@Penny

My commitment is not to any law, although it is, but principal. If my life is so terrible or under such great threat, I need to fight. I cannot choose to flee or freeze. If my home and lifestyle is under attack through those channels as you described them, I am doing a disservice to myself, my family and my nation by doing otherwise. I do understand that mindset that safe haven in another country is the best option, that it has the most promise, that it has the least likely dangers to face. It just so happens my beliefs coincide with the law.

In fact, I do actively support the concept of having both static and randomized security check points, mandatory uses of identification be it voting to just purchasing gasoline, and relatively deep screening for non-nationals. This is my area of bias because with my life this is considered normal, you have no option but to do these things, but they are again fundamental to circulation control and policing of a populace.

No less, I believe it is a simple task made difficult by the presence of government bureaucracy, the notion of border and immigration control; I do not believe the standard, untrained, undisciplined citizen should be carrying this out, on the contrary rather, but as I stated earlier I am of the understanding some things simply are the way they are, as with the military complex I spoke to in another albeit unrelated post. It will cost time, it will cost money, and it will cost emotional currency. It is essential one separates emotional motives from factors of enforcement. Would I feel bad to divide a family because I am carrying out orders? Yes, but at the same time they made their choice and as adults that choice affected their children, which ultimately impacted them now; this too could have been avoided if the law affecting their status as born citizens was changed to not include those of illegal immigrants.

While I believe the vetting process could use improvement in the department of efficiency, as well as increased standards, I again cannot move to the appeal to emotion the argument has.

In the end am fond of the phrase, "No safety, know pain - know safety, no pain." The United States should be setting the trend for fostering an environment of stability, safety, security and standards. This includes planning for the future and executing it as a long term, overarching objective that stretches beyond presidencies and politics, of which monitoring and controlling immigration both illegal and legal are essential.

@Dynamo Frokane

I will not disagree with you there, but again I admit I can only speak to what I have experienced or known. To reiterate, not that those things do not happen to the left - there's videos of it all over YouTube, Facebook, and any other flavor of social interaction on the internet - but I have not seen it myself. The only people I have witnessed did so in a manner as to mock it, alas I am certain there are those in the "Alt-Right" who use it unironically like those in the actual Alt-Right who have embraced it.

To the other point, I have not encountered a situation wherein a woman or immigrant was under attack in any sense specific to them being one, the other, or both. I also make no mistakes that extreme views are an avoidable factor of life, in which people should abstain from acting on their biases in day to day life and in private. As an example of what I mean and to use myself, I might not be fond of illegal immigrants, but I treat them with human decency; they are not relegated to some "unclean" caste or "lesser" status of people. They are simply people who broke the law. I say even the same for those who are considered the lowest of low as with sexual offenders, to which they should be punished to the fullest extent as with any other criminal.

@Vilageidiotx

I have to disagree that operations of terror and their motives are not continuous to meet those goals, largely because they can fall under a general banner and all meet a net gain. By this I mean, even in the fringe case of an actual radical national acting under extremist views for a certain group alone, all of them benefit. The reality is that the self-radicalized are the most dangerous because of how easy it is to convert moderates to actual extremists in any spectrum, or at minimum to make them sympathizers; just look at politics to use another example.

Terrorism in the United States is not succeeding overtly, but it doesn't need to as history has shown us time and time again; an attack only needs to happen - it needn't be another 9/11 - it just needs to elevate the public perception, get into the media and provoke a government response. The fact that Islamophobe is thrown out as a slur now is a tell tale sign of that; people are legitimately wary of the Muslim population. Does that mean every Muslim is a terrorist? No, not at all and anyone who believes so is unbecoming of decency to themselves and others.

To address the point of conversion, no, but that is an ideal outcome for the motions from the extremes you see in Europe; subversion is a more likely result. To address it again, the radical population which leverages and motivates the moderates around it, demand special considerations like that of infamous Sharia Law or that non-members obey their customs and cultural values. The average German, to use any non-specific example, is under no obligation to obey Islamic ideals or laws in Germany, just the same as it is not the duty of the German government to recognize, advocate, foster or cater to these pockets of culture. I sincerely doubt Western civilization will bow as a whole to it and convert, but it is and will continue to suffer damage it could otherwise avoid.

Moving on to the next topic, I do not believe you are likely to see a legitimate uprising of Alt-Right or "Alt-Right" politically that will have or act on nationalist motives sufficient enough to provoke international incidents. In part because they have not the numbers or the platform, but also because the way the American political field is stratified. What I believe we will see, at least with the United States, is a comparatively strong - to compare it with the recent past of the more left leaning - center-right and actual right push across all boards. Not because of the "loony left", but because the left has lost its basis of power and has gone too far into its own extreme, examples being Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren among others, helping to mobilize the right better; Hillary Clinton's failure as a supposed moderate indicates this to me further.

I believe the actual right to be too politically disorganized to be a threat to anyone but itself as I see more squabbling and in-fighting there than I perceive elsewhere and the actual Alt-Right riding on the coat tails of the "Alt-Right" and moderates. Among the left there seems to be certain aspects they generally agree on enough to collaborate on as a singular political unit.

Antifa I will state again only has the capacity to act on their anarchist beliefs in a manner that will turn the right and the moderates decisively against them. They are the caliber of organization that may include a radical who acts with deadly violence against their opposition, not because the entire group advocates that - although what I have read and seen, they do advocate violence and "resistance" as a whole - yet instead because of it. They may be throwing fire crackers for the time being or bringing airsoft guns as a "show of force", but all it takes is one person to bring an improvised device or discharge a firearm to set off a potential hysteria. I do not believe they have the discipline, knowledge or desire to prevent such an incident; the actual Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" have, in contrast, at minimum demonstrated basic, entry-level small unit tactics and trigger discipline, as well as a bias against random acts of violence against civilian population and structure.

And to finally address the issue of Islamophobia, I again see this as a natural outcome from a faction that has made itself a persona of terror. If it were not for those extremists who continue to receive attention, continue to carry out attacks, and continue to display their ability to appear at seeming random, I would agree with you, although I find this to not be the current case. American citizens should always be wary of people they are not familiar to regardless of who they are for their own safety and should foster an environment of vigilance and a culture of watchfulness. However, it is the reality that a specific set of ideological people have branded the rest of their population the "enemy" by proxy.

