "racist" crime. Of course.

Will a white being beaten to death by a black will got the same sentence and the exact same trial ?

Good point. The hate crime laws are wrong because they make it worse that you are beating a man because of his skin tone or religion instead of simply because you were angry he was playing his music too loud in front of your house or wore a shirt you disliked.

That's not how hate crimes work.

[Hallistar]

And judge and put to jail for "racist" crime. Of course.

Will a white being beaten to death by a black will got the same sentence and the exact same trial ?

Good point. The hate crime laws are wrong because they make it worse that you are beating a man because of his skin tone or religion instead of simply because you were angry he was playing his music too loud in front of your house or wore a shirt you disliked.

Hate crime laws are the way they are because those who commit crimes based on hate against a race or religion are a greater threat to that group's safety.
If someone seriously injures a person of another ethnicity because of their ethnicity, then the person who committed the injury will most likely repeat it again against another person of the differing ethnicity.

I don't know why beating up someone simply because of a shirt you disliked or that they were playing music too loud in front of your house would be that much better, however.

[Tekania]

And judge and put to jail for "racist" crime. Of course.

Will a white being beaten to death by a black will got the same sentence and the exact same trial ?

Good point. The hate crime laws are wrong because they make it worse that you are beating a man because of his skin tone or religion instead of simply because you were angry he was playing his music too loud in front of your house or wore a shirt you disliked.

I would have no issue with advocating hate crime enhancement on a black supremacist saying "whites are inferior" while beating a white person to death with a baseball bat.

EDIT: As a note, the above sentence is intended to be the black person beating the white person with the bat..... and my advocating.... not that I am advocating that enhancement while I myself am beating the white person with the bat.

[Freiheit Reich]

We have enough people and we can be picky these days.

No more immigrants from bad nations either. We should have a 'bad nation list' and nobody from this list would get work/study permits.

The new poem should read: "Give me your educated, your rich, your higher classes yearning to breath free, the wanted people of your teeming shore (so long as this shore is not on the national 'bad nation list') send these, the ambitious, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door and to all else NO VACANCY."

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

[Nua Corda]

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

This is, quite frankly, batshit crazy.

But, one can hardly expect anything but xenophobia, poor-hating and racism from a Libertarian.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

America said no to oppressive laws.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

This is, quite frankly, batshit crazy.

But, one can hardly expect anything but xenophobia, poor-hating and racism from a Libertarian.

If I may jump in, I identify as a libertarian and had the same slack-jawed expression of pure disbelief that you probably had reading that post.

[Freiheit Reich]

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

This is, quite frankly, batshit crazy.

But, one can hardly expect anything but xenophobia, poor-hating and racism from a Libertarian.

Many libertarians believe in border control (it is a divisive issue within the party just as abortion is). It is about giving American citizens freedom, libertarians have no duty to help those outside the nation. Not hard to understand.

Caning is fine depending on the laws you break. Libertarians tend to be against crimes like rape and stealing. Caning is another choice of punishment. Weren't you spanked as a child? It is an adult version of spanking. Whipping is OK also based on the crime. Plenty of criminals need a good spanking to learn their lesson.

I am OK with some immigration, it depends on where you are from and what you can give to the nation. If you are rich and educated and from the right country and don't belong to a key hate group (I would list certain religions as hate groups) than welcome. Singapore Chinese would likely make the cut, some Singapore Indians would as well.

We have enough poor people in the USA, why would we need more? Why am I not poor? I worked in high school at McDonald's and joined the army at age 18. Plenty of Americans could do the same. Doesn't require wealth to do this. Many Americans have no excuse for being poor. Join the military if you can't do something else (many recruiters will help you study for the test and get you in shape if you want to join-they have incentives to sign you up). Hard to feel sympathy for a healthy and mentally stable person that is poor.

Oh, I would make prostitution legal which will provide jobs for many poor and undereducated women of all races. This may help lift some women out of poverty. Perhaps a few gay men as well.

As you can see by my post I am not for white supremacy. I am praising a nation that is non-white in majority. Singapore is small and lacks a lot of resources and yet they are an Asian tiger that is likely envied by most of the world. Certain policies go too far but they have relaxed some rules. You can now have chewing gum in Singapore for example.

