Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: larry moe 'n curly on 13 Aug 2010 04:50 Kali wrote: > In article <C129o.4078$co1.2238(a)newsfe11.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? > Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... > > > WHERE in the Constitution does it allow for Free Speech? > > The Constitution allows slavery? It protected the interstate property rights of slave owners and prohibited the federal government from outlawing slavery for the first 12 or 20 years.
From: larry moe 'n curly on 13 Aug 2010 05:05 Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:16:45 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > > > He can't help it, he is a rightwingnut true believer. These guys clam > > up over the weekends because Limpballs, Manatee, Billow, Dreck don't > > blather talking points on weekends. They just sit there staring at > > their screens wishing they had something to say. > > > Not at all. I just LOVE Sunday morning, esp with Gregory at NBC. He gives > me enough material for a week, without having to wait for Limbaugh to > reiterate what I say here SUnday morning. David Gregory's questions are softer than soap bubbles. The man can't interview, and he doesn't come prepared to challenge the false answers that politicians give. He's no Tim Russert, Ted Koppel, Bob Scheiffer, or Mike Wallace. Maybe that's why you like him.
From: Plonkite on 13 Aug 2010 05:08 On Aug 12, 3:49 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > > news:A6Z8o.10910$EF1.7115(a)newsfe14.iad... > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:13:40 -0500, pandora wrote: > > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:24:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > > >>> On Aug 11, 11:58 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:08:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: > >>>> > On Aug 11, 10:21 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >>>> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:07:35 -0500, pandora wrote: > >>>> >> >>>> That position completely ignores the REALITY of illegal > >>>> >> >>>> immigrants that have no citizenship in the first place do not > >>>> >> >>>> get citizenship for no other reason than the mother manages to > >>>> >> >>>> plop out a baby within minutes of crawling under the wire. > > >>>> >> >>> With such a policy, one would be revoking the citizenship of the > >>>> >> >>> *baby*. You know what the Constitution says? Born *here* in the > >>>> >> >>> US, you're a citizen. Live with it. > > >>>> >> >> No, it doesn't. > > >>>> >> > Yes, it does. > > >>>> >> Pardon me, your ignorance is showing yet again. The CONSTITUTION > >>>> >> does NOT allow for "Born here, Citizen here". > > >>>> >> The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for Free Speech. > > >>>> >> The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for the right to bear arms. > > >>>> > You are frothing from the mouth again. Somebody get a paper bag for > >>>> > Roachie can breath into. > > >>>> Where in the Constitution does it say people who are born here are > >>>> Citizens?- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> Oh oh. We are going deep in rightwing world. > > >> He doesn't seem to understand that an Amendment then becomes part of the > >> Constitution. Of course, Hachoo would like the 19th amendment to be > >> repealed as well. > > > Talk about LaLa land... > > > No, the 19th amendment is just fine. The next amendment should require > > either an IQ test or a small civics test to keep 'leaders' like Obungler > > from being elected. > > He got elected. You live with your mother, spent time in jail for a felony, > and you swap motherboards for a living. Maybe you should abandon this IQ > issue. Just slip away quietly. Besides, an IQ test would disenfranchise many conservatives. We want to keep voting rights for all citizens, no matter how dumb they are.
From: larry moe 'n curly on 13 Aug 2010 05:30 Jeff Strickland wrote: > > The reason for birthright in 14 is to make sure that the children of slaves > (non-citizens by almost every measure) would be counted as citizens > automatically and without them being required to apply for citizenship. The vast majority of illegal immigration is caused by money, not anchor babies, but arguments about social controversies are rarely dominated by reason and facts. A few of you are against illegal immigration only because you're concerned about the rule of law, but the vast majority of people who are against legal or illegal immigration simply don't like immigrants who speak English poorly or with funny accents, and you wouldn't be nearly as upset if the vast majority of illegals came from Canada instead of Mexico. Are you afraid that Mexicans who move here won't be loyal enough to America? Then remember that almost all the people who committed treason against our country were native-born Americans who spoke nothing but English with American accents.
From: larry moe 'n curly on 13 Aug 2010 05:33
Mike wrote: > > If you did a proper search When you've told me to do that, it proved that you were wrong. Remember your stupid claim about GW Bush and jobs creation? His administration created as many new jobs over 8 years as the Clinton administration averaged in just one year. Stop being such a pompous buffoon, Mike, especially to people who've already been shown to be correct. |