Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's not true. Illegals are not "citizens", see citizenship
If you are referencing yourself, you’re finally right.Incredibly ignorant.
Monday say they do. Your comment is a non sequitur, you moron.Police do NOT have any authority above that of any ordinary person,
Wrong, you imbecile. They can’t. Again, only prosecutors can file criminal charges. Damn, you’re an ignorant twat.and clearly ANYONE can file criminal charges.
We are talking about today, you asshole.Police did not even exist before around 1900, so are you claiming no one was arrested before then?
Lying and claiming people are illegal and committing crimes like eating pets, most definitely is deliberately inciting a lynch mob.
Well the entire news network's as well as government should be under threat of lawsuits constantly then, otherwise for using sources and information that they recieve in order to make policy changes, create news stories, and running podcast that elaborate on the information recieved (sources always protected).Wrong.
When you broadcast, then you have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to conduct "due diligence" as to whether what you are saying is true or not.
Its part of the FTC regulations when anyone broadcasts.
Is that why they were singing in the cotton fields?Slaves also get a pension while cheap labor does not.
For the most part... Deportation is still something that can happen for political reasons, however. We've deported foreign journalists that were legally here for certain stories, for example. Obviously, you can't exile an American citizen over a story, so non-citizens don't quite have as broad of First Amendment rights as American citizens have. There are other limitations as well.A private citizen of Haiti has the exact same rights in the US, as any US citizen, except for voting.
Why are they called "Hatians" instead of whatever additional title they should hold while here in America ? Titles should hold words that identify group's and their purpose if not American citizen's here.Again, they are NOT "illegals".
They are here on green card work invitations.
And of course they are "citizens".
Everyone is born somewhere, so are citizens of somewhere.
The term "private citizens" does not specify what country they are citizens of.
so basically you are saying we can sue you for your replies to us....This is due process. That's why it looks so foreign to Trump's bootlickers.
They see legal, due process and think "what is this black magic?"
i agree that trump shouldn’t have said it, but you have to prove damages and think you have to prove that his actions were willfully and knowingly done to harm someone. Still, the damages part might be tricky, because you’ll have to subpoena all those people in other countries to testify that the acted because of Trump.
That’s the kicker. If he thought the statement was true and he wasn’t doing it to be intentionally harmful..is it defamation? If you say it is, then free speech is a slippery slope, with people not being able to make accusations unless they can prove they are true before an investigation is done.
In fact, yesterday I was listening to lefty radio and the host said that the governor of Missouri allowed the execution of Williams because he “wanted to score political points”. So, the host has no clue, and given his reputation on the radio, it wouldn’t be hard to prove he made that statement with harmful intent. Does this mean he should be sued?
?? The Chinese eat 10-20 million dogs a year. They have a freaking dog eating festival every June.
Dog Meat Festival - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Well just like it was attempted to suggest that Trump didn't say "go peacefully, and let your voices be heard", otherwise in an attempt to distort his word's in hopes to destroy him or set him up, and now we have stories being created (not by Trump), but by who knows who about migrants in Springfield eating pet's and flooding the place as if they were dropped into the place without notice. Is the story yet another attempt to set Trump up maybe ? Did he take the bait ? It appears that he may have, but the question is WHO are the culprits that created the story in hopes that the Trump campaign would couple it with the illegal migrant crisis, and go with it ?The execution being done to "score political points" is not only likely true, but is not being stated as a proven fact. It can only be opinion because there is no way to know or check.
Trump and Vance stated things which could have been in known and checks. The fact the Haitians had green cards was not hard to discover. Any everyone should know that cats and dogs are predators, so then are universally not considered food. The few Asian cultures that eat cats and dogs know how to treat the flesh to remove the toxic uric acid. But it is very rare anyone eats predators.
If you are referencing yourself, you’re finally right.
Monday say they do. Your comment is a non sequitur, you moron.
Wrong, you imbecile. They can’t. Again, only prosecutors can file criminal charges. Damn, you’re an ignorant twat.
We are talking about today, you asshole.
Not “most definitely.” Not at all. Another (albeit mere repeated) lie by you.
For the most part... Deportation is still something that can happen for political reasons, however. We've deported foreign journalists that were legally here for certain stories, for example. Obviously, you can't exile an American citizen over a story, so non-citizens don't quite have as broad of First Amendment rights as American citizens have. There are other limitations as well.
I ain't eating no dog I don't care what it supposedly taste like.There are particular breeds of dog that have been cultivated to not have such a highly toxic uric acid content in its meat.
{...
The Chow Chow was also known as "Chinese Edible-Dog" because after the Han dynasty collapsed, they were fattened and bred with Chinese breeds for meat. Today, Chinese dog farms still raise Chow Chow for the purpose of eating; black coated ones are valued due to their taste when fried, while the rest are typically turned into stews.