@Dinh AaronMk

I would say walking out on anyone during a speech, presentation, or ceremony is disrespectful and in such poor taste it makes one childish. You do not need to agree with them, but you should show them respect for their position and prestige, at bare minimum that they have been honored or selected for such a role. I am no fan of Barrack Obama, but I would still stand or sit politely in such a situation and not disrupt him, just as I would shake his hand or wish him a good day.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

In fact, I do actively support the concept of having both static and randomized security check points

What, like, everywhere? Holy fuck.

The United States should be setting the trend for fostering an environment of stability, safety, security and standards.

We already do. If we go any further, we start strangling out the essence of a free society.

Terrorism in the United States is not succeeding overtly, but it doesn't need to as history has shown us time and time again; an attack only needs to happen - it needn't be another 9/11 - it just needs to elevate the public perception, get into the media and provoke a government response. The fact that Islamophobe is thrown out as a slur now is a tell tale sign of that; people are legitimately wary of the Muslim population. Does that mean every Muslim is a terrorist? No, not at all and anyone who believes so is unbecoming of decency to themselves and others.

Didn't you want an overt government response though? I'm not kicking up shit, I just feel like I don't quite understand your primary thesis. What I mean is, if the terrorists want the public to be wary of Islam and and the government to subvert certain rights and comforts in exchange for safety, than isn't the subversion of those rights and the wariness of Islam a surrender to terrorism?

I sincerely doubt Western civilization will bow as a whole to it and convert, but it is and will continue to suffer damage it could otherwise avoid.

Sure, the Islam/West tension is damaging, I absolutely agree. But history is a long list of struggles, that's not new. We need to be careful in what rights we are willing to give up in order to defelct this short term damage. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to see the Ben Franklin quote trotted out, but since it is an American tradition to cram it into any for of this conversation, here it is; "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.".

Moving on to the next topic, I do not believe you are likely to see a legitimate uprising of Alt-Right or "Alt-Right" politically that will have or act on nationalist motives sufficient enough to provoke international incidents. In part because they have not the numbers or the platform, but also because the way the American political field is stratified. What I believe we will see, at least with the United States, is a comparatively strong - to compare it with the recent past of the more left leaning - center-right and actual right push across all boards.

That would be expected in this swing of the pendulum. That being said, two things

A: American politics since 1980 has been in a right-leaning phase economically and geo-politically speaking. You put any of those supposedly left-leaning candidates into the 1940's and, though their social politics would be radically left-wing, their economic politics would be relatively standard for the Democrats.

B: A right wing push would put the Alt-Right in a comfortable position in the overton window. If the right wing is undergoing another renaissance, in a period where the left hasn't had a renaissance to balance the scales, then we can presume that the Alt-Right might just become the center-right in a few decades.

Among the left there seems to be certain aspects they generally agree on enough to collaborate on as a singular political unit.

I disagree entirely. The right tends to be better at organizing disparate groups into cohesive political unit, hence why the Republicans do so well despite having smaller membership. As the old saying goes, "The Right falls in line, the Left falls in love." All you gotta do to get right wing votes is have the big R stamped next to your name, but the left rebels against the democrats pretty much consistently if they don't get candidates of their preference. Hell, me included.

Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" have, in contrast, at minimum demonstrated basic, entry-level small unit tactics and trigger discipline, as well as a bias against random acts of violence against civilian population and structure.

So what you are concerned with is disorganized leftist tactics might inspire the right wing to go full paramilitary? Okay, that would be a major disaster, I really hope they don't do that. If we somehow do end up with right wing death squads... it's been nice knowing you all, I guess.

American citizens should always be wary of people they are not familiar to regardless of who they are for their own safety and should foster an environment of vigilance and a culture of watchfulness.

Stranger danger lol.

I would say walking out on anyone during a speech, presentation or ceremony is disrespectful.

Eh, people gotta be allowed to protest some way. Better to walk out than to go all "Don't taze me bro"

Except like doggo said, I've already been there, got bored of the repetitive rhetoric and stale memes and moved on. Keep hanging out there, but if you think the facts on that sub are getting suppressed everywhere else then it might be helpful to occasionally browse other parts of reddit before you start to really believe that as truth.

You continue to masterfully miss the point and I'm frustrated by trying to repeat myself and that's why I'm being dismissive. Just so we're clear. This is no longer a political conversation, it's an exercise in selective reading comprehension and I'm done with it. Walking away. You can win, if you want, if that ends this faster. ....it won't, will it, this is going to go on forever, shit......

selective reading comprehension

You're absolutely right, Ive only selected one quote because its the only thing you said that I have a disagreement with.

T_D is interesting to me because they present facts that get suppressed everywhere else.

Now if you dont want to address this quote then that's cool, we can change the conversation back to memes if that's less frustrating for you.

We shall have to hope that we don't ever wake up to a vast series of checkpoints and/or right wing death squads ;)

<Snipped quote by mdk>

You're absolutely right, Ive only selected one quote because its the only thing you said that I have a disagreement with.

roleplayerguild.com/posts/4299129

@The Harbinger of Ferocity I am under no illusions that you are a bigot. Anyone accusing you of such thing was probably angry, misinformed or both. Anecdotal evidence cant be verified, I havent seen you be attacked by radical left wingers and I haven't seen @Penny being discriminated against for her nationality and gender and neither of you have seen me attacked by both sides of the political spectrum along with those fucking libertarians.

But for the sake of this discussion I think it makes sense to give all parties the benefit of the doubt, we are already doing 100x times better than most people in our supposed camps by talking to people with different experiences than us and establishing common ground. I'm willing to suspend my skepticism of anecdotes for the sake of good discourse and productive conversations.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

roleplayerguild.com/posts/4299129

I was a little confused to what 'OK?' means with the question mark, I didn't know if you were actually acknowledging the point or just being flippant.

But if you do agree then thanks, its important to be able to correct yourself when you make exaggerated claims like you did in the quote.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I was a little confused to what 'OK?' means with the question mark, I didn't know if you were actually acknowledging the point or just being flippant.

But if you do agree then thanks, its important to be able to correct yourself when you make exaggerated claims like you did in the quote.

jes.....

no. Done, done is what I said, done is what I am. Goodbye dynamo.

