Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....

[PoliticalChic]

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

There is no anti-immigrant lobby.

Stop lying.

You are the only person between the two of us that is lying.

Find one.

 

[Humorme]

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

The Ds want the foreigners here for the votes; the Rs want them here for the cheap labor.

Meanwhile the average American... like where I live has guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living at home with mommy. These dirtbags won't work; they're addicted to drugs (many having been fed drugs as a kid for non-existent conditions like ADD / ADHD) and a lot of them have made it to middle age with no high school diploma, no job skills, and not even a driver's license.

These sorry asses sit on their computer doing the social media thing and video games all day. A Mexican guy comes through here about twice a week cutting grass because those worthless Americans are that lazy.

The few who do try to do better after years of worthlessness are locked out of the system by a criminal record that shouldn't be available to the general public - except in rare circumstances (like someone who wants to take care of your kids or one who handles large sums of money / automobiles / heavy machinery.

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

Seems you weren't prepared to answer the question:

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?



Based on what appears to be dishonesty in your post....I'll ask it another way: Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily


And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama





Speak up, you dunce!!!!

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

I never use vulgarity.
I prove my point...PROVE....using only facts and logic.
I hope you will keep to the truth, and stop blaming both parties.....it isn't the truth.,

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

I "have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. "


Another lie.....unless you'd care to deny this:


Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily






And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama



One more?

Which party is relying on illegal alien votes for their future????

"Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

… a leaked document from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund shows what most of us have always known, but what Democrats like to pretend isn’t their reality.

Namely, the memo, in great detail, maps out how Democrats are relying on illegal immigration to prop up their political future.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo,…” Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats and Illegal Immigration



Ripped you a new one, huh?

Ripped ME a new one? Calling you delusional would be an insult to the word.. I'll give you the same answer the last time you posted that bull manure:

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

Seems you weren't prepared to answer the question:

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?



Based on what appears to be dishonesty in your post....I'll ask it another way: Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily


And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama





Speak up, you dunce!!!!

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

I never use vulgarity.
I prove my point...PROVE....using only facts and logic.
I hope you will keep to the truth, and stop blaming both parties.....it isn't the truth.,

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

I "have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. "


Another lie.....unless you'd care to deny this:


Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily






And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama



One more?

Which party is relying on illegal alien votes for their future????

"Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

… a leaked document from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund shows what most of us have always known, but what Democrats like to pretend isn’t their reality.

Namely, the memo, in great detail, maps out how Democrats are relying on illegal immigration to prop up their political future.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo,…” Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats and Illegal Immigration



Ripped you a new one, huh?

Ripped ME a new one? Calling you delusional would be an insult to the word.. I'll give you the same answer the last time you posted that bull manure:

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

I challenged you to find any example to support your claim that I lied.

If you cannot, let's agree you are the self-identified liar, m'kay????

Am I correct that the argument is about illegal immigration, not immigration?

Am I correct that it is the Democrats who offered food stamp applications to Mexicans in Mexico?

Am I correct that the Democrats stymied the immigration courts to allow thousands of illegals to remain in the USofA?

Am I correct that the Democrat President told illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election?


Turns out that I am also correct that you are a liar, huh?

 

[Humorme]

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

There is no anti-immigrant lobby.

Stop lying.

You are the only person between the two of us that is lying.

Find one.

Your denial that there is an anti-immigrant lobby is just a start. But, the mods have decreed that we do not address that on this thread. If you start another thread in the immigration forum here, I will go there and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there IS an anti-immigrant lobby. It won't be the first time and I can name times and dates (I already did earlier in this thread, but I can name a lot of the upper echelon anti-immigrant leaders.)

You want to accept the challenge or keep yapping what the Democrats have done? BTW, I did not dispute what you said the Democrats did. What I said is, agreeing with you on the problem is not enough. You want me to kiss your ass and agree with the solutions thought up by disinformation artists, racists, and anti - immigrant shills.

BACK TO THE TOPIC:

Thomas Paine, a found father said:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

It is a warning against the very practices the anti-immigrant ignores. They think that by calling people names, it will somehow enhance their cause. "Illegal alien, illegal alien," they chant. And God help anybody that challenges the status quo.

Regardless of who you are, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to every person (not just citizens) the equal protection of the laws. WHEN the law presumes ANY group guilty - which is the intent of chanting the "illegal" mantra, then every person and every group can be presumed guilty. I kind of like that idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence. When that standard is applied to you, maybe Paine's words will take on some meaning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But you are lying.

The protests are not anti-immigration.

They are anti- illegal immigration.

