Its only OK when a Democrat does it!

[Redfish]

Wrong, only US citizens have the rights and protections provided by the US constitution.

It's so, SO depressing when people don't understand their own constitution, it really is.

Again, the US Constitution doesn't give rights at all, it merely prevents the US govt from doing something, thereby protecting rights from the US govt.

Certain parts of the BoRs state that the govt cannot do something. This means, ironically enough, that the US govt CAN'T DO IT.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

This means Congress can't do it. It doesn't mean it can't do it unless the people involved are not US citizens.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, "

No person, this means NO PERSON. It doesn't mean, "No American person".

Also, the Supreme Court has stated this, tourists who go on holiday to the US do NOT forfeit their rights in any way, shape or form.

Rights are considered to be held by ALL PEOPLE.

So, in your small mind, people living in Taiwan have the protections and rights of the US constitution? Do people in this country illegally have constitutional rights? How about convicted felons?

your "ALL PEOPLE" statement is both naïve and ignorant.

Did I say that? No I did not.

People in Taiwan have HUMAN RIGHTS.

People from Taiwan who are in the US have the protection of the US Constitution.

Do you understand?

you said "Rights are considered to be held by ALL PEOPLE" the discussion was on US constitutional rights. US constitutional rights are not considered held by all people. Only US citizens and non-citizens who are in this country LEGALLY.

We consider that basic human rights are conferred by God, many nations take away some or all of those human rights, such as muslim nations that treat women as property with no rights except those conferred by their husbands or fathers.

I don't know why you libs are so ignorant about the US constitution. Should we blame the teachers union?

oh no the semantics ploy!

words mean what they mean, grammar puts words in the proper context. Sorry if you failed 5th grade English class.

 

[Redfish]

First off Immigrants who want to come here ARE NOT ON US SOIL YET!!!!!!! So no they don't have any fucking rights. Breaking into our house doesn't give you family or visitor rights it makes you a criminal. Still YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHTS. You're a criminal Trespassers shall be fucking shot.

Wow, non-Americans have no rights.

Or maybe someone needs to understand the theory of Human Rights AND the US Constitution.

The constitution is for the country America. It isn't the worlds constitution.

The US Constitution is for... wait for it.... THE US GOVERNMENT.

This is the rules the govt must abide by. Which means the US govt must abide by them at all times, regardless of whether the person they are beating up is a US citizen or not.

Human Rights theory = ALL HUMANS HAVE THESE RIGHTS.

Wrong, only US citizens have the rights and protections provided by the US constitution.

false anyone in any place that the US has a embassy or diplomatic station is covered by the constitution.
also any ship ,flight our any other conveyance that is owned or used by the US is sovereign territory .
everyone on board is protected by the constitution.
now do you ignorant fucks get it.?

Yes, the rights under the constitution apply to American citizens and legal foreign citizens on US territory, US ships and at US embassies. No one ever said otherwise. Those rights do not apply to people in the US illegally, convicted felons, or enemy combatants.

You were trying to claim that ALL PEOPLE have the protections of the US constitution. That is blatantly stupid.

 

[daws101]

It's so, SO depressing when people don't understand their own constitution, it really is.

Again, the US Constitution doesn't give rights at all, it merely prevents the US govt from doing something, thereby protecting rights from the US govt.

Certain parts of the BoRs state that the govt cannot do something. This means, ironically enough, that the US govt CAN'T DO IT.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

This means Congress can't do it. It doesn't mean it can't do it unless the people involved are not US citizens.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, "

No person, this means NO PERSON. It doesn't mean, "No American person".

Also, the Supreme Court has stated this, tourists who go on holiday to the US do NOT forfeit their rights in any way, shape or form.

Rights are considered to be held by ALL PEOPLE.

So, in your small mind, people living in Taiwan have the protections and rights of the US constitution? Do people in this country illegally have constitutional rights? How about convicted felons?

your "ALL PEOPLE" statement is both naïve and ignorant.

Did I say that? No I did not.

People in Taiwan have HUMAN RIGHTS.

People from Taiwan who are in the US have the protection of the US Constitution.

Do you understand?

you said "Rights are considered to be held by ALL PEOPLE" the discussion was on US constitutional rights. US constitutional rights are not considered held by all people. Only US citizens and non-citizens who are in this country LEGALLY.

We consider that basic human rights are conferred by God, many nations take away some or all of those human rights, such as muslim nations that treat women as property with no rights except those conferred by their husbands or fathers.

I don't know why you libs are so ignorant about the US constitution. Should we blame the teachers union?

oh no the semantics ploy!

words mean what they mean, grammar puts words in the proper context. Sorry if you failed 5th grade English class.

false! words have no meaning until we give them one ...you were and still are playing the semantics game..

 

[daws101]

Wow, non-Americans have no rights.

Or maybe someone needs to understand the theory of Human Rights AND the US Constitution.

