For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
As a prelude to his return? Possible. If so: what, oh what, will the RMD haters glom onto next?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 7:53 pm Garcia...is now said to be in a lower security prison/jail or holding center.
To A-G? He's gone. Give it up. You can't fix it.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 6:51 amDue process was denied,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:49 pm"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 4:20 pm Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.
No, those things are distinct. Capital is (in Marxist terms) "surplus value" derived from labour. "Interest" is a premium charged on the borrowing of money. I can't imagine how you got those two mixed up.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 10:12 amCapitalism is basically charging interest...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:55 pmSo far, so good.
You are mixing up two different concepts: "capitalism" and "usury." They're not at all the same, even in Marxist thought.But Immanuel Can says capitalism was invented by socialists:
The whole idea of "capitalism" was "developed" by Marxists during the last century, during the Industrial Revolution. It had no existence before. Before that, you had things like feudalism and aristocracy.
No, I see what a market is, and what a free market is, and what a restricted market and a closed market are. What we are doing is far from invisible, but it's not an "ism," an ideology: it's just a pragmatic arrangement, unlike Marxism, which is an ideology.Immanuel, you can't see that because we all do it.
Free market economics are so overwhelmingly successful that they dominate the world economies, it's true. Meanwhile, Socialist economics are such a disaster that they've collapsed every economy that's tried to practice them, and they can't even be practiced in China: they've had to opt for "Red Capitalism," as they call what they're doing. But then, they're Marxists, so they imagine that anything contrary to or different from Communism must be another kind of "ism." That's an indoctrinated way to think. It's also pure projection: they think everybody else is immersed in indoctrination, because that's all they know themselves.The modern world economy is built on capitalism.
No, should be answered at a legal port of entry -- to the immigration authorities, by the applicant. And he has the choice to do that, or to sneak in. If he doesn't come in the legal way, he automatically becomes a violator of federal law and an illegal alien.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 1:19 pmGood question. Should be answered in court.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 3:19 amConvictions of what? If you're an illegal migrant, you've already violated federal law. You're convicted; case closed. There isn't even a possible defense for that. Why didn't you come in at a legal port of entry, if you had a case?commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 10:03 pm
But did anyone check to see if these detailed accounts included any convictions by US courts?
Proof?commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 1:22 pmYes, it defies common sense, but it has happened.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 3:17 amYou say that people are being deported on no more than the appearance of a tattoo. You'll need to show that's so, because it defies common sense, so it will be hard for anybody to believe.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 9:58 pm
What do you mean, being done? Are you saying it’s NOT HAPPENING?
She did exist, and I assume she's violating federal law now. What is she supposed to do? Abandon the only life she's known by being deported (with or without her children who are U.S. citizens).?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:11 pmShe hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.
Yes sir: it is...all of it.
*and perhaps still couldhenry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 5:58 pm As an infant she's helpless. As an adult, she bears some responsibility for her status. At the least, she *should have quietly looked to secure herself against a shifting political climate and The Powers That Be, current and future.
Oh, I see...yes, you wrote: "His live-in girlfiend is a "dreamer"; her parents immigrated illegally when she was one year old."Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 12:33 amShe did exist...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:11 pmShe hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.
She can't be "charged". But she's in danger of being deported, despite the fact that her two young children are U.S. citizens. Doesn't this contradict family values, "love your neighbor" and "do unto others"? How could a Christian support this policy?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:07 amOh, I see...yes, you wrote: "His live-in girlfiend is a "dreamer"; her parents immigrated illegally when she was one year old."Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 12:33 amShe did exist...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:11 pm
She hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.
That makes her not culpable. A one-year-old cannot be charged, and can't legally be responsible for a decision made by the adults. But her parents broke federal law, and theoretically, they could be indicted.
It seems unlikely, anyway. They aren't part of the recent migration wave, and I doubt their case will come up.
What about your claim thatImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 10:52 pmTo A-G? He's gone. Give it up. You can't fix it.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 6:51 amDue process was denied,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:49 pm
"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.
Now, if you want to allege that due process is being denied universally, I'll see your evidence for that. If not, you're done.
Just confess you erred.
"It isn't due process - this is called infinity process, to keep you here forever! That's what this is. No American citizen charged, with a crime, with a serious crime inside the United States, a US-born American citizen, receives this kind of process! Millions of dollars in free legal services, representation at every single level!"
"You think that there is any, for example, any American citizen who was persecuted, who was innocent related to January 6th, do you think they could just get this kind of relief, this kind of process? It was never available to them. The whole system was rigged against them, just like it's rigged in favor of illegal alien invaders."- Stephen Miller, political advisor
I agree in principle. But capitalist economy should be ameliorated by social welfare. Social welfare actually aids profits with a healthier, more law-abiding work force.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:07 pmNo, those things are distinct. Capital is (in Marxist terms) "surplus value" derived from labour. "Interest" is a premium charged on the borrowing of money. I can't imagine how you got those two mixed up.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 10:12 amCapitalism is basically charging interest...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:55 pm
So far, so good.
You are mixing up two different concepts: "capitalism" and "usury." They're not at all the same, even in Marxist thought.
No, I see what a market is, and what a free market is, and what a restricted market and a closed market are. What we are doing is far from invisible, but it's not an "ism," an ideology: it's just a pragmatic arrangement, unlike Marxism, which is an ideology.Immanuel, you can't see that because we all do it.
Free market economics are so overwhelmingly successful that they dominate the world economies, it's true. Meanwhile, Socialist economics are such a disaster that they've collapsed every economy that's tried to practice them, and they can't even be practiced in China: they've had to opt for "Red Capitalism," as they call what they're doing. But then, they're Marxists, so they imagine that anything contrary to or different from Communism must be another kind of "ism." That's an indoctrinated way to think. It's also pure projection: they think everybody else is immersed in indoctrination, because that's all they know themselves.The modern world economy is built on capitalism.
There is no "capital-ism." There is such a thing as "capital," but it's just a feature of the creation of value, and not necessarily sinister at all. When Bill Gates takes a bunch of electronic parts and turns them into a computer, he creates something that is much more valuable than just computer parts. More value, "surplus" value, then comes into existence as a result of his inventiveness and entrepreneurial vision. And you and I buy his product, and type to each other on it, so we recognize the added value Gates has created.
Value is not zero-sum. Only Marxists are stupid enough to insist it is. Capital can be created and expanded, because value can be added. You're mixing up usury, exploitation and capital, as if they were the same thing, or somehow coordinated. They don't have to be, even if some people are guilty of abuses. There's nothing inherently wicked about capital.