Tell the truth.

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

There is no anti-immigrant lobby.

Stop lying.

You are the only person between the two of us that is lying.

Find one.

Your denial that there is an anti-immigrant lobby is just a start. But, the mods have decreed that we do not address that on this thread. If you start another thread in the immigration forum here, I will go there and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there IS an anti-immigrant lobby. It won't be the first time and I can name times and dates (I already did earlier in this thread, but I can name a lot of the upper echelon anti-immigrant leaders.)

You want to accept the challenge or keep yapping what the Democrats have done? BTW, I did not dispute what you said the Democrats did. What I said is, agreeing with you on the problem is not enough. You want me to kiss your ass and agree with the solutions thought up by disinformation artists, racists, and anti - immigrant shills.

BACK TO THE TOPIC:

Thomas Paine, a found father said:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

It is a warning against the very practices the anti-immigrant ignores. They think that by calling people names, it will somehow enhance their cause. "Illegal alien, illegal alien," they chant. And God help anybody that challenges the status quo.

Regardless of who you are, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to every person (not just citizens) the equal protection of the laws. WHEN the law presumes ANY group guilty - which is the intent of chanting the "illegal" mantra, then every person and every group can be presumed guilty. I kind of like that idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence. When that standard is applied to you, maybe Paine's words will take on some meaning.

Am I correct that the argument is about illegal immigration, not immigration?

Am I correct that it is the Democrats who offered food stamp applications to Mexicans in Mexico?

Am I correct that the Democrats stymied the immigration courts to allow thousands of illegals to remain in the USofA?

Am I correct that the Democrat President told illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election?


Turns out that I am also correct that you are a liar, huh?

 

[Humorme]

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

I never use vulgarity.
I prove my point...PROVE....using only facts and logic.
I hope you will keep to the truth, and stop blaming both parties.....it isn't the truth.,

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

I "have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. "


Another lie.....unless you'd care to deny this:


Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily






And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama



One more?

Which party is relying on illegal alien votes for their future????

"Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

… a leaked document from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund shows what most of us have always known, but what Democrats like to pretend isn’t their reality.

Namely, the memo, in great detail, maps out how Democrats are relying on illegal immigration to prop up their political future.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo,…” Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats and Illegal Immigration



Ripped you a new one, huh?

Ripped ME a new one? Calling you delusional would be an insult to the word.. I'll give you the same answer the last time you posted that bull manure:

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

I challenged you to find any example to support your claim that I lied.

If you cannot, let's agree you are the self-identified liar, m'kay????

Am I correct that the argument is about illegal immigration, not immigration?

Am I correct that it is the Democrats who offered food stamp applications to Mexicans in Mexico?

Am I correct that the Democrats stymied the immigration courts to allow thousands of illegals to remain in the USofA?

Am I correct that the Democrat President told illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election?


Turns out that I am also correct that you are a liar, huh?

Let's agree to this:

1) You LIE

2) You're too cowardly to start a relevant thread

3) You are arrogant pompous

4) This is the wrong forum for a personal whizzing contest

5) Observing the rules as explained to me by a moderator does not make me a liar, but it makes anyone who would badger me and try to get me to violate the rule just explained to be a troll or a shill.

Let's agree to that. IF you don't like my replies, PM Flacaltenn, who is a senior moderator here and confirm that what I told you is true. If you don't do that, it will not only expose you as the LIAR, but a coward as well. So, direct your questions to him now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

(Continued from previous post)

...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...

And why is this?

Could it be because Gun Nuts and their NRA mouthpiece have been obstructing Public Safety in this area for years?

No, they haven't. And it's because useful idiots like you have been erroneously and disingenuously convincing people that "public safety" means "give up your freedom for a promise of safety"....

1. Yes, you have (obstructed forward progress on sane nationwide gun control for decades)

2. No, I haven't (held the position that we must give up personal freedom for a promise of safety)

You will be giving up no personal freedoms.

You will, however, be vetted, and licensed, and registered, and trained, in accordance with the Class of License you apply for.

You must think we're all as simpleminded as you are, when you trot out contradictions like that with a straight face.

"Vetted, licensed, and registered" IS giving up personal freedom, you dunce. You must not understand a damned thing about the intrinsic nature of freedom, if you think one asks the permission of the government to have it and use it. When was the last time a reporter filled out a government application and went through a government "vetting" process before filing a news story? Or hell, when was the last time YOU filled out an application getting permission to shoot your mouth off on this board? Seriously, pick the unalienable right mentioned in our Founding Documents for which you need to be "vetted, licensed, and registered" to exercise.

