What about everyone else already here seeking a brighter future, including immigrants?

The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8

FYI Murder is clearly illegal under common law (The Constitution). Please do demonstrate more of your ignorance on the subject.

You are the one who claimed he knew nothing about The Constitution. I verified his statement, then mine, with sources, now you are rambling about the current state of affairs when that was never even the premise. Nice moving goal posts.

There you go again, taking the easy way out. Why defend your argument when you can just cast me as group XYZ and dismiss your abuse as a result. No worries though, the whole forum saw how calm and controlled you were thru this whole episode, I am sure there is no doubt of your impartiality and ability to control your emotions.

You know, like little details such as the fact none of the "bombs" were ever capable of exploding.

Yes, please do go into each individually, isn't that the topic of this thread? Also I already asked you to do this, break it down in your own words. Have a debate instead of shotgunning other people's opinions at me as if they are your own and are fact.

Tell me please, what exactly about you posted argues against what I stated?

Again, you still don't have a damned clue what you are on about and are desperately trying to look smart while doing almost zero work to get there.

If you knew anything about this nation's history, you would know the federal government was designed to be subservient of the states, and was essentially intended to be impotent except for very limited specified powers outlined in the constitution such as national defense. In the framers minds the STATES took authority over the federal government in any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to it within The Constitution.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


"the United States" = The federal government.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to find. You are making an argument. You have the burden of proof. You are required to provide sources. You don't get to shit out stuff and demand people look it up for you. That is not how logic works. That is the peak of intellectual laziness and demonstrates your familiarity with the source material because you can't even link it (little to none).


Again, still nothing in your first quote was racist, so the entire post was pointless beginning to end.

Now, a New York Times opinion piece! There are bound to be lots of facts there right? All kinds of specific facts which you mysteriously again can not specify, because you like to claim authority but never even actually review any of this material yourself. Its ok little boy, I will do the reading for you since you are having such difficulty.

1. A country/nation is not the same thing as a race. Just because it hurt some ones feelings doesn't make it racist, nor was the statement addressed to the public.

2. "The Trumps admitted no wrongdoing and were prohibited from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” They were also required to take out advertisements notifying minority individuals that they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at Trump properties." Their settlement (no admission of guilt) was to notify minorities of available housing.  Additionally the company was Fred Trump's, not Donald Trumps, and he was only a few years into the business at the time. I suppose he was working extra long hours to make sure everyone was fully discriminated against right? So, in short, nothing proven, no admission of guilt. Just pure speculation.

3. "according to multiple sources" hey, they are starting to sound like you! In this case there is one source. One, former disgruntled employee that was fired.

4. If you actually bother to read the statement (I know you never do) you will see it is generalized call for stronger law enforcement and penalties for crimes. Nothing in that statement is racist, nor do I see anything in there where he demands the execution of the accused.

5. He says well educated black people have an advantage. Man, what more proof do you need he is Hitler?

6. Another selectively cropped quote making claims he said things he never said. Here is what he really said:

"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. … When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."  ≠ all Mexicans are rapists

Anyways... I am not going any further down this increasingly insane list, and you are too lazy to even pick a premise to support so I am not going to refute entire articles you shotgun at me. You want to debate, debate. Any retard can source other people's work, well except you apparently...

Try picking a point and lets debate it. You are quite confident in your conclusions. I am sure it should not be hard to pick a complaint you can back knowing the source material as you do right?

Sure, though this is clearly throwing pearls before swine as I am sure all of this will be over your head...

The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. The clause prohibits a State from passing any law that “impairs the obligation of contracts” or “makes any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”. It states:

    "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

I know, those trolls always demanding sources. You made the claim, stop acting like I am being unreasonable asking you to source it. It is irrelevant anyway, there is nothing even racist in that statement. Try again.

Cool story bro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

I know sourcing is a foreign concept to you, but try sourcing your sources. Until then I have no idea if it was in a State of The Union address or your favorite coloring book. Also... not seeing anything racist in there...

Does it? Because I have, and he is right, and as usual you don't have a fucking clue what you are rambling about. You talk as if you know what you are talking about, but you never actually demonstrate any substance.

Also comparing The Constitution with The Bible? He is retarded? MMkay.

Yeah, see if you can find any where the meaning isn't edited out, or it is just a jumble of 3 second out of edited context snippets.

Actually the entire post was about your comment. You can play word games all you like to pretend you didn't do what you did, but it is clear what the direct result is. Shutting down political criticism you could not handle by moving it to an unrelated section, making it appear like I posted a reputation post.

You removed it because I exposed your hypocrisy, using terrorist attacks to try to demonize the people you disagree with as terrorists while talking out of the other side of your mouth about scaling back rhetoric, as if Conservatives are to blame for these attacks. You realized I caught you in a situation you could not argue against, so you shuffled it off to the dustbin of the forum hoping you could just intimidate me into not calling you on it. Well you did that for me. Now rather than simply facing the political criticism, you have doubled down and abused your moderation position rather than attempting to argue your point.

Funny, as the details come out about this suddenly, like the Kavanaugh accusers recanting, this is also a non-story once it stops serving your political goals.

I see claims. I see lots of self reassurance. I don't see any explanation of your behavior. The post was clearly an on topic reply you simply had no decent response to because you KNOW it went to far. Rather than admit that mistake, you instead opted to move my post somewhere else on the forum in a sad attempt to censor while pretending you are not censoring, and also immediately put me on the defensive by having this weird out of place post in reputation that looks like I posted the OP. Considering all I did was participate in a political discussion, I would say you have more explaining to do here than I do.

So if you can take a break from telling yourself how much winning you are doing, can you explain to me why this direct response was not on topic? Because you feel it was insulting? If that is the case pretty much all of your posts directed at me would be off topic as they include direct insults. Not that I really care if you insult me, it is just pretty glaring how there are a set of standards for yourself, and then for people you disagree with.

I see lots of opinions you don't agree with. Tell me, which one of them justifies your behavior?

I love how the left were all over this, now crickets. I wonder why? lol.

Sounds like some one else we know... something to do with e-mails.. I don't remember.