The constitution is for the country America. It isn't the worlds constitution.

The US Constitution is for... wait for it.... THE US GOVERNMENT.

This is the rules the govt must abide by. Which means the US govt must abide by them at all times, regardless of whether the person they are beating up is a US citizen or not.

Human Rights theory = ALL HUMANS HAVE THESE RIGHTS.

Wrong, only US citizens have the rights and protections provided by the US constitution.

false

Yes, the rights under the constitution apply to American citizens and legal foreign citizens on US territory, US ships and at US embassies. No one ever said otherwise. Those rights do not apply to people in the US illegally, convicted felons, or enemy combatants.

You were trying to claim that ALL PEOPLE have the protections of the US constitution. That is blatantly stupid.

false you ass hats have been making that false and stupid claim since this thread started ...like I said....
anyone in any place that the US has a embassy or diplomatic station is covered by the constitution.
also any ship ,flight our any other conveyance that is owned or used by the US is sovereign territory .
everyone on board is protected by the constitution.
now do you ignorant fucks get it.?

 

[easyt65]

'Its only OK when a Democrat does it!'

A failed Sect of State whose agency hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to guard a US Ambassador, who denied the 600+ pleas for additional security, who took 16 security team members away after 2 terrorist attacks on the US compound, who left the Ambassador there in Benghazi even though EVERY other nation had taken their people out due to the threat, who lied about what happened, who lied to the grieving family members then called them liars when they disputed her 'account'...a candidate who is in the midst of an FBI investigation involving the Espionage Act with evidence already released indicating enough to lead to an indictment...being protected by the media and pushed as not only an acceptable candidate but the 'best' candidate by their party despite their own staff calling them 'often confused' and 'technologically challenged' (that's going to make a great GOP ad).....

Yeah...this would NEVER stand if it was a GOP candidate....

'Nuff said....

 

[daws101]

'Its only OK when a Democrat does it!'

A failed Sect of State whose agency hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to guard a US Ambassador, who denied the 600+ pleas for additional security, who took 16 security team members away after 2 terrorist attacks on the US compound, who left the Ambassador there in Benghazi even though EVERY other nation had taken their people out due to the threat, who lied about what happened, who lied to the grieving family members then called them liars when they disputed her 'account'...a candidate who is in the midst of an FBI investigation involving the Espionage Act with evidence already released indicating enough to lead to an indictment...being protected by the media and pushed as not only an acceptable candidate but the 'best' candidate by their party despite their own staff calling them 'often confused' and 'technologically challenged' (that's going to make a great GOP ad).....

Yeah...this would NEVER stand if it was a GOP candidate....

'Nuff said....

link?

 

[daws101]

 

[easyt65]

'Its only OK when a Democrat does it!'

A failed Sect of State whose agency hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to guard a US Ambassador, who denied the 600+ pleas for additional security, who took 16 security team members away after 2 terrorist attacks on the US compound, who left the Ambassador there in Benghazi even though EVERY other nation had taken their people out due to the threat, who lied about what happened, who lied to the grieving family members then called them liars when they disputed her 'account'...a candidate who is in the midst of an FBI investigation involving the Espionage Act with evidence already released indicating enough to lead to an indictment...being protected by the media and pushed as not only an acceptable candidate but the 'best' candidate by their party despite their own staff calling them 'often confused' and 'technologically challenged' (that's going to make a great GOP ad).....

Yeah...this would NEVER stand if it was a GOP candidate....

'Nuff said....

link?

SERIOUSLY?!

Your response to that which you KNOW to be true - the fact that Liberals would NEVER let the GOP get away with the shite Hillary has - is 'link'?!


'Liberal Playbook 101' strikes again...and, again, Alynski would be proud!

 

[daws101]

'Its only OK when a Democrat does it!'

A failed Sect of State whose agency hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to guard a US Ambassador, who denied the 600+ pleas for additional security, who took 16 security team members away after 2 terrorist attacks on the US compound, who left the Ambassador there in Benghazi even though EVERY other nation had taken their people out due to the threat, who lied about what happened, who lied to the grieving family members then called them liars when they disputed her 'account'...a candidate who is in the midst of an FBI investigation involving the Espionage Act with evidence already released indicating enough to lead to an indictment...being protected by the media and pushed as not only an acceptable candidate but the 'best' candidate by their party despite their own staff calling them 'often confused' and 'technologically challenged' (that's going to make a great GOP ad).....

Yeah...this would NEVER stand if it was a GOP candidate....

'Nuff said....

link?

SERIOUSLY?!

Your response to that which you KNOW to be true - the fact that Liberals would NEVER let the GOP get away with the shite Hillary has - is 'link'?!


'Liberal Playbook 101' strikes again...and, again, Alynski would be proud!

no proof then?
btw don't tell me what I know and don't know.
what I know about you from your own words proves you are so ludicrously paranoid it's pathetic...