[Freiheit Reich]

This is, quite frankly, batshit crazy.

But, one can hardly expect anything but xenophobia, poor-hating and racism from a Libertarian.

If I may jump in, I identify as a libertarian and had the same slack-jawed expression of pure disbelief that you probably had reading that post.

Oh, you are against border control? Many (maybe most) feel like you but some support it. One argument (among a few):

http://johnhospers.com/Articles/Against ... orders.pdf

Do you support theft? Maybe you are an anarchist. I feel theft and rape are wrong and the criminals should be punished fairly. Caning will not kill them, relax.

Soft eugenics: I would not force most people to get steralized, except serial rapists (and those that rape a child below age 13). I would encourage it through govt. incentives and a propoganda campaign. If there is welfare I wouldn't allow it unless the person agrees to steralization. Choices would be available to people. College educated (certain majors) and successful people would be encouraged to have more babies for the good of the nation. The goal is the raise the national IQ and help us compete with China. We would also increase immigration from certain nations to help this effort.

Until you are a US citizen you have no rights. We can be picky about accepting you or not (as Singapore is). Also, I believe in freedom of religion. I could keep this by declassifying Islam as a religion and classifying it as a hate group. This simple action means any Islamic discriminatory policies are not anti-religious (since it wouldn't even be a religion).

[The Black Forrest]

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Singapore has a population of 5 million. The US has 300 million. Singapore's approach would not work in the US.

[Nua Corda]

This is, quite frankly, batshit crazy.

But, one can hardly expect anything but xenophobia, poor-hating and racism from a Libertarian.

Many libertarians believe in border control (it is a divisive issue within the party just as abortion is). It is about giving American citizens freedom, libertarians have no duty to help those outside the nation. Not hard to understand.

Caning is fine depending on the laws you break. Libertarians tend to be against crimes like rape and stealing. Caning is another choice of punishment. Weren't you spanked as a child? It is an adult version of spanking. Whipping is OK also based on the crime. Plenty of criminals need a good spanking to learn their lesson.

I am OK with some immigration, it depends on where you are from and what you can give to the nation. If you are rich and educated and from the right country and don't belong to a key hate group (I would list certain religions as hate groups) than welcome. Singapore Chinese would likely make the cut, some Singapore Indians would as well.

We have enough poor people in the USA, why would we need more? Why am I not poor? I worked in high school at McDonald's and joined the army at age 18. Plenty of Americans could do the same. Doesn't require wealth to do this. Many Americans have no excuse for being poor. Join the military if you can't do something else (many recruiters will help you study for the test and get you in shape if you want to join-they have incentives to sign you up). Hard to feel sympathy for a healthy and mentally stable person that is poor.

Oh, I would make prostitution legal which will provide jobs for many poor and undereducated women of all races. This may help lift some women out of poverty. Perhaps a few gay men as well.

As you can see by my post I am not for white supremacy. I am praising a nation that is non-white in majority. Singapore is small and lacks a lot of resources and yet they are an Asian tiger that is likely envied by most of the world. Certain policies go too far but they have relaxed some rules. You can now have chewing gum in Singapore for example.

So, basically yes?

This is, quite frankly, batshit crazy.

But, one can hardly expect anything but xenophobia, poor-hating and racism from a Libertarian.

If I may jump in, I identify as a libertarian and had the same slack-jawed expression of pure disbelief that you probably had reading that post.

I most likely should have said lolbertarian. It's an important distinction.

[Freiheit Reich]

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Singapore has a population of 5 million. The US has 300 million. Singapore's approach would not work in the US.

I have heard that idea said before. Germany have 80 million people, Somalia has 10 million people. Why isn't Somalia wealthier and safer than Germany since they have a much smaller population? It is a foolish argument to make. We have 60 times the people (as you mentioned), this means 60 times the police. We could use prisoners to build a wall. Have guards shoot people trying to sneak into the USA (or catch them for cheap prison labor for govt. projects). This will solve border control issues.

Regulations can easily be applied to the USA with a strong federal govt. (I am not for states rights due to states normally TAKING away freedoms). What would not work in my plan?