The essence of freedom, of rights, is that they are not asked for or granted; they just are.

...

The present Republican control of the Government is not going to last forever; you, like they, will go too far, sometime soon, and get the boot.

Thank you for reminding us that our liberty is only safe until the next Democrat election win...[/QUOTE]
Your liberty is safe both before and after the next Democrat election win.[/QUOTE]

My liberty is not safe so long as leftists/Democrats exist. Your previous statement above proved that.

It's just that you'll be obliged to conform to national standards for vetting, licensing, registration, transactions, etc.

No different than having different Classes of Drivers Licenses and having different levels of Registration and Training to undertake.

And you continue to demonstrate it. My liberty cannot be safe so long as people who don't comprehend the concept of liberty have potential access to power.

I don't mind having to fight to maintain my liberty, though, because that at least ensures I will never learn to take it for granted, the way you do.

Your recent treatment of the Children of Parkland is now burned into the Democratic Party collective hive-mind, and will not fade.

Democrat victimhood and delusions of oppression are burned into their collective hive-mind even if Republicans never say a word. I think it's good that you recognize that Democrats only have one brain amongst them and are as intelligent as your average insect, though....[/QUOTE]
You go right on deluding yourselves that this is the case... you will understand just how wrong you were, over the course of the next couple of election cycles, as America continues to realign on the subject of sensible and uniform gun-control at the Federal level.[/QUOTE]

America "realigning on 'sensible gun control':

NRA sees a huge surge in membership interest after Parkland | Daily Mail Online

Someone is delusional, but it isn't me.

I suggest you cut a deal and shift to support for nationwide standards, background checks, licensure, registration, transaction approval, seizures for cause (felony convictions, mental health diagnosis) etc., while you still have room to maneuver.

Yeah, the suggestion of Democrat shills is ALWAYS "compromise by immediately surrendering! Your only hope is to give us everything we want RIGHT NOW!" If you weren't all a bunch of bugs, you'd understand why that's never a persuasive argument...[/QUOTE]
You are blind to the realignment underway amongst the American voting public on this issue and insist upon playing Queen of Denial.

The lesson will be driven home for you soon enough, I fear.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm SURE you "fear" that. Yeah, you're quaking in your boots at the notion that America will be filled with nancyboys who run screaming at the sight of a gun, but the quaking is from the orgasm that daydream gives you.

We'll see soon enough whether the left's campaign of lies and disinformation gets them any closer to their fascist goals, but I can promise you that your "generous" offer of allowing us to "compromise" by giving in to your demands wholesale is going to be spat upon right up until whatever end comes.

Judgment Day's a'comin'... a handful of years, at best... and if you haven't shifted to a Middle Ground by the time it arrives, you're going to get bowled over... at-law... the next time the Dems get a turn at-bat. Compromise... while you still

can. You have been warned. Ignore that warning at your own very great peril...

"We are going to punish you mightily for daring to think you have rights and can exercise them freely! You evil bastards, how dare you disagree!"...[/QUOTE]

Bumper-Sticker Mentality; signifying nothing.

Which is exactly why we ignore you when you start with it.

...Feel free to start your insurrection any time you like, Robespierre. Just remember: we're armed, and you aren't, by your own choice.

You will feel the power of that insurrection during the course of the next couple of election cycles.

Americans of good character do not threaten their fellow Americans with weapons, merely for expressing political opinion.

Yes, but who ever referred to you as an "American of good character"?

 

[Humorme]

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

There is no anti-immigrant lobby.

Stop lying.

You are the only person between the two of us that is lying.

Find one.

Your denial that there is an anti-immigrant lobby is just a start. But, the mods have decreed that we do not address that on this thread. If you start another thread in the immigration forum here, I will go there and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there IS an anti-immigrant lobby. It won't be the first time and I can name times and dates (I already did earlier in this thread, but I can name a lot of the upper echelon anti-immigrant leaders.)

You want to accept the challenge or keep yapping what the Democrats have done? BTW, I did not dispute what you said the Democrats did. What I said is, agreeing with you on the problem is not enough. You want me to kiss your ass and agree with the solutions thought up by disinformation artists, racists, and anti - immigrant shills.

BACK TO THE TOPIC:

Thomas Paine, a found father said:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

It is a warning against the very practices the anti-immigrant ignores. They think that by calling people names, it will somehow enhance their cause. "Illegal alien, illegal alien," they chant. And God help anybody that challenges the status quo.