@Dynamo Frokane I certainly believe that all of you have suffered the attacks you report. I've never seen the political temperature rise like it has in the past 18 months or so. I personally try not to minimize peoples experiences because I know how frustrating that can be.

Goodbye dynamo.

Ya'll come back now.

@Vilageidiotx

Security checkpoints needn't be and should not be intrusive. I am not advocating airline levels of invasiveness, but rather points located in areas of high traffic, be it vehicles or people, and strategic benefit; highways, toll roads, choke points and the like. Something as simple as the checking of a driver's license and registration. It needn't be as elaborate as a national database that tracks scanned identification, although it should to better establish continuity.

The purpose of such efforts is the first of the five fundamental "Ds". That being deterrennce and going hand in hand with detection. They needn't check every car or person, being random enough an observer cannot reliably predict if they will be stopped and not irritating enough to hinder the regular public. If the illusion is at least there, it helps to curb potential activity, both criminal and terror.

The people of the United States, the average American and not the exception, are granted more freedom than they know what to do with or understand. This is no secret and in a way, is beautiful in its own right. The issue with it is, is that most of the populace does not have an understanding of a treat that can arise at effective random, or how to actually curb it. Tactics such as these are not subversion, intrusion or exploitation of basic rights; this is little different than a checkpoint developed to dissuade, detect or stop intoxicated drivers or those under another influence.

Surrender to terror would be to abide by their rules, beliefs and laws rather than our own. To display a willingness to combat that and be wary of them shows and emphasizes resistance. The philosophy of, "Proactive prevention will harm, hamper, discredit and deny you the opportunity to hurt us." Being reactive, as people often criticize law enforcement for, is not a way to defeat fundamentalists. And the worst news people do not like to hear, is that this mindset, this air of alertness, is mandatory and essential; life will never return to the pre-9/11 era.

Because of my bias to the right, I believe it is essential that it undergoes and evolution to combat, counter and dissaude leftist policies, of which have become - in my lifetime - more extreme. Once upon a time I considered the Democratic party, but I find myself with no moderates to even back or invest in.

That quote about the left and right comparisons might have been more valid in the past, but I believe the modern left does buy into, or is at least willing to, support policies that are more radical in comparison to the right. For example, I believe most of the left consctibes to the notion that bathrooms should be used by those who identify as a particular gender, if any at all. The right by contrast I have heard just about every argument in between. My opinion? There should be male, female and neutral - open to all - bathrooms, as we saw once with "family restrooms" and I do not believe someone who has not fully transitioned should be permitted in the opposite sex's bathroom.

And no, let me state this clearly, because I find this ground dangerous and without room for error; I believe the far left has the inadvertent ability to accidentally, or even knowingly, allow a radical into their group who consctibes to their philosophy. This hypothetical person has the willingness, capacity and intent to utilize a firearm and or an explosive device for political movtive. In doing so, they kill American citizens.

It is my worst fear that this attack will provoke those present to participate in a small scale engagement at that time. It may or may not be coordinated on a low-level. Furthermore, it will provide a basis for the right to demonize the left as a whole and will compromise the credibility of anyone who has those leanings.

No, I do not believe in "right wing death squads" and I find that argument and notion silly, but I worry that current political violence will escalate and get American citizens hurt or killed because of negligence.

As for protesting, my policy in such a circumstance is to not attend. If you feel so strongly, acquire a permit if need be and legally engage in non-violent, non-intrusive demonstrations that do not impact those who want to attend or participate.

@Dynamo Frokane

I could not agree more that this has been a mostly polite discussion and civil. The entire time I have been involved it certainly has been, which is exactly as I hoped. I am fond of the idea that even dissenting opinions and opposed ideals can converse peacefully and make their points.

@Kratesis If you learned how to debate from reading T_D posts I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

That seems a little uncalled for.

Okay, maybe it wasn't the best to respond to these in the mood I'm in, but I feel like this is spreading so far, so fast and is so ridiculous without anyone pointing it out. So I guess I'll have to. Sorry if the cursing comes off as abrasive, it isn't meant to be personal in any way.

Edit: Taking out as much cursing as possible. Because I feel it doesn't help.



I don't care what Ayn Rand thinks, but the "libertarian ideal" can support both of those ideas without the slightest problem or conflict of interest.

Can a women protect her body if somebody tries to rape them? Yes, it's in their self interest to protect their property. (their body.)

Back when hunting was how people gathered food, if you hunted a deer down and someone from a different tribe tried to take it, what would you do? You'd make sure you defend that food you killed. That was before it needed to be a law.

Private property is yours and it is within your best interest to protect it. I don't even know why someone would be stupid enough to argue why private propriety is a bad thing. If you had no right to private property that would include your own body.

Libertarian are not anarchists. The court system and government would still exist. I feel like people never seem to grasp this. Nor is self interest the main goal of libertarian. It's about non-intervention. You can do whatever you'd like unless it intervenes with others. That including "breaking those oh so arbitrary private rights, like breaking and entering." Get off with this 'arbitrary rules' nonsense, that's a crime and I oppose anyone who says otherwise or wants to live in a world where you can sue someone successfully for being hurt while breaking into someone's else house. Self interest could include killing someone because YOU personally feel like it and while that might align with anarchist ideology it does NOT go with libertarianism.

Also obeying and respecting your boss is a stupid thing to disagree with. It's within your self interest to stay employed...where's the contradiction exactly? And it's in your bosses self interest, to keep those he finds easiest to work with and who is making him the most money. Once again, this picture thinks it's so clever (like alot of button memes do.) but it's the stupidest thing I've ever laid my eyes on. But the best part about that is if you don't want to follow the rules of any employer. In this system and one that libertarianism needs to work properly, you can be your OWN boss and become self employed.

Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction and SJW-ism eventually produced its anti-thesis in the alt-right. Currently the alt-right's cultural product is vibrant and their impact on the pre-collage crowd is much larger than I think is generally recognized. The right wing is cool again and the far right wing is the cultural zeitgeist for a considerable number of white teenagers.

