Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
Now you are scrambling. Trump says they will be deported together. Your reasoning makes no sense. But this is what will happen; the citizens and their families are staying.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
The parents can't stay, they broke the law. If they want to take their kids with, they have that right. Otherwise the kid can go into foster care. This has actually happened.
That article was never put in place so invaders can abuse our law to their advantage. It was to ensure slaves were not deported. That might be too much for a pea brain like yourself, but I tried.
Now you are scrambling. Trump says they will be deported together. You reasoning makes no sense. But this it will happen; the citizens and their families are staying.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
The parents can't stay, they broke the law. If they want to take their kids with, they have that right. Otherwise the kid can go into foster care. This has actually happened.
That article was never put in place so invaders can abuse our law to their advantage. It was to ensure slaves were not deported. That might be too much for a pea brain like yourself, but I tried.
The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
That's a good back up. Chikin is babbling above about deporting citizens. No clarification is needed about your screeching. SCOTUS would reject such because there are only citizens.The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
You dumb ass a challenge to the 14th on the clarification of the 14th regarding criminals having anchor baby's wouldn't strip citizens today, it would prevent it in the future.
That's a good back up. Chikin is babbling above about deporting citizens. No clarification is needed about your screeching. SCOTUS would reject such because there are only citizens.The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
You dumb ass a challenge to the 14th on the clarification of the 14th regarding criminals having anchor baby's wouldn't strip citizens today, it would prevent it in the future.
There is no such category of citizenship, and SCOTUS will reject any case having to do with it.That's a good back up. Chikin is babbling above about deporting citizens. No clarification is needed about your screeching. SCOTUS would reject such because there are only citizens.The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
You dumb ass a challenge to the 14th on the clarification of the 14th regarding criminals having anchor baby's wouldn't strip citizens today, it would prevent it in the future.
Yes it is and if you have any common sense , It was never challenged in a court of law... The only two cases that were was an Indian born on a reservation, moved to a city and declared by SCOTUS not to be an American citizen. It was latter changed by congress in 1920. Again the wong case was about people being here legally. Again any future rullings will not strip US citizenship it would prevent criminals from sneaking in and having anchor baby's....What is so hard to comprehend?
There is no such category of citizenship, and SCOTUS will reject any case having to do with it.That's a good back up. Chikin is babbling above about deporting citizens. No clarification is needed about your screeching. SCOTUS would reject such because there are only citizens.The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
You dumb ass a challenge to the 14th on the clarification of the 14th regarding criminals having anchor baby's wouldn't strip citizens today, it would prevent it in the future.
Yes it is and if you have any common sense , It was never challenged in a court of law... The only two cases that were was an Indian born on a reservation, moved to a city and declared by SCOTUS not to be an American citizen. It was latter changed by congress in 1920. Again the wong case was about people being here legally. Again any future rullings will not strip US citizenship it would prevent criminals from sneaking in and having anchor baby's....What is so hard to comprehend?
No less than yours. I thought HL (I still do) was a wrong intepretation yet felt SCOTUS would probably approve it. I accept it as the law. Even if a case is filed on citizens with illegal parents, the federal courts have given no indication they would do anything but dismiss it as settled law.That's an opinion...Is that what you said about hobby lobby also? No one brought this up before to the court system with criminals sneaking in and having anchor baby's hell even Harry Reid in 1993 was pushing for a bill to clarify the 14th on anchor baby's.There is no such category of citizenship, and SCOTUS will reject any case having to do with it.That's a good back up. Chikin is babbling above about deporting citizens. No clarification is needed about your screeching. SCOTUS would reject such because there are only citizens.The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
You dumb ass a challenge to the 14th on the clarification of the 14th regarding criminals having anchor baby's wouldn't strip citizens today, it would prevent it in the future.
Yes it is and if you have any common sense , It was never challenged in a court of law... The only two cases that were was an Indian born on a reservation, moved to a city and declared by SCOTUS not to be an American citizen. It was latter changed by congress in 1920. Again the wong case was about people being here legally. Again any future rullings will not strip US citizenship it would prevent criminals from sneaking in and having anchor baby's....What is so hard to comprehend?
No less than yours. I thought HL (I still do) was a wrong intepretation yet felt SCOTUS would probably approve it. I accept it as the law. Even if a case is filed on citizens with illegal parents, the federal courts have given no indication they would do anything but dismiss it as settled law.That's an opinion...Is that what you said about hobby lobby also? No one brought this up before to the court system with criminals sneaking in and having anchor baby's hell even Harry Reid in 1993 was pushing for a bill to clarify the 14th on anchor baby's.There is no such category of citizenship, and SCOTUS will reject any case having to do with it.That's a good back up. Chikin is babbling above about deporting citizens. No clarification is needed about your screeching. SCOTUS would reject such because there are only citizens.You dumb ass a challenge to the 14th on the clarification of the 14th regarding criminals having anchor baby's wouldn't strip citizens today, it would prevent it in the future.
Yes it is and if you have any common sense , It was never challenged in a court of law... The only two cases that were was an Indian born on a reservation, moved to a city and declared by SCOTUS not to be an American citizen. It was latter changed by congress in 1920. Again the wong case was about people being here legally. Again any future rullings will not strip US citizenship it would prevent criminals from sneaking in and having anchor baby's....What is so hard to comprehend?