Regardless of who you are, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to every person (not just citizens) the equal protection of the laws. WHEN the law presumes ANY group guilty - which is the intent of chanting the "illegal" mantra, then every person and every group can be presumed guilty. I kind of like that idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence. When that standard is applied to you, maybe Paine's words will take on some meaning.

Am I correct that the argument is about illegal immigration, not immigration?

Am I correct that it is the Democrats who offered food stamp applications to Mexicans in Mexico?

Am I correct that the Democrats stymied the immigration courts to allow thousands of illegals to remain in the USofA?

Am I correct that the Democrat President told illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election?


Turns out that I am also correct that you are a liar, huh?

As it turns out, you are NOT correct; you are lying; the balance of your immigration related questions are not to be addressed on this thread as they are off topic. If you can make a connection from your questions to the Rights we are in danger of losing, you might have something, but you don't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

(Continued from previous post)

...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...

And why is this?

Could it be because Gun Nuts and their NRA mouthpiece have been obstructing Public Safety in this area for years?

No, they haven't. And it's because useful idiots like you have been erroneously and disingenuously convincing people that "public safety" means "give up your freedom for a promise of safety"....

1. Yes, you have (obstructed forward progress on sane nationwide gun control for decades)

2. No, I haven't (held the position that we must give up personal freedom for a promise of safety)

You will be giving up no personal freedoms.

You will, however, be vetted, and licensed, and registered, and trained, in accordance with the Class of License you apply for.

You must think we're all as simpleminded as you are, when you trot out contradictions like that with a straight face.

"Vetted, licensed, and registered" IS giving up personal freedom, you dunce. You must not understand a damned thing about the intrinsic nature of freedom, if you think one asks the permission of the government to have it and use it. When was the last time a reporter filled out a government application and went through a government "vetting" process before filing a news story? Or hell, when was the last time YOU filled out an application getting permission to shoot your mouth off on this board? Seriously, pick the unalienable right mentioned in our Founding Documents for which you need to be "vetted, licensed, and registered" to exercise.

The essence of freedom, of rights, is that they are not asked for or granted; they just are.

...

The present Republican control of the Government is not going to last forever; you, like they, will go too far, sometime soon, and get the boot.

Thank you for reminding us that our liberty is only safe until the next Democrat election win...

Your liberty is safe both before and after the next Democrat election win.[/QUOTE]

My liberty is not safe so long as leftists/Democrats exist. Your previous statement above proved that.

It's just that you'll be obliged to conform to national standards for vetting, licensing, registration, transactions, etc.

No different than having different Classes of Drivers Licenses and having different levels of Registration and Training to undertake.

And you continue to demonstrate it. My liberty cannot be safe so long as people who don't comprehend the concept of liberty have potential access to power.

I don't mind having to fight to maintain my liberty, though, because that at least ensures I will never learn to take it for granted, the way you do.

Your recent treatment of the Children of Parkland is now burned into the Democratic Party collective hive-mind, and will not fade.

Democrat victimhood and delusions of oppression are burned into their collective hive-mind even if Republicans never say a word. I think it's good that you recognize that Democrats only have one brain amongst them and are as intelligent as your average insect, though....[/QUOTE]
You go right on deluding yourselves that this is the case... you will understand just how wrong you were, over the course of the next couple of election cycles, as America continues to realign on the subject of sensible and uniform gun-control at the Federal level.[/QUOTE]

America "realigning on 'sensible gun control':

NRA sees a huge surge in membership interest after Parkland | Daily Mail Online

Someone is delusional, but it isn't me.

I suggest you cut a deal and shift to support for nationwide standards, background checks, licensure, registration, transaction approval, seizures for cause (felony convictions, mental health diagnosis) etc., while you still have room to maneuver.

Yeah, the suggestion of Democrat shills is ALWAYS "compromise by immediately surrendering! Your only hope is to give us everything we want RIGHT NOW!" If you weren't all a bunch of bugs, you'd understand why that's never a persuasive argument...[/QUOTE]
You are blind to the realignment underway amongst the American voting public on this issue and insist upon playing Queen of Denial.

The lesson will be driven home for you soon enough, I fear.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm SURE you "fear" that. Yeah, you're quaking in your boots at the notion that America will be filled with nancyboys who run screaming at the sight of a gun, but the quaking is from the orgasm that daydream gives you.

We'll see soon enough whether the left's campaign of lies and disinformation gets them any closer to their fascist goals, but I can promise you that your "generous" offer of allowing us to "compromise" by giving in to your demands wholesale is going to be spat upon right up until whatever end comes.

