Right wing militia detains 200 migrants at gun point on New Mexico!! HELL YEAH!

[Correll]

Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists. Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?

Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership. If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with. That guilt by association works both ways.

The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.

Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!


What radical terror!!!!


LOL!!!!!!

Legal (sic), "illegal"... WTH is the difference? If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER. As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.

After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes. He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.

Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.


BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.


That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.

I don't know what kind of answer you want. We've discussed this umpteen times. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't. It's not multiple choice. Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not. Which is it? An unalienable Right is not given by government. Unalienable Rights are absolute and above the law. It is the meaning of the word, sir.

Unalienable Rights cannot apply to citizens only. The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were NO American Citizens. Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document. It says ALL men are created equal and ALL men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.

When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job; to buy and sell, I see no problem. When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, THAT is where we part company. But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man. Either you believe in Liberty or you don't. Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government. For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports. I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "right" to a free public education. I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.

So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?

That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.


AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.


This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)


We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.


This is a very simply concept. NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.


I expect better from you on this.

 

[Correll]

Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.

There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.

Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.


Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.



Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.

Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price. If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.

I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel. You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.

You are also a pathological liar. I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis. I've NEVER said the man is a racist. He's playing racists just like you. I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.

Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.


View attachment 259634



FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.

Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...


Mmmm,

Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today. So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.

I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally. There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives. Stop by some time and I can show it to you.

Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.

IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does.


They don't. Because they can't.


They are an insignificant fringe.


Your belief on this makes no sense at all.


Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.


Why are you afraid of this good news?

 

[Correll]

Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.

There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.

Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.


Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.



Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.

You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.

You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.

One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.

1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.

2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.

3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.

4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.

1. It shows how much of a liar you are. A rightwinger shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh. A rightwinger shot up a mosque in Australia. A rightwinger sent mail bombs. A rightwinger was arrested for stockpiling weapons and had plans to use them to kill figures like Pelosi and Joe Scarborough. A rightwinger shot up a newsroom in Annapolis. Rightwingers killed a person in Charlottesville. That is a sampling. The only corresponding act would be the shooting of Scalise.

2. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis see Trump as their friend in the White House. Trump has cut funding of law enforcement's attempts to fight right wing violence.

3. It is reasonable if you are a white supremacist or neo-Nazi. Trump's policies hurt the country's interest.

4. Stewart has numerous ties to white supremacists and denounced them only after he won the nomination. He has been pictured with them and even hired them to work for his gubernatorial run. The fact is that half of the violence was not committed by the left. I don't apologize to dirty stinking racists and any party that supports them should be destroyed.

1. A sampling of 6 out of 7 billion. Big f-ing deal. You want to support your claim, give me some hard numbers, or stop making your claim.

2. Seems unlikely as he does not support anything they stand for.

3. He wants to secure the border, and send unwelcome foreigners home. Those who pretend that that makes him a nazi, are fucking crazy.

4. Nothing about that on his wikapedia page. I challenge you to support your claim that the Left did not commit "half the violence". You still have not supported any of your vile claims. YOu just keep spouting more shit, instead of backing up the shit you already spouted.

 

[Correll]

s if

They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".


This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.

It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.

I explained why I believed that arrests were a miscarriage of justice.


All you did, was cowardly avoid addressing my points, and repeated your initial position.


THat is the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion. YOur post is invalid, and you lose.



My point stands.


They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".


This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.

You have stated your opinion. Try using the law. In claiming self defense, proportional force must be used. Someone's hat was knocked off. That does not allow someone to beat someone.

Proportional Response

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

I don't have to address your points because I understand the law. You do not.

Said the man still pretending to not know that the antifa mob had been harassing and threatening and attacking the Proud Boys for days leading up to this attack.

Said the man who clearly does not understand the laws regarding self-defense. The Proud Boys were properly charged.

Why did the New York City cops not arrest them that night, if their "crime" was so obvious?

 

[Correll]

Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists. Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?

Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership. If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with. That guilt by association works both ways.