...}
In theory, this is correct. Unfortunately, in practice, this isn't really how our system operates. We've thoroughly deviated from the Constitution since basically the Civil War. It started with turning a voluntary union of states into a mandatory one. After that, the feds expanded to cover various things that were supposed to be covered by states instead. The irony today is that the waves of civil rights legislation that have been passed essentially deem rights as being given by the state. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does essentially render Freedom of Association null. Collective rights have taken precedence over individual rights, and any time that happens, it inevitably results in the state being the source of power. This is because only the state is legally afforded the power to regulate collectives. By contrast, individuals, by their very nature, regulate each other (so to speak).WRONG!
In a republic, the source of all legal authority comes from the inherent rights of individuals.
Government is NOT a source of authority, but is hired public servants instead, and only borrow our delegated authority.
There can NEVER be anything that government can do that all citizens can not also always do.
If police ever try to do something everyone cannot do, then they would be an evil totalitarian threat that should immediately be arrested.
I don't disagree, but what happens in practice is more consequential than what should happen in principle.I would suggest that deporting a reporter over what they published is not legal.
There are lots of illegal things our government does, such as economic sanctions, which violate the 1906 Geneva Conventions we ratified.
The idea that rights come from sky daddy or nature is fantasy for children and stunted adults...In theory, this is correct. Unfortunately, in practice, this isn't really how our system operates. We've thoroughly deviated from the Constitution since basically the Civil War. It started with turning a voluntary union of states into a mandatory one. After that, the feds expanded to cover various things that were supposed to be covered by states instead. The irony today is that the waves of civil rights legislation that have been passed essentially deem rights as being given by the state. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does essentially render Freedom of Association null. Collective rights have taken precedence over individual rights, and any time that happens, it inevitably results in the state being the source of power. This is because only the state is legally afforded the power to regulate collectives. By contrast, individuals, by their very nature, regulate each other (so to speak).
I don't disagree, but what happens in practice is more consequential than what should happen in principle.
The alternative is that rights come from the state, which means that any human rights abuses aren't actually abuses if the state involved hasn't deemed the people affected as having rights. If your standard for rights is simply "because the state says so", then you've enabled totalitarianism in the long run.The idea that rights come from sky daddy or nature is fantasy for children and stunted adults...
The alternative to fantasy is objective reality. Slaves didn't have rights because the State said so. You have history to guide you and still you morons can't recognize basic facts. Just because you don't like this reality doesn't mean it isn't what it is. The law is force. Setting out to craft law is to set out to subdue others by force.The alternative is that rights come from the state, which means that any human rights abuses aren't actually abuses if the state involved hasn't deemed the people affected as having rights. If your standard for rights is simply "because the state says so", then you've enabled totalitarianism in the long run.
So, by that logic, might makes right.The alternative to fantasy is objective reality. Slaves didn't have rights because the State said so. You have history to guide you and still you morons can't recognize basic facts. Just because you don't like this reality doesn't mean it isn't what it is. The law is force. Setting out to craft law is to set out to subdue others by force.
You have been and remain wrong.WRONg!
The source is our Constitution in our Constitutional republic. It tells the government what it may do and what it is forbidden from doing. We, the People, have a great deal of say in that since we can amend the Constitution. But absent that, the real source of legal authority is the Consritution as it is.In a republic, the source of all legal authority comes from the inherent rights of individuals.
No shit.Government is NOT a source of authority,
Nope. Government gets its authority only as allowed by the Constitution. Your permission is irrelevant.but is hired public servants instead, and only borrow our delegated authority.
That’s ridiculous of course. You are forbidden from speaking to a foreign government on behalf of our nation. The government can print money. You cannot. The government can try alleged criminals for an alleged criminal offense. You cannot. The government can levy taxes. You cannot. The government can officially accuse you of a crime. We simple citizens cannot.There can NEVER be anything that government can do that all citizens can not also always do.
Again, absurd. I can’t pull you over for speeding. A cop can.If police ever try to do something everyone cannot do, then they would be an evil totalitarian threat that should immediately be arrested.
That's more sentiment than I would of used. Might makes what is. Force shapes reality. That's just physics. How you feel about it is your problem.So, by that logic, might makes right.
It's a subjective preference the same way me liking mango is subjective. Mango isn't for everyone. I don't have to pretend the universe also likes mango. I'm comfortable enough with my own opinion.There is an importance in how people conceive of the legitimacy of law. For example, you clearly believe that slavery is wrong, right? Where do you get that belief from? If slavery was legal, would you respect that law, or would you subvert it by helping to free people?
Coming from abstract sources just sounds like fantasy to me. Closing your eyes and wishing something was so won't make it so.These questions drive at why rights should come from an abstract source. If you dislike religion, you don't have to believe it comes from a deity, but you still need a philosophical reason to determine what a right is. Otherwise, it really is just might makes right.
