SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 46K
  • Politics 
rodoheel said:
You say "using our constitution against us" as if existing American citizens are harmed when someone else is born a US citizen. Which makes no sense. We have a slowly inverting population pyramid as our birth rates continue to drop. We need all the young American citizens we can get.
Click to expand...
not those with communist parents or parents, or parents who believe in sharia law, or parents who don't assimilate to American culture and values (spare me the multicultural bullshit comments. you know what i mean by that, or at least you should)
 
Callatoroy said:
not those with communist parents or parents, or parents who believe in sharia law, or parents who don't assimilate to American culture and values (spare me the multicultural bullshit comments. you know what i mean by that, or at least you should)
Click to expand...
Let's start with the Christo-Fascists. They're doing the deepest and most immediate damage. Maybe do a free range reservation somewhere in Wyoming - Idaho. etc, where they don't need any education and don't get any handouts.
 
finesse said:
Let's start with the Christo-Fascists. They're doing the deepest and most immediate damage. Maybe do a free range reservation somewhere in Wyoming - Idaho. etc, where they don't need any education and don't get any handouts.
Click to expand...
that won't work. anyone who has ever attended church is a christo-fascist to you atheists.
 
Callatoroy said:
that won't work. anyone who has ever attended church is a christo-fascist to you atheists.
Click to expand...
I'm offended you'd think I was an atheist. They're as badly mistaken as you although without so much the overweening ego. I'm a disinterested agnostic like any right thinking person should be. Our whole lives in their entirety are orders of magnitude less in intensity and duration than the slightest flicker of a candle and WE are some eternal creator on the universe (multiverses) greatest achievement? It is to gag in disgust at such egomania.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute wasn’t Drumphs mom an immigrant and his wife(wives) too so should he be really considered an American? Just asking?
ETA: So are his children Murican or newly foreigners? I’m so confused since my crowd got here 10 generations ago?
 
zeuxis said:
Actually, they were very clear about the second amendment. The idea was that a well-regulated (that means trained) militia was necessary for the defense of the state, and in that context guns were necessary. Logically, once volunteer militias were replaced by standing armies and weapons were furnished by the government, that initial clause is no longer true, and therefore the right is no longer valid.
Click to expand...
Oh, come on. Nobody says the Second Amendment is clear. It's not. It's not what the right-wingers have made it to be, but it's a tangle any way you look at it.
 
Callatoroy said:
not those with communist parents or parents, or parents who believe in sharia law, or parents who don't assimilate to American culture and values (spare me the multicultural bullshit comments. you know what i mean by that, or at least you should)
Click to expand...
communists? The 1950s called -- please return its scapegoating paranoia. Communists? Seriously?

I do not know what you mean by "assimilate to American culture" and neither do you. Most American culture has emerged from immigration. Aren't we glad your mook-forebears didn't make all the Italians assimilate? We wouldn't have Italian food. Chinese food? Forget about it. If immigrants were forced to "assimilate" we would be the most fucking boring country in the world. Anyway, does "assimilating" to other immigrant cultures count as assimilating for you? Do you understand the circularity here? of course you don't.
 
StrangePackage said:
Remember your contrition about previous board behavior and earnestly stated desire to be more respectful?

It evidently lasted almost 90 seconds. Your wife is jealous.
Click to expand...
Ehh, your wife actually told me how happy she was I didn’t pre maturely ejaculate, and I put a smiley face on it which indicates I was giving you a hard time, not being an ahole. Still respectful
 
finesse said:
I'm offended you'd think I was an atheist. They're as badly mistaken as you although without so much the overweening ego. I'm a disinterested agnostic like any right thinking person should be. Our whole lives in their entirety are orders of magnitude less in intensity and duration than the slightest flicker of a candle and WE are some eternal creator on the universe (multiverses) greatest achievement? It is to gag in disgust at such egomania.
Click to expand...

Disinterested agnostic is the coward’s way of saying atheist. Just own it. You are in the majority on here.
 
Callatoroy said:
not those with communist parents or parents, or parents who believe in sharia law, or parents who don't assimilate to American culture and values (spare me the multicultural bullshit comments. you know what i mean by that, or at least you should)
Click to expand...
We don't, and shouldn't, base policy off some laughable fantasy of communists or Muslim radicals or whoever else planning some sort of long-term sleeper cell by travelling to the US to have their children born as American citizens who will change or destroy the country from within. "The Americans" is a great TV show but it isn't real life.