Judgment Day's a'comin'... a handful of years, at best... and if you haven't shifted to a Middle Ground by the time it arrives, you're going to get bowled over... at-law... the next time the Dems get a turn at-bat. Compromise... while you still

can. You have been warned. Ignore that warning at your own very great peril...

"We are going to punish you mightily for daring to think you have rights and can exercise them freely! You evil bastards, how dare you disagree!"...[/QUOTE]

Bumper-Sticker Mentality; signifying nothing.

Which is exactly why we ignore you when you start with it.

...Feel free to start your insurrection any time you like, Robespierre. Just remember: we're armed, and you aren't, by your own choice.

You will feel the power of that insurrection during the course of the next couple of election cycles.

Americans of good character do not threaten their fellow Americans with weapons, merely for expressing political opinion.

Yes, but who ever referred to you as an "American of good character"?

[/QUOTE]

For the record, the Quote function went to Hell in the middle of this. Sorry, guys.

 

[Humorme]

I have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. I gave credit the portion of your posting making allegations against the Democrats, but I also posted that the Republicans have granted "amnesty" to twice as many undocumented foreigners than the Democrats have.

When I point out the facts of how both the Ds and Rs demagogue this issue for political gain, while denying to those from south of the border an equal opportunity with rich foreigners from other parts of the world, suddenly, I'm a liar and my posts are being deleted.

If you could take five minutes of your day to READ posts instead of trying judge people, you might find that we are in agreement on a lot of things - yes, a problem exists. But that's not good enough for you. If I don't chant the mantra; if I have a different view as to solutions, then I'm a liar. THAT points to YOUR insecurity; YOUR dishonesty; YOUR failure to be able to look at the facts objectively.

All persons (everybody) standing on U.S. soil (regardless of immigration status, race, creed, color, political beliefs, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or country of origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

I "have proven the point (though my posts are being deleted) that both sides are equally responsible for the immigration situation we have today. "


Another lie.....unless you'd care to deny this:


Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily






And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama



One more?

Which party is relying on illegal alien votes for their future????

"Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats And Illegal Immigration

… a leaked document from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund shows what most of us have always known, but what Democrats like to pretend isn’t their reality.

Namely, the memo, in great detail, maps out how Democrats are relying on illegal immigration to prop up their political future.

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” reads Palmieri’s memo,…” Leaked Memo Confirms What We Already Knew About Democrats and Illegal Immigration



Ripped you a new one, huh?

Ripped ME a new one? Calling you delusional would be an insult to the word.. I'll give you the same answer the last time you posted that bull manure:

Why don't YOU tell the truth?

Why do YOU continue to lie?

Let me explain to you how your side LIES about this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

BTW, this thread is about Rights. That is the OP, right? So, the mods should not be deleting this as they have been my other posts on this thread.

The anti-immigrant lobby holds this really idiotic notion that if you are not a citizen, you shouldn't be in this country. That alone makes them anti-immigrant because they refuse to talk about people who come to the United States and do not want to become citizens. They refuse to discuss those who come here to work, not to come here permanently.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment very carefully. Notice the distinction between a citizen and a "person." A person born in the United States is a citizen. Citizens have privileges and immunities, but all persons (which includes, but is not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United States have the Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and Due Process.

The strategy of the anti-immigrant lobby is to support antiquated quotas whereby foreigners come here to work - NOT to become citizens. In doing so, they deprive employers of having equal access to that pool of foreign workers. All employers are guaranteed the equal protection of the law. But, only a finite number of foreigners are allowed to come into the United States to work - NOT to become citizens. Employers are thus denied the equal protection of the laws.

Through force the anti immigrant lobby seeks to keep out the foreigners at the lower end of the economic scale - though those people may have American relatives, preferring to let the rich come in for the purpose of becoming citizens. The anti-immigrant lobby does not understand that for every rich person they allow to emigrate from richer countries, for the purpose of becoming citizens, the closer they are to losing their country to people with anti-American political philosophies.

I challenged you to find any example to support your claim that I lied.

If you cannot, let's agree you are the self-identified liar, m'kay????

Am I correct that the argument is about illegal immigration, not immigration?

Am I correct that it is the Democrats who offered food stamp applications to Mexicans in Mexico?

Am I correct that the Democrats stymied the immigration courts to allow thousands of illegals to remain in the USofA?

Am I correct that the Democrat President told illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election?


Turns out that I am also correct that you are a liar, huh?

Let's agree to this:

1) You LIE

2) You're too cowardly to start a relevant thread

3) You are arrogant pompous

4) This is the wrong forum for a personal whizzing contest

5) Observing the rules as explained to me by a moderator does not make me a liar, but it makes anyone who would badger me and try to get me to violate the rule just explained to be a troll or a shill.