The alt right I'm almost convinced means absolutely nothing. But if it only has to do PC culture and the "SJW" culture believes. It sorts of boils down to, most of these trolls are immature and obnoxious twats. It's the internet. It's everywhere and it existed long before they existed it didn't have anything to do with politics. Trolls go after the ones that "get offended" the easiest. That's what I always hear, so why even be remotely surprised when it's almost impossible NOT to offend them.

But they're at least fighting against something they believe in. Free Speech. Even the lowest common denominators are at least smart/aware enough to know banning speech becomes the "slippery slope argument" perfectly realized. Most SJW's don't know what their fighting for. To paraphrase someone else, "You're not fighting for any rights, your fighting for the right to be a pussy and censor whatever opinion you don't like."

Also, I know it's so popular to point out how white men are to blame for basically everything, but just looking at Trump analytics and the people that voted for him compared to different presidents.

53 percent of white women voted for trump. Every race, gender and age group voted far more for the republican president than the past several republicans presidents. Blacks over twice the percentage over someone like Romney. I think trying to just say, somehow whites are the sole purpose who the alt right existing is beyond disingenuous. Yes, this generation (as a whole) is growing up more right than any previous generation and yes the rebellion teenage stuff does factor into a bit of it. But it is not the only or major factor of it's existence. It exists to this extent only because it got so bad, and that extremism was spouted by everybody who was in power and even taken seriously.

Ben are part of and contributors to that phenomenon. Trump's policies are strongly anti-libertarian. White nationalism has a chance to make a comeback.

I'm not sure who exactly started the alt-right label in the first place...But Ben Shapiro, is not and never been part of the alt-right movement in any way shape or form...

Also Trump was and has been the only president that was for gay marriage (when not politically convenient) and had no quarrels with transgender community. Frankly, I have no idea WHAT Trump's political stances are. He certainly isn't Conservative in the slightest. (at least by american standards.) But calling it the death of libertarians when he's been far less authoritarian than many other presidents of his caliber, seems a little erroneous.

Just no. Mixed race relationships have been on a steady high rise. Highly unlikely if white supremacist ideals we're actually somehow rising in popularity. Among many other things that make this claim completely bogus. Just because more are coming out of the wood work online does NOT mean they're increasing in popularity in the real world.

priceonomics.com/why-is-interracial-m…

thehungryrabbit.blog/2017/03/01/post-…



Also a significant portion of people that voted for Trump, also voted Barack Obama. Calling them racists because of this seems really stupid and is precisely why Trump won in the first place because that's exactly what happened. Everyone was "a fucking white male" who Sanders said himself. "They don't know what it's like to be poor or be in the ghetto." And all those assumptions, assuming every person criticizing all of this rhetoric was racist and white supremacists.

"Of the 700 counties that twice voted for Obama, 1/3 flipped to Trump"

Right wing politics usually does pretty well among pre-college folk IMHO (at least among us white folk).

This statement almost got me to respond to it one night, but I decided to not post what I wrote. But I feel so much has been said on this, that just needs someone to point it out...(and I'm going to do it in a much shorter way than I did previously.)

That is absolutely wrong and factually inaccurate. Millennials generation and younger people are predominately liberal. Or at least that's what they identify as. (As many people point out, millennials political opinions don't make any sense.)

theintercept.com/2016/02/24/top-gop-p…

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/…

pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/chapte…

Do you think people in grade, middle or high school even know what the economy is? (let alone how it works.) Do you honestly want to argue that right wing politics in those circles is even remotely popular or the norm? There's some 13 year old pointing out that getting everything for free isn't actually a possible thing? No those people, would love having everything for free and everyone to be nice and love one another and etc etc. Naivety is the very dictionary was a word practically made for the youth.

Also this is anecdotal evidence, but it perfectly encompasses the teen mindset when how stupid they are (usually #notall) when it comes to politics. (Sorry any teens that are reading, teens don't know anything about the world...that includes me when I was one. It's just a fact of life.) I had an entire classroom arguing about taxes. Now ALL of them, nearly everyone said they liked leftist politics. But then argued about taxes and how republicans we're the ones that wanted to raise them. The logic they we're following was, stealing all your money you made and taking it for themselves was an evil thing to do and right wing is evil so therefore. Clearly, right wingers want people to pay more taxes. This was accepted by nearly everyone there. Mind you, this was older teens. And not a single one of them, knew that democrats we're the ones that tended to raise taxes.



"Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay."

law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/ho…

As long as no one is stupid enough to believe this, and it's a joke. Fine.

I'm an immigrant non citizen. Sometimes this place is scary as fuck. :(

Can I just point out for a moment that EVEN CANADA! Has a stricter immigration policy than the USA does (in many cases.) <.<

dailycaller.com/2017/01/26/libs-who-w…

washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/…

huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/01/canadian…

nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/inter…

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=…

"The big difference is that in Canada, social policies, provincial laws, taxation laws, etc. are well integrated such that it's almost impossible to function as an illegal immigrant. In the United States there are about 12 million illegal immigrants. In Canada that number is estimated at only about 60,000.

In Canada, it's almost impossible to get an "under-the-table" job -- Canada Revenue Agency is so efficient at enforcing social insurance numbers and most Canadians simply won't hire workers without valid SINs. You also can't open a bank account, enroll children in school, apply for provincial health care plans, etc. within proof of citizenship or valid visas. This means you can't get a credit card, pass a credit check, rent an apartment (no checking account), etc. Further, many people will turn you in if you do try any of these. "

You also will not get border access if you've ever received a DUI in your life.

And europe. :D And they succeed more here too.

oecd.org/migration/indicators-of-immi…

A report about the integration of immigrants issued over the summer by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted that more than a fifth of Europe’s immigrants from outside the European Union were unemployed, about double the rate of European Union citizens.
One in four of the economically active is out of work in France and one in three in Belgium and Sweden. And these poor employment prospects persist down the generations. Youth joblessness among the European-born children of immigrants is almost 50 percent higher than for those with native-born parents.

Employment is not the only barrier. Children from less-educated immigrant families are much less likely to succeed at school in Europe than the sons and daughters of natives, and much more likely to end up marginalized: out of school and out of work. Immigrants feel discriminated against more often in Europe. Perceived discrimination is particularly acute among the European-born children of immigrants, who in several countries still do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

As Professor Foner put it: “The United States does a better job at accepting immigrants as Americans in the making.”

