Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Aug 2010 22:43 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:37:46 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:57:57 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:f8Z8o.10911$EF1.2900(a)newsfe14.iad... >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:06:17 -0500, pandora wrote: >>> >>>>> When you don't look up facts, you make stuff up. And when you don't >>>>> know what the facts are, or the various arguments are, you are >>>>> depending on others to tell you what to think. This is one of the >>>>> great laws of the universe, genius. >>>> >>>> And don't forget, after that he insults and then runs away. >>> >>> Do you ever add anything substanative? >>> >>> A female JoeSpareBedroom. >> >> >> Your debating style is so dumb that we can stay busy taking shots at >> that all day long. No need to even address the content of what you're >> attempting to discuss. > > And that may be what he intends all along. After all, he doesn't have > anything to add to any topic other than what he has been told. Bullshit. > Of course > he'd prefer to shift the discussion elsewhere.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 12 Aug 2010 22:58 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:y229o.4079$co1.2461(a)newsfe11.iad... > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:49:22 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "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. > > My lifestyle has nothing to do with the fact I can think rings around you. In your dreams, mama's boy.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Aug 2010 23:12 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:58:36 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> My lifestyle has nothing to do with the fact I can think rings around you. > > > In your dreams, mama's boy. Not at all. I do it on a regular basis, right here in this newsgroup. Stick around for a while and see.
From: Kali on 12 Aug 2010 23:47 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? -- Kali
From: Kali on 13 Aug 2010 00:11
In article <eKidnVYruLyUt_nRnZ2dnUVZ_q2rnZ2d(a)scnresearch.com>, pandora pandora(a)peak.org says... > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:34:06 -0400, Kali wrote: > > > In article <GjI8o.53254$3%3.22177(a)newsfe23.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? > > Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... > >> > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:17:17 -0400, Kali wrote: [...] > >> Who said I heard it from Limbaugh? Or Beck? Or anyone else? > >> > >> I don't need them to tell me what to think. > > > > 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. I learned a new phrase from John Henry today: "Vomitously stupid". Cool, huh? -- Kali |