From: pandora on
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:57:57 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:f8Z8o.10911$EF1.2900(a)newsfe14.iad...
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:06:17 -0500, pandora wrote:
>>
>>>> When you don't look up facts, you make stuff up. And when you don't
>>>> know what the facts are, or the various arguments are, you are
>>>> depending on others to tell you what to think. This is one of the
>>>> great laws of the universe, genius.
>>>
>>> And don't forget, after that he insults and then runs away.
>>
>> Do you ever add anything substanative?
>>
>> A female JoeSpareBedroom.
>
>
> Your debating style is so dumb that we can stay busy taking shots at
> that all day long. No need to even address the content of what you're
> attempting to discuss.

And that may be what he intends all along. After all, he doesn't have
anything to add to any topic other than what he has been told. Of course
he'd prefer to shift the discussion elsewhere.
From: pandora on
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:48:32 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

> 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 ハチロク <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:08:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote:
>>>> > On Aug 11, 10:21 pm, Hachiroku ハチロク <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.

I'd *almost* agree to that as it would keep idiots like yourself from
voting.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(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.


From: Aratzio on
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...
From: Aratzio on
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:35:40 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio,
pandora <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:50:19 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:06:17 -0500, pandora wrote:
>>
>>>> When you don't look up facts, you make stuff up. And when you don't
>>>> know what the facts are, or the various arguments are, you are
>>>> depending on others to tell you what to think. This is one of the
>>>> great laws of the universe, genius.
>>>
>>> And don't forget, after that he insults and then runs away.
>>
>> Do you ever add anything substanative?
>
>Did your dictionary fail you?

Well, according to him, that is a sign of drunkenness.