So can we put this, 'America is evil to immigrant lie' to rest please?

Because that's all it is...

My god, there's several pages left to go...what am I doing with my life? <.<

Security checkpoints needn't be and should not be intrusive. I am not advocating airline levels of invasiveness, but rather points located in areas of high traffic, be it vehicles or people, and strategic benefit; highways, toll roads, choke points and the like. Something as simple as the checking of a driver's license and registration. It needn't be as elaborate as a national database that tracks scanned identification, although it should to better establish continuity.

What you are describing would be very intrusive. People do not want to be fucked around with by the police if they haven't done anything wrong, and checkpoints meaning doing exactly that.

Tactics such as these are not subversion, intrusion or exploitation of basic rights; this is little different than a checkpoint developed to dissuade, detect or stop intoxicated drivers or those under another influence.

I actually do have an issue with drunk driving checkpoints, but since they usually do them on select days and only in the middle of the night, they get away with it. If cops were just fucking with you all the time, I'd become a different type of radical pretty quickly.

Because of my bias to the right, I believe it is essential that it undergoes and evolution to combat, counter and dissaude leftist policies, of which have become - in my lifetime - more extreme. Once upon a time I considered the Democratic party, but I find myself with no moderates to even back or invest in.

Most democrats are milquetoast barely-liberals. Half of the voting population isn't Anti-Fa SJW's. You've been memed if you think they are all extremists.

And no, let me state this clearly, because I find this ground dangerous and without room for error; I believe the far left has the inadvertent ability to accidentally, or even knowingly, allow a radical into their group who consctibes to their philosophy. This hypothetical person has the willingness, capacity and intent to utilize a firearm and or an explosive device for political movtive. In doing so, they kill American citizens.

Fringe radicals exist on both sides. That is the nature of the fringe. If would be ridiculous for me to associate the guy who shot up that black church as the essence of all Republicans.

It is my worst fear that this attack will provoke those present to participate in a small scale engagement at that time. It may or may not be coordinated on a low-level. Furthermore, it will provide a basis for the right to demonize the left as a whole and will compromise the credibility of anyone who has those leanings.

Which you are doing right now. It's already the state of things that even milquetoast democrats get bunched up with active shooters and shit. The "This is why Trump won" folk argue that the left misread the situation when they lumped in all Trump voters with the Alt-Right. And that's fair. But isn't that the same thing you are doing now, with the shoe on the other foot?

Libertarian are not anarchists. The court system and government would still exist.

Libertarianism is a spectrum disorder. Some are anarchists. The driving question within libertarianism is what is a commodity and what isn't. Actually, this is the driving question of modern economics, it's just that libertarianism tends to think that too many things have been decomodified. However, if you believe that everything except your own body is a commodity, than Anarcho-Capitalism is sorta the natural place for you to go.

That including "breaking those oh so arbitrary private rights, like breaking and entering

This seems like a straw man. If someone breaks into your house, yeh, that's not arbitrary property rights. Arbitrary property rights would be shit like, say, protecting the intellectual copyright of dead people, or enforcing an investors right to a proportion of property they have never visited at the expense of the workers.

Also obeying and respecting your boss is a stupid thing to disagree with. It's within your self interest to stay employed...where's the contradiction exactly? And it's in your bosses self interest, to keep those he finds easiest to work with and who is making him the most money.

This is the inherent problem with libertarianism though. People are not economic units, they are people. Your boss doesn't entirely act in his logical self interest. Neither will his customers. Neither will you. Your boss might do something that is irrational and makes the system you are describing despotic. For instance, Imagine a scenario where we nix sexual harassment laws. While Ron Paul blows a kazoo in the libertarian fortress of doom, some teenage girl somewhere gets fired because she wouldn't go the extra mile with her boss. To keep sexual harassment laws is to accept that we aren't rational actors all the time, and that state intervention is sometimes necessary.

The alt right I'm almost convinced means absolutely nothing.

There are people who identify as Alt-Right. They exist. Like SJW's, they are an small minority, but they do exist.

But they're at least fighting against something they believe in. Free Speech.

and an ethno-state free of minorities.

Also, I know it's so popular to point out how white men are to blame for basically everything, but just looking at Trump analytics and the people that voted for him compared to different presidents.

Okay, nobody was debating this point. You are rambling, sir. Try to keep to, like, five sentence answers or something. Be concise so this debate doesn't get out of control pls.

Frankly, I have no idea WHAT Trump's political stances are.

(pls nobody start arguing with the lyrics btw, I just posted this because the Lump parody comes to mind a lot)

This statement almost got me to respond to it one night, but I decided to not post what I wrote. But I feel so much has been said on this, that just needs someone to point it out...(and I'm going to do it in a much shorter way than I did previously.)

That is absolutely wrong and factually inaccurate. Millennials generation and younger people are predominately liberal. Or at least that's what they identify as. (As many people point out, millennials political opinions don't make any sense.)

First and formost Millenials are adults, so what we are about is irrelevant.

Second, yeh, teenagers don't have complex political opinions. What I am saying is that fucking with feminists and saying racist shit isn't evidence that teenagers are all right-wingers now, it's just evidence they are teenagers.

@Vilageidiotx

There is no level of "getting fucked around with" by the police transacting in this example. Will there inevitably be those officers who purposefully antagonize civilian populace? Yes, but they already exist and no one is fond of them as. This sort of screening is not an attack on anyone to be viewed as being born of doing something wrong when they haven't. In reality, the purpose of a security checkpoint as I said, even if it is not taking account of every vehicle, is to give the perception to a potential threat they might be caught before they can act and by additional quality, find a few persons of interest accidentally.

I would like to know your issue with sobriety checkpoints, because even living in a location with one of the highest numbers of yearly intoxicated driving casualties, these have been less than a few minutes of my time consistently. And I will note I am none too fond of the potentially radical implication leveled against law enforcement officers, which I will address in light later.