I admit border control is an issue. Public transit can't be everywhere, the free market will decide where public transit is needed based on demand. Clean streets: yes, prisoners will work on cleaning roads and painting over graffiti. Vandalism is treated with canings and community service and/or jail. Airports and airplanes, we used to be great at this. We invented the plane. Flight attendants were hotter in the 1960's and 1970's. Eliminating anti-discriminatory policies and letting airlines hire based on looks and attitide will help a lot. Air Asia (Malaysia company) is always showing off their flight attendants. I never saw a porky one on flights with them). This helps the nation's image. Sadly, obesity is the issue we can't control. It is up to Americans if they want to be porky or not.

[Occupied Deutschland]

If I may jump in, I identify as a libertarian and had the same slack-jawed expression of pure disbelief that you probably had reading that post.

Oh, you are against border control? Many (maybe most) feel like you but some support it. One argument (among a few):

http://johnhospers.com/Articles/Against ... orders.pdf

Do you support theft? Maybe you are an anarchist. I feel theft and rape are wrong and the criminals should be punished fairly. Caning will not kill them, relax. (1)

Soft eugenics: I would not force most people to get steralized, except serial rapists (and those that rape a child below age 13). I would encourage it through govt. incentives and a propoganda campaign (2). If there is welfare I wouldn't allow it unless the person agrees to steralization (3). Choices would be available to people (4). College educated (certain majors) and successful people would be encouraged to have more babies for the good of the nation (5). The goal is the raise the national IQ and help us compete with China (6). We would also increase immigration from certain nations to help this effort (7).

Until you are a US citizen you have no rights. We can be picky about accepting you or not (as Singapore is) (8). Also, I believe in freedom of religion. I could keep this by declassifying Islam as a religion and classifying it as a hate group (9). This simple action means any Islamic discriminatory policies are not anti-religious (since it wouldn't even be a religion).

1) Yes, and whipping wouldn't either. I'm opposed to both because it does physical harm to the person for no real reason beyond a desire by someone else to hurt him (for whatever reason). Prison is a punishment, whipping is cruelty.

2) I'm opposed to this when it takes the form of big government action, and I'm opposed to this when it comes to your "small" government interpretation (which wouldn't be small government at all).

3) Why include sterilization at all? Axing welfare alone is a viewpoint you can advocate, sterilization if you use a welfare system (again, how is this small government) is just an unnecessary finger to those on it.

4) Those are shitty, artificial choices. When the government says you can do X or they kill/maim you, it's not a choice.

5) :Sibirsky:

6) We're already competing with China. We're already winning. Adopting their top-down dictatorial programs is a step backwards, both economically and socially.

7) Yes, and not others, I briefly scanned over the plan. Besides being incredibly racist, it doesn't make much sense.

Yes, and we're already so picky that it's shooting us in the foot as millions of people come and stay illegally because the line to get in legally is three-quarters of a lifetime long.

9) So you don't believe in freedom of religion at all.

I cringe at the fact I share a label with people like you.

[Diopolis]

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Singapore uses harsh punishments to deter crime.

[Freiheit Reich]

[spoiler]

Oh, you are against border control? Many (maybe most) feel like you but some support it. One argument (among a few):

http://johnhospers.com/Articles/Against ... orders.pdf

Do you support theft? Maybe you are an anarchist. I feel theft and rape are wrong and the criminals should be punished fairly. Caning will not kill them, relax. (1)

Soft eugenics: I would not force most people to get steralized, except serial rapists (and those that rape a child below age 13). I would encourage it through govt. incentives and a propoganda campaign (2). If there is welfare I wouldn't allow it unless the person agrees to steralization (3). Choices would be available to people (4). College educated (certain majors) and successful people would be encouraged to have more babies for the good of the nation (5). The goal is the raise the national IQ and help us compete with China (6). We would also increase immigration from certain nations to help this effort (7).

Until you are a US citizen you have no rights. We can be picky about accepting you or not (as Singapore is) (8). Also, I believe in freedom of religion. I could keep this by declassifying Islam as a religion and classifying it as a hate group (9). This simple action means any Islamic discriminatory policies are not anti-religious (since it wouldn't even be a religion).