The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.

Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!


What radical terror!!!!


LOL!!!!!!

It has nothing to do with controlling the border. The reason you fear them is they are likely to be Democrat supporters. You people fear anyone who is not white. You also use the same tactics that evil people like Hitler used. Attempt to dehumanize them. Blame them and others like Muslims for the problems this country.
Try to use fear that somehow unarmed women and children are a threat to this country.

Trump tried to use these scare tactics in the 2018 election. The result was a Republican loss of the House and a smaller than expected gain in the Senate. Voters do not support a wall, support asylum laws as they currently are and support dreamers. They reject your right wing hatred.

California is a good example of the Republican Party's future under Trump. Whites are a smaller majority with a significant number of minorities such as Asians, blacks and hispanics. Republicans lost Asians, Blacks and Hispanics in the 2018 midterms.

So, I point out that you are panic mongering about simply sending people here illegally HOME, and you call us nazis?


That completely makes my point, thanks.


Also, you are all over the place. You accuse me of only being afraid of them because of race, and then gloat because they will lead to massive political change against my interests. Are you truly that lacking in self awareness or simply being dishonest?

Voters do not support the Wall, because they have been race demagogued by people like you, over and over again. Massive, rapid political and cultural change is not to be embraced without consideration on whether or not is it change for the GOOD. and that is what we are doing.

(and don't deny the change, after just gloating on it, in your last post, libby)


You are a race baiting asshole.

You use the same tactics that the nazis used to seize power. However the American people did not buy it in 2018 and will not buy it in 2020. These people are not breaking laws by entering the country to declare asylum. They have a strong case due to the power the drug cartels hold thanks to America's appetite for drugs.

You have continued to show your hateful attitude.

Putting you white supremacists and neo-nazis out of business is a good thing. You are the one who is dishonest.

Worth noting that Ronald Reagan would be a liberal compared to you and you would accuse him of being a liberal. Disagreeing with garbage like you does not make one a liberal. It shows someone is in their right mind unlike you.

You are the racist asshole.

Voters do not support a wall. They do not support making asylum harder to apply for. They support Dreamers. That is because they are smarter than you think they are. They are not swayed by your demogogary. The trouble is that ordinary people are not as hateful as you are.

I challenge you to support your shit, and all you do it spout more shit.


There is not one attempt in there to support any of the shit you have spouted.


It seems you are one of those, more pathetic than average liberals, who actually believe that the way to support a bullshit accusation, is to spout more shit.



So, to summarize. YOu don't like Trump, or me, and you can't explain why. You are very angry and you say a lot of shit, but can't back any of it up.



Interestingly, you don't even have the concept of challenging me to back up anything I say.


You live is a completely fact free world, where the very idea of logical discussion, is completely alien to you.


Indeed, I doubt you are getting one word in 5 as you read this.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.

Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.


Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.



Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.

You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.

You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.

One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.

1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.

2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.

3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.

4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.

Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling? Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole? Of course you didn't. You didn't think. That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.

If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the

No sir, YOU'VE been avoiding what I have asked.

I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place. You haven't been able to deal in reality. You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)

Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted. You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this. The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative. You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection. America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody. Someone WILL be pushed out. This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.

You are not making any sense.


You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.

I am fighting against proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS.

What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that? What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?

The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.

It's YOUR side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's YOUR side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights. It was YOUR side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.

So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of YOUR side???

Immigration = citizenship. That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.

1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.


2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.

1) You cannot change what IS. Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks. It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts. And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, decades ago. You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth

2) The ONLY thing you crow about is this "legal" angle. You claim to have no problem if people come here "legally." It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)

If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you. What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship. THAT, sir, where your "legal" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?

Are you trying to move into my living room? Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out. Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?) Is that your game?

The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.

It's obviously not that simple. The wallists have been given all the statutory law AND the case law. They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.

Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow. But, let's play house. Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier. Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me. I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, here is court precedent on Rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a LOT of precedent.