And in any event, American citizenship has never been conditioned on believing in a certain ideology or some subjective standard of "assimilation" into American culture, nor would anyone worth taking seriously suggest that it should be. Our country has always been, philosophically, a nation of immigrants, and the great strength of American culture has always been its ability for two-way exchange with the "home" cultures of people who come to the country, with benefits flowing in both directions. We have never had, and don't need, a homogeneous culture.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
Disinterested agnostic is the coward’s way of saying atheist. Just own it. You are in the majority on here.
Click to expand...
There is pretty much a 0% chance that a majority of this board is atheists, lol. It's not our fault you can't distinguish criticism of a particularly toxic brand of Christianity from criticism of Christianity as a whole.
 
CHAMTRAIN said:
This case gets to the root of what is rotten with Trump's Presidency. When he wants something he goes after it with brute force, attempting to intimidate his way into the outcome he wants, rules be damned. A decent President would attempt to govern, he simply does not know how. The absolute worst President in the history of this nation.
Click to expand...
I love reading biographies of US Presidents, and while we've had some atrocious ones over the years, the most recent one who really stuck out to me for just being loathsome was Richard Nixon. Just an extremely angry, resentful, and miserable loner with almost no real friends and who as president vindictively went after his enemies (his famous "enemies list") and who succumbed to paranoia and increasingly strange behavior in private. Just a twisted little man.

Having said that, Nixon seems like a choir boy compared to Trump, and that's really saying something. Nixon was at least a highly intelligent man who did accomplish some positive things in foreign policy and domestic policy (signing the Clean Air Act & Clean Water Act into law is a major one, Trump would never have done that). I agree that for pure corruption and malevolence Trump is probably unparalleled. Harding had an incredibly corrupt administration, but Trump almost certainly tops him in that area, and Harding utterly lacked Trump's personal pettiness and vindictiveness. It's almost impossible to find anything positive coming out of either Trump administration, and a long, long list of some of the worst legislation and executive orders and actions we've ever seen. He's like the Anti-FDR.
 
Last edited:
SmilingJack said:
Wait a minute wasn’t Drumphs mom an immigrant and his wife(wives) too so should he be really considered an American? Just asking?
ETA: So are his children Murican or newly foreigners? I’m so confused since my crowd got here 10 generations ago?
Click to expand...
Interesting reader comment on the subject you raise in the NYTime Story on the SC arguments.

Link: Five Takeaways From the Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Case

Larry's comment on article: "If the Supreme Court rules for the administration's view, there could well be a cascading effect on citizenship, regardless of the (probably untenable) idea that this would apply only prospectively. If an individual was born to parents who were not citizens, then that person would not be a US citizen. And if that person is not a citizen, then the children of that person are also no longer citizens. How many generations back would this cascade? The fact of birth in the US is an event with no ambiguity regarding citizenship. If birth is no longer a hallmark of citizenship status the result will be extremely messy. For example, the President's paternal grandparents immigrated from Germany. Did they become US citizens through a recognized legal pathway by the time his father was born? If not, his father would not be a US citizen. His mother was also an immigrant, who may have become a US citizen through marriage - indeed, she was apparently planning to return to Scotland when she met his father. That citizenship may no longer be valid as his father might not be a citizen. The President then would not be a citizen as he had two non-citizen parents, and he could not be President. Someone who became a citizen recently through a non-familial pathway would be a US citizen, but people whose families have lived in the US for several generations might not."

My thoughts: If the US Supreme Court's sides with the administration's arguments and Donald Trump's citizenship is revoked, his term as President is terminated, and he and all his children are immediately deported to Germany, then I would be OK with that.
 
rodoheel said:
We don't, and shouldn't, base policy off some laughable fantasy of communists or Muslim radicals or whoever else planning some sort of long-term sleeper cell by travelling to the US to have their children born as American citizens who will change or destroy the country from within. "The Americans" is a great TV show but it isn't real life.

And in any event, American citizenship has never been conditioned on believing in a certain ideology or some subjective standard of "assimilation" into American culture, nor would anyone worth taking seriously suggest that it should be. Our country has always been, philosophically, a nation of immigrants, and the great strength of American culture has always been its ability for two-way exchange with the "home" cultures of people who come to the country, with benefits flowing in both directions. We have never had, and don't need, a homogeneous culture.
Click to expand...
Just to get it on record, I support the inevitable SC decision that invalidates trump’s EO on birthright citizenship.

But if you are arguing the immigration we experienced in the early and mid parts of the 1900s is no different than the immigration seen in Minnesota from the Somalis you are wrong. There is a reason most of the happiest countries in the world are also the most homogeneous. Sweden (among many other EU countries) is paying “immigrants” (mostly Muslims) who failed to get asylum up to $34,000 to leave. The Muslim culture is becoming a problem for them and does not mesh well with their majority Christian culture and values. Imagine that. There is nothing bigoted or racist about Sweden wanting to retain its culture. Multiculturalism without assimilation is a recipe for failure and unnecessary civil clashes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top