 

[easyt65]

btw don't tell me what I know and don't know...

I apologize for doing so. I have no idea what you know because so far you haven't proved you know much.

 

[g5000]

The poor pants shitters. They have gone so far off the reservation, they are now using Democrats to justify their actions.

I honestly cannot tell any difference between these alleged "conservative" pants shitters and the liberals of the 70s.

They whine as much.

They shit their pants as much.

They suck up to Russia as much.

They hate the Constitution as much.

What kind of self-respecting Republicans would ever say we should do what FDR or CARTER did!?!?! And go even further than they did!

Hooooooooly SHIT!!!

 

[easyt65]

Obama is worse than Carter...

 

[g5000]

Obama is worse than Carter...

I have lived through both. It's a tough call which one is worse.

Sadly, we didn't have a Reagan to kick Obama out of his second term.

The Reagan who said, "We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression."

The Reagan who took in 11,055 Iranian refugees, even though Iran had terrorist training camps and was calling us The Great Satan. Even though Iran blew up a Marine barracks and two of our embassies.


And what do the modern day "Republicans" do? They cite CARTER!!!!!

What...the...FUCK!?!

 

[daws101]

btw don't tell me what I know and don't know...

I apologize for doing so. I have no idea what you know because so far you haven't proved you know much.

that would be another false assumption.
I know what you know and exponentially more.
the difference is, I can tell the difference between fact and fiction .
something you have no concept of...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[bripat9643]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

It doesn't ensure religious freedom for foreigners, so you're full of shit.

Yes it does.

ROFL! You can't be serious.

full of shit as always :
The Constitution does not say citizens it says persons. That means EVERYONE has the rights listed in the Constitution. Even illegals are protected from cruel and unusual punishment for example.

You're a total imbecile. The Constitution doesn't protect everyone on the planet. That's what your claim amounts to saying, and that's why it's utterly moronic. They are only protected if they are on U.S. soil.

 

[daws101]

it has to do with religion....not nationality. Our constitution ensures religious freedom making Trumps idea unconstitutional.

It doesn't ensure religious freedom for foreigners, so you're full of shit.

Yes it does.

ROFL! You can't be serious.

full of shit as always :
The Constitution does not say citizens it says persons. That means EVERYONE has the rights listed in the Constitution. Even illegals are protected from cruel and unusual punishment for example.

You're a total imbecile. The Constitution doesn't protect everyone on the planet. That's what your claim amounts to saying, and that's why it's utterly moronic. They are only protected if they are on U.S. soil.

false that what you assholes want it to mean.
like I SAID anyone in any place that the US has a embassy or diplomatic station is covered by the constitution.
also any ship ,flight our any other conveyance that is owned or used by the US is sovereign territory .
everyone on board is protected by the constitution.
now do you ignorant fucks get it.?

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't ensure religious freedom for foreigners, so you're full of shit.

Yes it does.

ROFL! You can't be serious.

full of shit as always :
The Constitution does not say citizens it says persons. That means EVERYONE has the rights listed in the Constitution. Even illegals are protected from cruel and unusual punishment for example.

You're a total imbecile. The Constitution doesn't protect everyone on the planet. That's what your claim amounts to saying, and that's why it's utterly moronic. They are only protected if they are on U.S. soil.

false that what you assholes want it to mean.
like I SAID anyone in any place that the US has a embassy or diplomatic station is covered by the constitution.
also any ship ,flight our any other conveyance that is owned or used by the US is sovereign territory .
everyone on board is protected by the constitution.
now do you ignorant fucks get it.?

So how does that protect everyone who isn't on the embassy grounds?

Do you actually think bout the dumb shit you post?

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Redfish]

So, in your small mind, people living in Taiwan have the protections and rights of the US constitution? Do people in this country illegally have constitutional rights? How about convicted felons?

your "ALL PEOPLE" statement is both naïve and ignorant.

Did I say that? No I did not.

People in Taiwan have HUMAN RIGHTS.

People from Taiwan who are in the US have the protection of the US Constitution.

Do you understand?

you said "Rights are considered to be held by ALL PEOPLE" the discussion was on US constitutional rights. US constitutional rights are not considered held by all people. Only US citizens and non-citizens who are in this country LEGALLY.

We consider that basic human rights are conferred by God, many nations take away some or all of those human rights, such as muslim nations that treat women as property with no rights except those conferred by their husbands or fathers.

I don't know why you libs are so ignorant about the US constitution. Should we blame the teachers union?

oh no the semantics ploy!

words mean what they mean, grammar puts words in the proper context. Sorry if you failed 5th grade English class.

false! words have no meaning until we give them one ...you were and still are playing the semantics game..

open you dictionary, dingleberry. the meanings of words is very clear. We can't change the meanings of words to suit our political biases.