Let's agree to that. IF you don't like my replies, PM Flacaltenn, who is a senior moderator here and confirm that what I told you is true. If you don't do that, it will not only expose you as the LIAR, but a coward as well. So, direct your questions to him now.

Why do you keep slithering away from these queries????

Am I correct that the argument is about illegal immigration, not immigration?

Am I correct that it is the Democrats who offered food stamp applications to Mexicans in Mexico?

Am I correct that the Democrats stymied the immigration courts to allow thousands of illegals to remain in the USofA?

Am I correct that the Democrat President told illegal aliens to vote in the presidential election?


Turns out that I am also correct that you are a liar, huh?


I sense a palpable fear on your part.

The truth will set you free.

What I see from you is a self absorbed, dishonest, bully. You lie, you badger and you try to filibuster and B.S. your way through life.

I've answered your questions to the best of my ability given the parameters set by flacaltenn. I expect that you will take this to him and if you don't, it is your admission that what I've said is true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

no .. Self DEFENSE is an unalienable human right. Whether it's protecting your business from robbers or looters or your home from vandals and murderers. It was also recognized by our Founders as a legitimate cause to DISSUADE tyrannical govts and govts that dont RESPECT the other rights of their citizenry.

Self defense? Seems that would differ state/state, as some do not allow you to defend our homes, instead insist we retreat

I'm sure you've heard of castle laws

So much for 'inalienable'.....

~S~

The fact that some tyranny-leaning governments refuse to recognize rights in no way makes them any less rights, or contradicts "unalienable". Perhaps you should improve your education in vocabulary, history, and political philosophy. The national discussion appears to be on topics that are way above your head.

 

[Kondor3]

...You lefties LOVE to use euphemisms like "sane gun control" and "common-sense gun control" because you know it will muddy the real issues being discussed, and you know that if you stated what you're REALLY talking about plainly, you would never get anyone to agree with you...

Rubbish.

Most Americans who favor of vast improvements in firearms control are NOT in favor of bans.

That's just Right-Wing NRA bumper sticker -caliber Scare Tactics... and those aren't working as well as they used to, are they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

...You lefties LOVE to use euphemisms like "sane gun control" and "common-sense gun control" because you know it will muddy the real issues being discussed, and you know that if you stated what you're REALLY talking about plainly, you would never get anyone to agree with you...

Rubbish.

Most Americans who favor of vast improvements in firearms control are NOT in favor of bans.

That's just Right-Wing NRA bumper sticker -caliber Scare Tactics... and those aren't working as well as they used to, are they?

You can call it "rubbish" all you like, but I'm neither interested in nor impressed with what the useful idiot drones believe the goal is. My focus is, and always will be, on what the disingenuous activists will use it as a stepping-stone toward.

To put it more bluntly, you never pay blackmailers, because they never take the money and go away. They just come back the next week and want even more.

The only "scare tactic" we need is for people to listen to leftists talking.

 

[OnePercenter]

Let me prove my point:

Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.


That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.



"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.

"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns




"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’



"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution

You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.

Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?

The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?

You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!

The government stole the damn thing. Had the government not prohibited the firearm from certain places, it would be on my person.

But nooooo, some places want you to leave the weapon in the car. It's not the only stop I make in the course of the day, so I'm not leaving it at home. Irresponsible would be buying a firearm for self defense and then leaving it locked up in Fort Knox so that idiots can't ***** about it.

The government created the infringement.

You didn't do the right thing and it's the government's fault, how liberal of you.

Locking the firearm wasn't the right thing to do? Are you freaking kidding? Your moronic posts sound something like a ten year old would say. You don't know a damn thing about the situation; don't know me; and by law I took due diligence - that law, in our state, having been authored by an anti-gun Democrat.

We do things your way and you still *****. You're about control. That is it. You're advocating treason and trying to find excuses to impose gun control. Well I can only promise not to use a weapon to save your sorry ass if you are having someone beat you to death for your wallet.

You're attempting to piss me off and make this personal. Game on.

If you weapon is on your desk it isn't secured.

 

[Kondor3]

You must think we're all as simpleminded as you are, when you trot out contradictions like that with a straight face...

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, Princess.

..."Vetted, licensed, and registered" IS giving up personal freedom, you dunce...

Your personal freedom to own a firearm only extends as far as my right to live in safety from gun violence.

When your right of possession conflicts with my right to live - or the right of 17 school children to live - then adjustments must be made.