Most or all will leave the kids behind. As you mentioned foster care.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
The parents can't stay, they broke the law. If they want to take their kids with, they have that right. Otherwise the kid can go into foster care. This has actually happened.
That article was never put in place so invaders can abuse our law to their advantage. It was to ensure slaves were not deported. That might be too much for a pea brain like yourself, but I tried.
Jake, Those are the opinions of ultraconservative but either directions they choose there are grave consequences that they seems to ignore.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
Trump wants to evict several million - so where does their property go? Some may have accumulated considerable assets. Will their property be confiscated by the government?
I imagine that is a probable scenario, but I have a difficult time believing that would bother you. You are a huge advocate of the government taking people's property, especially if the person is wealthy.
Please provide some "credible" proof of your claims - or stop lying.
You enthusiastically support a political party whose entire basis of existence is to confiscate the property of one group and give it to another, so please, spare us your phony outrage at being called out on it.
a) I did not know that."When it started electric cars were more popular then gas ones." b5
b) I have no reason to doubt the validity of your assertion.
c) That may not have been for reason of intrinsic engineering superiority. Instead it might have been because:
- starting a gasoline powered automobile engine back then was difficult and dangerous
- electric is quiet
- "range anxiety" wasn't an issue back then, because Adolf Hitler hadn't inspired our InterState Highway network yet. So our traffic fit the patterns of horses. Lead / acid is fine for that.
It's a new millennium.
It's unexceptional to hop in an automobile and drive 500 miles in a day.
Current (no pun intended!) electric battery technology simply doesn't have the energy density of a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel.
The technology is improving, but at glacial pace.
If there are electric-powered airliners in my lifetime, I'll eat my hat.
Your fallacy of false derivative analogy is one of the better ones. Thank you, we are talking about citizenship and residency, not squatting.
Oh he's much stupider than that.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.How is asking you to back up a claim you made deflection? Again, what citizens do conservatives want to deport? Let me remind you, the only deflecting being done here is you, because you can't answer a simple question.See, you get cornered, and you go into deflection mode. I am glad you are admitting that citizens should not deported. Good for you.What citizens are people trying to deport? Pretty straight forward question.The far right loonies are chuckle. They believe they are rational clear thinking people. Yet the don't understand the Constitution, they don't understand the law, and they think they can violate the law without consequences.
No one cannot deport citizens under Wong or any other legislation or SCOTUS opinion. There is nothing.
You and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
He isn't talking about citizens. Are you honestly this fuckin stupid?
I see you're not a parent, or at the least, a very poor one. Virtually ALL parents would take their children with them or make sure they had a loving family to care for them here. The few that stayed would likely be teens who would be only our problem for a short time.Most or all will leave the kids behind. As you mentioned foster care.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
The parents can't stay, they broke the law. If they want to take their kids with, they have that right. Otherwise the kid can go into foster care. This has actually happened.
That article was never put in place so invaders can abuse our law to their advantage. It was to ensure slaves were not deported. That might be too much for a pea brain like yourself, but I tried.
Who will pay for these kids expenses? Let say 20 on the low side to 30, 40 millions kids. Brilliant idea.
Your fallacy of false derivative analogy is one of the better ones. Thank you, we are talking about citizenship and residency, not squatting.
No, you are not. Your analogy of squatting does not work with citizenship.Bear: That's what they are doing dumb ass and you can not even figure it out ass hole?
Reported for rules violation.I see you're not a parent, or at the least, a very poor one. Virtually ALL parents would take their children with them or make sure they had a loving family to care for them here. The few that stayed would likely be teens who would be only our problem for a short time.Most or all will leave the kids behind. As you mentioned foster care.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
The parents can't stay, they broke the law. If they want to take their kids with, they have that right. Otherwise the kid can go into foster care. This has actually happened.
That article was never put in place so invaders can abuse our law to their advantage. It was to ensure slaves were not deported. That might be too much for a pea brain like yourself, but I tried.
Who will pay for these kids expenses? Let say 20 on the low side to 30, 40 millions kids. Brilliant idea.
who are you going to report him to jake?....the principal?...Reported for rules violation.I see you're not a parent, or at the least, a very poor one. Virtually ALL parents would take their children with them or make sure they had a loving family to care for them here. The few that stayed would likely be teens who would be only our problem for a short time.Most or all will leave the kids behind. As you mentioned foster care.You continue to deflect. The far right reactionary wing, none of the conservatives at all, want the citizens gone so they can loot their property. Trump certainly does by saying families will stay together and go.
That means the citizen infants and children are going. Now you are implying that you don't want to deport citizens. I hope so; that would be a good change for you.
Up until now you and coherent thought do not recognize each other.
You and JimBowie et al. are excellent poster weasels for why most far right reactionary threads are lies.
The parents can't stay, they broke the law. If they want to take their kids with, they have that right. Otherwise the kid can go into foster care. This has actually happened.
That article was never put in place so invaders can abuse our law to their advantage. It was to ensure slaves were not deported. That might be too much for a pea brain like yourself, but I tried.
Who will pay for these kids expenses? Let say 20 on the low side to 30, 40 millions kids. Brilliant idea.
The far right wing has absolutely no argument of merit that will allow for the deportation of citizens. If Trump keeps saying he will keep families together, either he is going to create exceptions or he is going to violate the Constitution and law.
