Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: Aratzio on 13 Aug 2010 11:06 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:37:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:16:43 -0400, Kali wrote: > >>> >> Do you ever add anything substanative? >>> > >>> > Did your dictionary fail you? >>> > >>> >>> Yup. I meant substantioal. >> >> lol fat fingers ^^^^ > >Hey, I never said I was a typist! > But people like you, right Stuart?
From: Aratzio on 13 Aug 2010 11:13 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:48:52 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:47:57 -0400, Kali wrote: > >> In article <sdv8669t3gqltgrer5dqiqfndhk0td0gk6(a)4ax.com>, Aratzio >> a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com says... >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:58:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali >>> <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >>> >>> >In article <9pd66615bj3h3mqjv6qt514mgnrchc6loc(a)4ax.com>, Aratzio >>> >a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com says... >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali >>> >> <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. >>> >> >Excellent arguments; well researched. >>> >> > >>> >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >>> >> >dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html >>> >> > >>> >> >Excerpts >>> >> >------------------------------- >>> >> >By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, >>> >> >the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] >>> >> >over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make >>> >> >their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. >>> >> >------------------------------- >>> >> >The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. >>> >> >They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition >>> >> >of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans >>> >> >enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever >>> >> >did. >>> >> > >>> >> >Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to >>> >> >regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United >>> >> >States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. >>> >> > >>> >> >Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of >>> >> >today's Republicans.... >>> >> >-------------------------------- >>> >> > >>> >> >He points to another well done piece by EJ Dionne at WaPo, very much >>> >> >worth a read. >>> >> >>> >> More importantly, any politician that is running on altering the >>> >> constitution is lying. >>> >> >>> >> It takes years and quite often decades to change the constitution. >>> >> >>> >> 2/3 of both houses and 38 states (legislature or conventions) >>> >> >>> >> Constitutional convention ropoed by 2/3 ratified by 3/4 >>> >> >>> >> Then the one where states request congress call a convention and then >>> >> is ratified by 3/4. >>> >> >>> >> So, how long will it take to get 2/3 of both houses to agree on either >>> >> a new amendment or a repeal? >>> >> >>> >> If that were to occur then they have 7 years to get 38 states to pass >>> >> the proposed amendment. >>> >> >>> >> So, for wingnut policy to be enacted would essentially require 2/3 of >>> >> congress and 3/4 of states to become wingnut. >>> >> . >>> > >>> >But... but... the wingnuts want the Constitution left alooooone! >>> >Well, only conservative activist judges are allowed to legislate >>> >from the bench. Wait. Oh, dear. It's all so confusing. >>> >>> Well, they probably would be pleased with the 3/5th rule... >> >> Oh lordy I'm too tired for this thread. Who started it, anyway? > >Uh...you did! ;p > > Look, you clot, that is called a rhetorical question. I know you are one of the most humor challenged gits, but when you were fired from your mother's caverous birth canal did they miss the catch and you hit the wall head first? Obtuse fails to capture the gross stupidity that infests your every maundering drool inflected post.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Aug 2010 17:31 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:05:18 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > > Hachiroku ハチロク 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. Of course they are. Especially to Liberals. I guess you didn't see him hammering McCain.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Aug 2010 17:33 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:54:47 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:fV49o.65956$4B7.31120(a)newsfe16.iad... >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:21:27 -0400, Kali wrote: >> >>> In article <A6Z8o.10910$EF1.7115(a)newsfe14.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? >>> Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> You never miss a chance to put down educated people. Why is that? >> >> No, I like educated people. >> >> It's educated fools I have trouble with. > > > Once again, your jealousy is showing. See what I mean?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Aug 2010 17:36
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:45:50 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:17:17 -0400, Kali wrote: >> >> > >> > I don't get Air America. But Rachel Maddow is an excellent >> > journalist, >> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> Now I know where you're coming from. Rachael Maddow was a "housewife" to >> her wife in Goshen Mass when she called a local radio station that was >> taking calls from *anyone* in their search for a morning show sidekick. >> After a few months (4-6) they gave her her own show from 10-2, and shortly >> after that it became apparent she was the typical l00n found in this part >> of Mass. If that's where you're getting your info, you need a better >> source. > > So if that's all she is, then how did she manage to get her own cable > news/commentary show and become a frequent panelist on Meet the > Press? Was it related to how she managed to graduate from Stanford > University and get a Rhodes scholarship to study at Oxford University, > where she was awarded a doctorate -- by being really smart? > > Please point out some looney things Maddow has said or written. Sorry, I haven't paid attention to her since her first 4 months in broadcasting. That was plenty. |