1) Yes, and whipping wouldn't either. I'm opposed to both because it does physical harm to the person for no real reason beyond a desire by someone else to hurt him (for whatever reason). Prison is a punishment, whipping is cruelty.

2) I'm opposed to this when it takes the form of big government action, and I'm opposed to this when it comes to your "small" government interpretation (which wouldn't be small government at all).

3) Why include sterilization at all? Axing welfare alone is a viewpoint you can advocate, sterilization if you use a welfare system (again, how is this small government) is just an unnecessary finger to those on it.

4) Those are shitty, artificial choices. When the government says you can do X or they kill/maim you, it's not a choice.

5) :Sibirsky:

6) We're already competing with China. We're already winning. Adopting their top-down dictatorial programs is a step backwards, both economically and socially.

7) Yes, and not others, I briefly scanned over the plan. Besides being incredibly racist, it doesn't make much sense.

Yes, and we're already so picky that it's shooting us in the foot as millions of people come and stay illegally because the line to get in legally is three-quarters of a lifetime long.

9) So you don't believe in freedom of religion at all.

I cringe at the fact I share a label with people like you.

[/spoiler]

Well, I am not 100% libertarian but it is the closest viewpoint I found.

I am anti-foreign wars, anti minimum wage, believe in right to work, anti-civil rights laws, believe in flat taxes (low rates), smaller military (no foreign bases), no foreign aid, no unemployment insurance, very limited national health care (some vaccines, birth control), legalized prostitution (age 18 and older), no sin taxes, no smoking laws for 16 and up (besides govt. buildings) and legalized marijuana (but not DUI). These viewpoints are not found often within the democrat or republican party.

OK-we can axe welfare, I am trying to think of ways to drop the birth rates for poor and uneducated women though.

We are not picky about illegal immigrants. We gave amnesty in the 1980's to them. How many do we shoot trying to cross the border? East Germany did a better job than we have done with border control (they were trying to keep people in vs. out of course but still border control). We could get cheap labor if we catch them and have them on chain gangs. We can even outsource them to farms for cheap wages (80% will go to govt. for upkeep, illegals can keep 20%).

9) If Islam is not a religion than how would I be taking away religious freedom. This is the beauty of declassifying it. We can use quotes from the Quran and actions of devout Muslims to justify it as a hate group (they have much more hateful actions and higher death toll rates than Christian extremists have caused in recent years).

7) Not racist. When Somalia becomes developed and has a crime and education rate comparable to the USA and changes their religion they can immigrate to USA. Easy. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan were not always wealthy. If they can turn around so can Somalia (if they choose to, something that I highly doubt).

[Freiheit Reich]

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Singapore uses harsh punishments to deter crime.

I disagree with their killing drug dealers but to be fair they give warnings at immigration checkpoints.

I am OK with pot being legal but Singapore's reasons make sense and they have won the war on drugs while the USA is failing badly. Don't forget, the 'Golden Triangle' and Afghanistan's poppy fields are in Asia (not only Latin American has drugs). Thailand has had drug issues but Singapore manages to stay pretty clean.

The caning works, people think before spraypainting cars. I bet Michael Fay won't do his misdeeds there anymore.

Fines for crimes are high, I would make them much more reasonable. Illegal parking nets a fine of at least 1,000 Singapore Dollars (might be more, I remember it was at least 1,000).

[Diopolis]

Singapore uses harsh punishments to deter crime.

I disagree with their killing drug dealers but to be fair they give warnings at immigration checkpoints.

I am OK with pot being legal but Singapore's reasons make sense and they have won the war on drugs while the USA is failing badly. Don't forget, the 'Golden Triangle' and Afghanistan's poppy fields are in Asia (not only Latin American has drugs). Thailand has had drug issues but Singapore manages to stay pretty clean.

The caning works, people think before spraypainting cars. I bet Michael Fay won't do his misdeeds there anymore.

Fines for crimes are high, I would make them much more reasonable. Illegal parking nets a fine of at least 1,000 Singapore Dollars (might be more, I remember it was at least 1,000).

I was pointing out that immigration policy isn't the only influence on crime, not objecting to their punishments.

[Brition]

test