You have a right to Free Speech - except that you may not holler "Fire" in a crowded theater, to the detriment of public safety.

You have a right to Bear Arms - except that you must assume the legal responsibilities (shortly to be) imposed upon Gun Owners.

We license drivers and we register vehicles and we record related transactions and infractions of law and good standing and eligibility.

We will license Gun Owners and register guns and record related transactions and infractions of law and good standing and eligibility.

Like it or not, it's coming, and in the not-too-distant future.

Your absolutist, obstructionist arguments have become threadbare and are nowhere near as effective as they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Time's almost up... best to invest your energies in a work-able compromise between the two poles, before you have one imposed on you.

Wait too long, and you're going to walk away with much less than if you(r side) begins that process now, while there is still time.

But, you(r side) will continue to rest on past laurels and case law and delude yourselves that you're untouchable - until it happens.

Sad... you could have walked away with much more than is likely, given your (side's) archaic and fading mindset.

What the hell... it's a future you insist upon for yourselves, so... enjoy.

 

[ptbw forever]

Both parties are attacking our rights by creating and taking advantage of different kinds of outrage. I hope people notice before it's too late.

Nice to see the hot air contingent checking in.

You words mean less than nothing.
Get off your lazy duff and put some effort into it.....with supporting documentation.

Anybody that's been paying attention the last 20 years knows my words are true. You're a pure bred partisan hack if you think the Republicans are not guilty of attacking our rights too.

While you are busy worry about Republicans taking away your rights, Democrats are actively taking away your rights.

 

[Kondor3]

...While you are busy worry about Republicans taking away your rights, Democrats are actively taking away your rights.

True enough.

Democrat politicians are just as malevolent as Republican... same $hit... different wrapper... neither is to be trusted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you know why leftists call themselves "progressives"? It's because they're always PROGRESSIVELY stealing your freedom.

Let's look at the timeline, shall we?

1934 - FDR comes to us and says, "Look at all these crimes being committed by gangsters with machine guns. We have to have gun control!" So he gets the National Firearms Act of 1934 and a $200 tax on the manufacture or sale of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns with the sales to be recorded in a national registry. The NRA actually helped draft that bill, and everyone's happy and thinks they've struck a blow for law and order.

1938 - Four years later, FDR comes back again and says, "It's not enough. We need even more!" And he gets the National Firearms Act of 1938, requiring licensing of interstate gun dealers, records of their sales, and banning of felons from owning and purchasing guns. Again, everyone goes, "Hooray!" and thinks it's good and no major deal.

And for a while, they're right. The left spends time nibbling around the edges.

1939 - U.S. Supreme Court hears the case United States v. Miller, ruling that through the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun.

1968 - Now we really start to see the left and their policy of never letting a good crisis go to waste shine. Following the assassinations of JFK, MLK Jr., and Robert Kennedy, Johnson pushes for the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. It prohibits all convicted felons, drug users and the mentally ill from buying guns; raises the age to purchase handguns from a federally licensed dealer to 21; and expands the licensing requirements to more gun dealers and requires more detailed record-keeping. How any of this - allegedly a reaction to the assassinations - would have actually stopped the assassinations had it been in place before, is left unanswered.

1972 - The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is created listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.

1976 - Washington, DC, bans residents from owning handguns, and requires registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.

1986 - Congress passes the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The law limits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from inspecting gun dealers more than once a year, with follow-up inspections allowed only if multiple violations are found. An amendment is also passed banning civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Weapons made and registered before that date are grandfathered in. The law specifically forbids the government from creating a national registry of gun ownership. Notice that even when laws are passed to protect gun ownership, they include a wholesale ban on something.

1986 - The Armed Career Criminal Act increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.

1986 - The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

1989 - California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, CA school playground. (Notice how the definition of "assault weapon" slides around from what's already been banned to whatever it is they want to ban next.)

1990 - The Crime Control Act of 1990 bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. "Gun-free school zones" are established carrying specific penalties for violations.

1993 - After the shooting of President Reagan, we see the emergence of the leftist "Victim Infallibility" doctrine. James Brady didn't know any more about guns, gun laws, crime, or anything else than any other person, but he got shot, so suddenly, he was an unassailable expert on all of the above, and we got the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, mandating background checks of gun buyers in order to prevent sales to people prohibited under the 1968 legislation. We got the creation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). And we got a 5-day waiting period on the purchase of handguns.

1994 - The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 produces a 10-year federal ban on the manufacture of new semi-automatic assault weapons. The law specifies 19 weapons that have the features of assault rifles, including the AR-15, certain versions of the AK-47, the TEC-9, the MAC-10 and the Uzi. The act also bans large-capacity ammunition magazines, limiting them to 10 rounds.