If a man is born with an unalienable Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a Creator, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?

Do you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?

So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of unalienable Rights.

Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.

You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S. It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple, you don't own this fricking country. We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter. NOBODY is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else. Either unalienable Rights exist or they do not. It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason. It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots. Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S. Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an unalienable Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to ALL PERSONS as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but YOUR SIDE DOES NOT. Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment. You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i" Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire? Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to? Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite? Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are willingly engaging in free trade? Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?

You cannot answer those questions. You won't answer them. You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is majority rule - and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle. You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.

Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.


Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.



Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.

Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price. If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.

I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel. You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.

You are also a pathological liar. I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis. I've NEVER said the man is a racist. He's playing racists just like you. I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.

Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.


View attachment 259634



FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.

Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...


Mmmm,

Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today. So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.

I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally. There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives. Stop by some time and I can show it to you.

Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.

IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does.


They don't. Because they can't.


They are an insignificant fringe.


Your belief on this makes no sense at all.


Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.


Why are you afraid of this good news?

Charlottesville. One and done.

White supremacists know to lay low, play it cool, and not been seen. Do you happen to know the other name for the Ku Klux Klan? The nazis do and they have adopted some of the strategies the KKK use to employ.

Rallies are pure bullshit. What counts is whether you can get your message out so people support you. Trump lost the House of Representatives. For every politician (IF one exists) that has bailed on the Democrats and switched parties, I can show you at least 5 that have switched from Republican to Democrat under Trump.

Racism, both black and white, are dominant forces on both sides. And, if watching every piece of American history get destroyed by the left is what you're after, hang with the left. They will show you the way.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are you trying to move into my living room? Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out. Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?) Is that your game?

The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.

It's obviously not that simple. The wallists have been given all the statutory law AND the case law. They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.

Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow. But, let's play house. Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier. Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me. I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, here is court precedent on Rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a LOT of precedent.

If a man is born with an unalienable Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a Creator, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?

Do you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?

So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of unalienable Rights.

Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.

You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S. It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple, you don't own this fricking country. We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter. NOBODY is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else. Either unalienable Rights exist or they do not. It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason. It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots. Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S. Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an unalienable Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to ALL PERSONS as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but YOUR SIDE DOES NOT. Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment. You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i" Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire? Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to? Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite? Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are willingly engaging in free trade? Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?

You cannot answer those questions. You won't answer them. You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is majority rule - and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle. You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

Scott v. Sandford

 

[Aba Incieni]

The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.

It's obviously not that simple. The wallists have been given all the statutory law AND the case law. They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.

Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow. But, let's play house. Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier. Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me. I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, here is court precedent on Rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a LOT of precedent.

If a man is born with an unalienable Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a Creator, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?

Do you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?

So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of unalienable Rights.

Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.

You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S. It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple, you don't own this fricking country. We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter. NOBODY is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else. Either unalienable Rights exist or they do not. It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason. It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots. Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S. Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an unalienable Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to ALL PERSONS as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but YOUR SIDE DOES NOT. Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment. You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i" Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire? Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to? Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite? Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are willingly engaging in free trade? Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?

You cannot answer those questions. You won't answer them. You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is majority rule - and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle. You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

Scott v. Sandford

They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.

Glad you agree.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

"Stealing" is exactly what it is.
Somebody with no legal right to even be in the country itself and work here will work for 2/3 of what a native worker asks for (if that) and doesn't demand any sort of benefits.
It's theft and the native workers have been undercut so many times this way it's become a common experience.

An employer is not immune from US law and if someone wants to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals
it's all perfectly legal to do so. The idea the employer can hire whoever he wants is a ridiculous lie. It's a absurd fable informed by some bizarre politicized misinformation.

There's been a conspiracy to screw the American worker though and those good solid American republican establishment types don't want to end cheap uncomplaining labor. And the fucking socialist dogs on the left want their potential votes. So it's a conspiracy to give native workers the shaft, and you seem to like it that way.
How evil is that?