No, the Democratic party is not all true leftists, but when your party was fielding a candidate, with any seriousness at all, such as Sanders, I would call that extreme. Not to mention that he had as many supporters as he did tells me there is a more focused environment than there had been. Furthermore, I believe the extremeness of the left at all, those being that of the Antifa/Social Justice Warrior/modern feminist/LBGTQ+/"democratic socialist" and other stereotypes, and with their being brought to the forefront, show clearly the evolution of that. No less, the amount of racket they make for their relative size and the sympathy they receive in return from their side suggests to me the left as a whole is more extreme; you do not see me showing much sympathy for those on the true Alt-Right who might hold beliefs that some races or faiths are inherently inferior or that taxation is theft and the central government is evil.

Carrying on, those stereotypes are all targets of the Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" who they both strike and lash out at, as minority as they are, but I also note that approximately .3% of the United States population, as example, is transgendered yet look at the level of catering received or allocated to it and the amount of attention it received. The left found a niche in this tiny percentage and as a relative whole, leveraged it into a national debate when it was and is a non-issue.

The difference with these fringe radicals is that one group, the Far Left, has shown they are willing to do that or permit that sort of mindset in public. They are the ones burning down their colleges, breaking windows, attacking citizens to include committing assault with deadly weapons, using low-level explosives and smoke, and any other number of more violent criminal activity to help broadcast their message. No less, some of those fragments in the far left who advocate, and at least many more provide excuse for, the infamous rally cry of "Pigs in the blanket, fry them like bacon." Again, the Far Left demonstrates an intent to do harm, acting on opportunities to do harm, and the capability to do harm.

And to reiterate, I am not saying all of the Far Left do, but that they are not policing their own people or fighting against this within their own individual and overlapping communities is why I am confident in my assessment that they will do so unknowingly, or in worst cast, willingly.

No, I am not "doing anything right now", putting the shoe on the other foot, or lumping people together, all of which you mean demonizing the left; I have never once said, "The entire left is corrupt because I think they all agree with someone in their group acting on political motives to harm and kill others." I simply and have repeatedly said I believe it is their general culture as a whole that holds greater possibility of advertently or inadvertently allowing the scenario to happen. If I had made such a statement, there would be plenty of valid arguments about the "gun-loving right" to use.

I normally keep away from posting in this thread, as there is no easier way to make enemies. However, this post has irked me for a certain reason. I have tried to conceal my own political beliefs as much as I can, though obviously I could not do so fully.

I don't care what Ayn Rand thinks, but the "libertarian ideal" can support both of those ideas without the slightest problem or conflict of interest.

It is clear that to those who believe utterly in selfishness, a conflict of interest would occur between he and his boss, especially if his boss demands something of him. Further, he who is governed by self-interest has no reason to serve his boss for pay, if he can simply take it.

Can a women protect her body if somebody tries to rape them? Yes, it's in their self interest to protect their property. (their body.)

But she will probably fail. The placement of this example is curious, for if the attempted rapist is her boss then she will not follow this latter category.

Private property is yours and it is within your best interest to protect it. I don't even know why someone would be stupid enough to argue why private propriety is a bad thing. If you had no right to private property that would include your own body.

This seems true enough, but it seems to miss this point of most discussions of private property. It would seem that the greatest problem regarding private property is not that it exist but that the number of holders naturally becomes disproportionate. Far from the Locke’s vision of many small-scale landowners, what appears is an oligarchy in regards to wealth, where only a few gather up most of the wealth. And for most people, this does not result in any advantage for them.

Libertarian are not anarchists. The court system and government would still exist. I feel like people never seem to grasp this. Nor is self interest the main goal of libertarian. It's about non-intervention.

This seems true, but I would add that belief in private property and the emphasis on self-interest is an important distinguisher of libertarianism from anarchism.

You can do whatever you'd like unless it intervenes with others. That including "breaking those oh so arbitrary private rights, like breaking and entering." Get off with this 'arbitrary rules' nonsense, that's a crime and I oppose anyone who says otherwise or wants to live in a world where you can sue someone successfully for being hurt while breaking into someone's else house. Self interest could include killing someone because YOU personally feel like it and while that might align with anarchist ideology it does NOT go with libertarianism.

This is true. The Left enjoys creating a strawman of libertarians. They draw conclusions from what they think is the Libertarian ideology, and assume that these are the conclusions that libertarians draw. This stand especially for Rand.

Also obeying and respecting your boss is a stupid thing to disagree with. It's within your self interest to stay employed...where's the contradiction exactly? And it's in your bosses self interest, to keep those he finds easiest to work with and who is making him the most money. Once again, this picture thinks it's so clever (like alot of button memes do.) but it's the stupidest thing I've ever laid my eyes on. But the best part about that is if you don't want to follow the rules of any employer. In this system and one that libertarianism needs to work properly, you can be your OWN boss and become self employed.

This is true, but it must be noted that even under this restriction they will do what they can to fulfill the desires their self-interest desires. This means unionization, strikes, or, if the situation should so demand, revolution.

The alt right I'm almost convinced means absolutely nothing. But if it only has to do PC culture and the "SJW" culture believes. It sorts of boils down to, most of these trolls are immature and obnoxious twats. It's the internet. It's everywhere and it existed long before they existed it didn't have anything to do with politics. Trolls go after the ones that "get offended" the easiest. That's what I always hear, so why even be remotely surprised when it's almost impossible NOT to offend them.

But they're at least fighting against something they believe in. Free Speech. Even the lowest common denominators are at least smart/aware enough to know banning speech becomes the "slippery slope argument" perfectly realized. Most SJW's don't know what their fighting for. To paraphrase someone else, "You're not fighting for any rights, your fighting for the right to be a pussy and censor whatever opinion you don't like."

There is no real reason to believe that the prominent individuals of alt-Right or most of their followers are being disingenuous. They have political beliefs which are not merely shams to troll people. That is not to say that there have not been trolls and fake controversies. On the other end, political correctness is a real problem, though it has been exaggerated. It was ridiculous when Orlando Bloom was criticized for calling himself a pikey, and it was equally ridiculous when people complained that Blizzard made Tracer from Overwatch gay.

53 percent of white women voted for trump. Every race, gender and age group voted far more for the republican president than the past several republicans presidents. Blacks over twice the percentage over someone like Romney.

This is true. Yet while it certainly helps Trump from charges of racism, it does not really alleviate his opponents fear that his policies, whether real or simply stated during his presidential campaign, have deliberately targeted minorities.