1997 - We're back to the courts again. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court upholds a jury's $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to and intoxicated man who used the gun to shoot his estranged girlfriend. Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns. (Those evil, child-killing profiteers.)

1998 - An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the U.S. is defeated in the Senate. But, the Senate approves an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.

1998 - New Orleans becomes the first U.S. city to file suit against gun makers, firearms trade associations, and gun dealers. The city's suit seeks recovery of costs attributed to gun-related violence.

1998 - Chicago, IL files a $433 million suit against local gun dealers and makers alleging that oversupplying local markets provided guns to criminals.

1998 - A negligence suit is brought against gun maker Beretta in California by the family of a 14-year old boy killed by another boy with a Beretta handgun.

1999 - Civil suits against gun makers seeking to recover costs of gun-related violence are filed in Bridgeport, Connecticut and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

1999 - Leaping onto tragedy like a pit bull on a ham bone, Democrats respond to the Columbine shooting by passing a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows. How that would have prevented Columbine is never answered.

1999 - The Los Angeles County, CA Board of Supervisors votes 3 - 2 to ban the Great Western Gun Show, billed as the "world's largest gun show" from the Pomona, CA fairgrounds where the show had been held for the last 30 years.

2004 - Massachusetts becomes the first state to implement an electronic instant gun buyer background check system with fingerprint scanning for gun licenses and gun purchases.

2005 - California bans the manufacture, sale, distribution or import of the .50-caliber Browning rifle.

2008 - President Bush signed the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act requiring gun buyer background checks to screen for legally declared mentally ill individuals, who are ineligible to buy firearms.

2015 - In an effort to close the so-called “gun show loophole” allowing gun sales conducted without Brady Act background checks, U.S. Rep. Speier, Jackie (D-California) introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2015 (H.R. 3411), to require background checks for all gun sales including sales made over the Internet and at gun shows.

2016 - President Obama called on Congress to enact or renew a law prohibiting the sale and possession of assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines after the Pulse nightclub shooting.

2017 - In the aftermath of the Vegas shooting, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for laws specifically banning bump stocks, while others have also called for renewal of the assault weapons ban.

So yeah, we're not exactly buying it when you say, "Just this one thing. We don't want any more. HONEST."

 

[Humorme]

You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.

Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?

The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?

You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!

The government stole the damn thing. Had the government not prohibited the firearm from certain places, it would be on my person.

But nooooo, some places want you to leave the weapon in the car. It's not the only stop I make in the course of the day, so I'm not leaving it at home. Irresponsible would be buying a firearm for self defense and then leaving it locked up in Fort Knox so that idiots can't ***** about it.

The government created the infringement.

You didn't do the right thing and it's the government's fault, how liberal of you.

Locking the firearm wasn't the right thing to do? Are you freaking kidding? Your moronic posts sound something like a ten year old would say. You don't know a damn thing about the situation; don't know me; and by law I took due diligence - that law, in our state, having been authored by an anti-gun Democrat.

We do things your way and you still *****. You're about control. That is it. You're advocating treason and trying to find excuses to impose gun control. Well I can only promise not to use a weapon to save your sorry ass if you are having someone beat you to death for your wallet.

You're attempting to piss me off and make this personal. Game on.

If you weapon is on your desk it isn't secured.

You need to quit trolling me and give it a rest.

 

[OnePercenter]

The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?

You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!

The government stole the damn thing. Had the government not prohibited the firearm from certain places, it would be on my person.

But nooooo, some places want you to leave the weapon in the car. It's not the only stop I make in the course of the day, so I'm not leaving it at home. Irresponsible would be buying a firearm for self defense and then leaving it locked up in Fort Knox so that idiots can't ***** about it.

The government created the infringement.

You didn't do the right thing and it's the government's fault, how liberal of you.

Locking the firearm wasn't the right thing to do? Are you freaking kidding? Your moronic posts sound something like a ten year old would say. You don't know a damn thing about the situation; don't know me; and by law I took due diligence - that law, in our state, having been authored by an anti-gun Democrat.

We do things your way and you still *****. You're about control. That is it. You're advocating treason and trying to find excuses to impose gun control. Well I can only promise not to use a weapon to save your sorry ass if you are having someone beat you to death for your wallet.

You're attempting to piss me off and make this personal. Game on.

If you weapon is on your desk it isn't secured.

You need to quit trolling me and give it a rest.

I'm not trolling, I'm answering a post directed to me with information you gave me.