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

When US states agree to enter the Union they do so acknowledging they will defer to federal law in certain vital areas and immigration is one of these areas.

To say the federal government has no jurisdiction over who may enter any of the fifty states and not is pure bullshit
inspired by pure imagination and willfully stupid stubbornness.
And there is no such things as a "state citizen". There are only US citizens that live in any one of our states.

Your endless lunacy and misinformation doesn't seem bounded by logic or facts.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

"Stealing" is exactly what it is.
Somebody with no legal right to even be in the country itself and work here will work for 2/3 of what a native worker asks for (if that) and doesn't demand any sort of benefits.
It's theft and the native workers have been undercut so many times this way it's become a common experience.

An employer is not immune from US law and if someone wants to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals
it's all perfectly legal to do so. The idea the employer can hire whoever he wants is a ridiculous lie. It's a absurd fable informed by some bizarre politicized misinformation.

There's been a conspiracy to screw the American worker though and those good solid American republican establishment types don't want to end cheap uncomplaining labor. And the fucking socialist dogs on the left want their potential votes. So it's a conspiracy to give native workers the shaft, and you seem to like it that way.
How evil is that?

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

When US states agree to enter the Union they do so acknowledging they will defer to federal law in certain vital areas and immigration is one of these areas.

To say the federal government has no jurisdiction over who may enter any of the fifty states and not is pure bullshit
inspired by pure imagination and willfully stupid stubbornness.
And there is no such things as a "state citizen". There are only US citizens that live in any one of our states.

Your endless lunacy and misinformation doesn't seem bounded by logic or facts.

1) You just made that same socialist argument, making an ass out of Correll once again. So, you guys are either National Socialists or Bernie Sanders supporters?

2) You don't have a Right to a job. Get off your ass and earn your way

3) When employers cannot hire whomever they like, you no longer live in a Republic, but have succumbed to the yoke of tyranny. You are making the arguments the liberals did when they demanded affirmative action, racial quota set asides, and reverse discrimination. That is how you got in this mess in the first place

4) Your ignorance of our laws and history make you a very dangerous person. You are dangerous to Liberty, to the Constitution and to yourself

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

"Stealing" is exactly what it is.
Somebody with no legal right to even be in the country itself and work here will work for 2/3 of what a native worker asks for (if that) and doesn't demand any sort of benefits.
It's theft and the native workers have been undercut so many times this way it's become a common experience.

An employer is not immune from US law and if someone wants to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals
it's all perfectly legal to do so. The idea the employer can hire whoever he wants is a ridiculous lie. It's a absurd fable informed by some bizarre politicized misinformation.

There's been a conspiracy to screw the American worker though and those good solid American republican establishment types don't want to end cheap uncomplaining labor. And the fucking socialist dogs on the left want their potential votes. So it's a conspiracy to give native workers the shaft, and you seem to like it that way.
How evil is that?

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

When US states agree to enter the Union they do so acknowledging they will defer to federal law in certain vital areas and immigration is one of these areas.

To say the federal government has no jurisdiction over who may enter any of the fifty states and not is pure bullshit
inspired by pure imagination and willfully stupid stubbornness.
And there is no such things as a "state citizen". There are only US citizens that live in any one of our states.

Your endless lunacy and misinformation doesn't seem bounded by logic or facts.

The states did no such thing. I have given your dumb ass more than one opportunity to clear up the confusion. Let's try once more:

Scott v. Sandford

That may take you a day to read as slow as you are, but it debunks every attack you've made against me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It's obviously not that simple. The wallists have been given all the statutory law AND the case law. They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.

Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow. But, let's play house. Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier. Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me. I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, here is court precedent on Rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a LOT of precedent.

If a man is born with an unalienable Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a Creator, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?

Do you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?

So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of unalienable Rights.

Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.