Also Trump was and has been the only president that was for gay marriage (when not politically convenient) and had no quarrels with transgender community.

During the campaign Trump indeed said nothing against the transgender community, and openly disregarded North Carolina’s transgender bathroom law, though his Administration seems to have made peace with that law since. I do not know what you mean when you say that he was the only president that was for gay marriage when it was not politically convenient. I presume you mean his speech at the convention in regards to Orlando nightclub shooting, but almost all Republicans were equally supportive, regardless of their opinion on same-sex marriage. But Trump has never been a supporter of gay marriage, and has only decided to leave the law alone, which is not really a move of courage.

Frankly, I have no idea WHAT Trump's political stances are. He certainly isn't Conservative in the slightest. (at least by american standards.) But calling it the death of libertarians when he's been far less authoritarian than many other presidents of his caliber, seems a little erroneous.

It doesn’t seem appropriate to not call Trump a conservative. Though he has some differences from most Republicans, such as support for large increases in infrastructure spending and a less interventionist approach in foreign policy, he does not differ much from most Republicans.

Mixed race relationships have been on a steady high rise. Highly unlikely if white supremacist ideals we're actually somehow rising in popularity. Among many other things that make this claim completely bogus.

These two theses can be true without there being any contradiction, for among some people mixed-race relationships may be rising while among others white supremacy may be rising.

Also a significant portion of people that voted for Trump, also voted Barack Obama. Calling them racists because of this seems really stupid and is precisely why Trump won in the first place because that's exactly what happened. Everyone was "a fucking white male" who Sanders said himself. "They don't know what it's like to be poor or be in the ghetto." And all those assumptions, assuming every person criticizing all of this rhetoric was racist and white supremacists.

"Of the 700 counties that twice voted for Obama, 1/3 flipped to Trump"

Of course there are many in the swing states who voted for Trump for economic reasons. Yet I do think that many of them voted for Trump for social reasons, as you implied yourself. There are no studies that I can point to to prove this. However, I can say that I remember the campaign, and it was not an economic message which spiraled Trump to popularity, but his comments on Mexican illegal immigration, which, because they were more inflammatory and its position harder than his rivals, made him more appealing to the Republican base. Likewise with his comments regarding Muslims.

Also this is anecdotal evidence, but it perfectly encompasses the teen mindset when how stupid they are (usually #notall) when it comes to politics. (Sorry any teens that are reading, teens don't know anything about the world...that includes me when I was one. It's just a fact of life.) I had an entire classroom arguing about taxes. Now ALL of them, nearly everyone said they liked leftist politics. But then argued about taxes and how republicans we're the ones that wanted to raise them. The logic they we're following was, stealing all your money you made and taking it for themselves was an evil thing to do and right wing is evil so therefore. Clearly, right wingers want people to pay more taxes. This was accepted by nearly everyone there. Mind you, this was older teens. And not a single one of them, knew that democrats we're the ones that tended to raise taxes.

If these were their thoughts, then they were certainly ignorant. Yet Republicans have often raised taxes, and the Democrats have often lowered them, despite the received view.

"Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay."

Perhaps it is not possible to be turned around now, but with truly privatized hospitals people would be turned away.

Ignoring that is almost guaranteed to be a smurf account…

I have no idea what a “smurf” is in this sense, but this person seems real enough, and there is no need to impugn their character.

"The big difference is that in Canada, social policies, provincial laws, taxation laws, etc. are well integrated such that it's almost impossible to function as an illegal immigrant. In the United States there are about 12 million illegal immigrants. In Canada that number is estimated at only about 60,000.

In Canada, it's almost impossible to get an "under-the-table" job -- Canada Revenue Agency is so efficient at enforcing social insurance numbers and most Canadians simply won't hire workers without valid SINs. You also can't open a bank account, enroll children in school, apply for provincial health care plans, etc. within proof of citizenship or valid visas. This means you can't get a credit card, pass a credit check, rent an apartment (no checking account), etc. Further, many people will turn you in if you do try any of these. "

You also will not get border access if you've ever received a DUI in your life.

Were these policies adopted in America they would be a moral disaster.

A report about the integration of immigrants issued over the summer by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted that more than a fifth of Europe’s immigrants from outside the European Union were unemployed, about double the rate of European Union citizens.
One in four of the economically active is out of work in France and one in three in Belgium and Sweden. And these poor employment prospects persist down the generations. Youth joblessness among the European-born children of immigrants is almost 50 percent higher than for those with native-born parents.

Employment is not the only barrier. Children from less-educated immigrant families are much less likely to succeed at school in Europe than the sons and daughters of natives, and much more likely to end up marginalized: out of school and out of work. Immigrants feel discriminated against more often in Europe. Perceived discrimination is particularly acute among the European-born children of immigrants, who in several countries still do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

In other words, immigrants in Europe are having a bad time.

As Professor Foner put it: “The United States does a better job at accepting immigrants as Americans in the making.”

So can we put this, 'America is evil to immigrant lie' to rest please?

It does not seem so. America has a long history of anti-immigrant sentiment, in spite of long his story of welcoming immigrants. I think you helped show that America is still the land of opportunity, but this does not exonerate us of our own wrongdoing. Though others may be worse, this does not mean we should stop looking at our own wrongdoing and attempt improvement. Illegal immigrants have reason to fear right now. They are vilified as criminals without reason, they have minimal protection from the law, and they have to live with the fear of being deported back.

I have the hope that my response did to rouse your anger too much.

Libertarianism is a spectrum disorder. Some are anarchists. The driving question within libertarianism is what is a commodity and what isn't. Actually, this is the driving question of modern economics, it's just that libertarianism tends to think that too many things have been decomodified. However, if you believe that everything except your own body is a commodity, than Anarcho-Capitalism is sorta the natural place for you to go.

A disorder eh? Sounds purely factual to me. But no, even on the political compass it clearly shows what it is, now sure some people don't use it correctly and politics has it's subtle differences. But I don't really think that's the main focus of Libertarianism. Opinions of non-interventionism has nothing to do with what is and what is not a commodity.

This seems like a straw man. If someone breaks into your house, yeh, that's not arbitrary property rights. Arbitrary property rights would be shit like, say, protecting the intellectual copyright of dead people, or enforcing an investors right to a proportion of property they have never visited at the expense of the workers.

I'll start with begging people to stop using the word strawman if it doesn't actually fit the sentence, a strawman is an argument that hasn't come up or existed by real people. Something like trickle down economics, never existed. But if you're trying to argue that people haven't argued that people shouldn't own your home. I hate to break it to you....

anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secb3.html

quora.com/Does-communism-allow-you-to…

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4r3qq…

Aside from most of this being bullshit that actually means nothing, and if it's not abide-able by law what you "feel" it means, is absolutely worthless. The best defense for a dozen people is "oh people wont use your underwear" everyone owns everything! But yeah personal propriety. Which isn't a legal term, so means nothing. Yeah, that means, they CAN use it. They can legally steal your shit, without penalty.

Also it tries to argue, anything you own that makes you money is the difference. Is private property and whatever doesn't is "personal", so a guitar...if you'd play and had a tip jar. That would no longer be you're personal propriety. According to this logic. That was not a straw-man because IT WAS MADE BY A PERSON.

Also you disregard my statement about, people successfully suing others for trying to steal people's stuff or breaking and entering, and getting rewarded for it. Is that a straw-man? Because it seems like the COURTS, disagree that no one is doing it. It was probably being done more than ever...

This is the inherent problem with libertarianism though. People are not economic units, they are people. Your boss doesn't entirely act in his logical self interest. Neither will his customers. Neither will you. Your boss might do something that is irrational and makes the system you are describing despotic. For instance, Imagine a scenario where we nix sexual harassment laws. While Ron Paul blows a kazoo in the libertarian fortress of doom, some teenage girl somewhere gets fired because she wouldn't go the extra mile with her boss. To keep sexual harassment laws is to accept that we aren't rational actors all the time, and that state intervention is sometimes necessary.

Let me break down that scenario for you then, in a libertarian world, a teen is fired because of her sexist boss. Okay, so she'll point that out, people will realize to not go there. And that company loses money. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't mean at fucking all that success should be YOUR responsibility, in this case the boss failed to run a successful business due to mistreating employees. Their competitors have far better work conditions and therefore see more business.

In an authoritarian fantasy world, that same corporation, let's say cannot simply fire people. Once you're hired, you are there for good. That asshole boss still exists. So, that world keeps her job she likely hates and can't get away from. And all the customers also CAN'T go anywhere else. Because that IS the only other corporation. It receives bailouts, because no matter how bad it is. IT CAN'T FAIL.

I never argued that it is a flawless system, clearly some people can't even seem to agree exactly what it actually is. But it certainly has more credence and realism to how the world works. (Certainly hasn't lead to any regimes...) Self interest. And frankly the reason people find selflessness so reassuring and pleasant is because of how rare of a concept that is. Because it is, humans may be social creatures by nature. But most of our actions DO revolve around self interest/preservation.

There are people who identify as Alt-Right. They exist. Like SJW's, they are an small minority, but they do exist.

I've never seen anyone in real life say they are. Some people probably took the label to heart, like the SJW's did, which I believe was also not something they attributed to themselves at first. But once again, I have to ask is it really on par? Why aren't there giant riots full of them? Where's there U.N meetings taking them seriously? I don't see it...So I really wouldn't compare them in scale or relevance to say the least. But again, it's a completely new term...it's not based in actual history in anyway whatsoever.

and an ethno-state free of minorities.

'Citation needed' that the alt-right as a whole wants this. :P

Okay, nobody was debating this point. You are rambling, sir. Try to keep to, like, five sentence answers or something. Be concise so this debate doesn't get out of control pls.

You're argument is nobody brought it up, even if that was true. You realize you are now telling me to "talk less" or dumb down my sentences because it's too complicated and is out of nowhere. When everyone else in this page has brought up additional and off topic things and everyone else's posts, are also walls of text, but without all the links I provided to actually provide solid backing for my text. But it's somehow bad because I'm doing it. Not following your own rules, and telling me I'm rambling. Even if true, is hypocritical at best.

I'd argue the person I was replying to, was inferring that the alt right, who supposedly are the main supporters of trump, are mostly all white people and that the white supremacist will now rise because of the election results.

Why can't I bring up something a little different if it still refers to what I'm talking about? Why am only I not allowed to do this? And "concise" / 2 sentences sometimes can't debunk several pages and walls of text. I hate to tell you.

First and formost Millenials are adults, so what we are about is irrelevant.

Not to what I'm discussing, or what I'm talking about...and millennials are the generation that voted for trump and the ones actively involved in current politics, not the newest generation. Not to any real extent. I don't think 12 year old's are joining the white supremacist movement to say the least.

Second, yeh, teenagers don't have complex political opinions. What I am saying is that fucking with feminists and saying racist shit isn't evidence that teenagers are all right-wingers now, it's just evidence they are teenagers.

I guess I agree? Though how does that correlate to "right wing opinions are popular with white folks in the pre-college era"? Because that was what I replied to.

Sincerely, have a good day. I might not have been perfectly clear, but it was me replying to three separate people. Probably doesn't come off perfectly, telling me to 'write five sentences' doesn't particularly bring much to the conversation. ;3

@SleepingSilence I agreed with you on the ben shapiro thing, I agree with you about trump to an extent too.

But youve gone plum loco now, accusing @Penny of being a smurf account and getting overly aggressive with doggo. You can make reasonable arguments without being condescending and pissed off. You mentioned you were in a mood, so Its probably best you dont keep arguing, because you are clearly getting heated.

I'm not criticizing your arguments, just calm down, you can make the same points in a more relaxed way, we were all having an extremely civil conversation, I want to keep it that way.

@Dynamo Frokane It's the statement itself "This country is oh so scary" when no one allows non-documented immigrants...most of the immigration problems in Europe is still people they allowed in the country making them "legal"...so that statement gets on my nerves.

But yes, was pissed. Probably shouldn't of bothered. <.<

Also even if it's not the case, I've seen smurf accounts act like this exactly. But if it's wrong, and this is an actual active RP'er. Then I have no problem, correcting myself.

I disagree I'm being -that- aggressive. I'm matching levels if nothing else. I'm even purposefully cutting it back, because I'm aware of it. Which sadly is apparently when everyone wants to rebutt.