You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S. It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple, you don't own this fricking country. We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter. NOBODY is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else. Either unalienable Rights exist or they do not. It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason. It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots. Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S. Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an unalienable Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to ALL PERSONS as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but YOUR SIDE DOES NOT. Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment. You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i" Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire? Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to? Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite? Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are willingly engaging in free trade? Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?

You cannot answer those questions. You won't answer them. You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is majority rule - and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle. You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

Scott v. Sandford

They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.

Glad you agree.

You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto? Really? How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!

But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax. And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The states did no such thing. I have given your dumb ass more than one opportunity to clear up the confusion. Let's try once more:

Scott v. Sandford

That may take you a day to read as slow as you are, but it debunks every attack you've made against me.

The states did what? What thing did they not do?

You might start by defining your terms and claims. That's what smart people do, anyway.

Is it possible you are using slaves as an example that you think makes it okay for states to ignore immigration law? That would be a very foolish thing to do.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.

Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!


What radical terror!!!!


LOL!!!!!!

Legal (sic), "illegal"... WTH is the difference? If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER. As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.

After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes. He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.

Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.


BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.


That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.

I don't know what kind of answer you want. We've discussed this umpteen times. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't. It's not multiple choice. Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not. Which is it? An unalienable Right is not given by government. Unalienable Rights are absolute and above the law. It is the meaning of the word, sir.

Unalienable Rights cannot apply to citizens only. The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were NO American Citizens. Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document. It says ALL men are created equal and ALL men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.

When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job; to buy and sell, I see no problem. When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, THAT is where we part company. But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man. Either you believe in Liberty or you don't. Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government. For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports. I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "right" to a free public education. I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.

So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?

That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.


AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.


This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)


We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.


This is a very simply concept. NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.


I expect better from you on this.

At this point I expect better from YOU on this point. How many times have we been over this now? Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.

Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders. The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution. Up to 1875 the states controlled their own immigration. An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights. What did you get in return? Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.

After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.

Scott v. Sandford

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The states did no such thing. I have given your dumb ass more than one opportunity to clear up the confusion. Let's try once more:

Scott v. Sandford

That may take you a day to read as slow as you are, but it debunks every attack you've made against me.

The states did what? What thing did they not do?

You might start by defining your terms and claims. That's what smart people do, anyway.

Is it possible you are using slaves as an example that you think makes it okay for states to ignore immigration law? That would be a very foolish thing to do.

If you read the damn link, it will answer your question... and no it don't have shit to do with slaves. Read beyond slavery. Chief Justice Taney explains citizenship and the rights of states in unequivocal language. I'm not going to summarize it so you can debate it. You'll have to read it on your own. If you want to be IN this discussion, at least know the very bare bones basics.

Scott v. Sandford

 

[Aba Incieni]

Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.

You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S. It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple, you don't own this fricking country. We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter. NOBODY is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else. Either unalienable Rights exist or they do not. It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason. It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots. Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S. Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an unalienable Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to ALL PERSONS as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but YOUR SIDE DOES NOT. Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment. You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i" Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire? Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to? Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite? Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are willingly engaging in free trade? Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?

You cannot answer those questions. You won't answer them. You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is majority rule - and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle. You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

Scott v. Sandford

They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.

Glad you agree.

You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto? Really? How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!

But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax. And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.

If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.

Glad you agree.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S. It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple, you don't own this fricking country. We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter. NOBODY is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else. Either unalienable Rights exist or they do not. It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason. It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots. Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S. Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an unalienable Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to ALL PERSONS as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but YOUR SIDE DOES NOT. Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment. You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i" Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire? Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to? Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite? Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are willingly engaging in free trade? Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?

You cannot answer those questions. You won't answer them. You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is majority rule - and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle. You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.

I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to NATURALIZATION the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a state citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

Scott v. Sandford

They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.

Glad you agree.

You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto? Really? How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!

But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax. And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "Social Security Number" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.

If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.

Glad you agree.

WRONG. Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.

There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link. Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!

Let's go you one better. Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security. They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement. When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.

Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?

 

[BlackFlag]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

200?

Feds released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members into communities