SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 46K
  • Politics 
Oh, calla, you really should have consulted AI before writing something so false and so revealing. Do you really think that "most of the happiest countries are the most homogenous"? It ain't true, not by a longshot.

Every survey of happy countries includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Those countries are diverse. Bhutan is usually near the top, and it's a multi-ethnic society -- at least three distinct population groups.

But I'm glad to know that's what motivates you. Pretty much what I always figured. Statistically speaking, MAGA is just like you: the staunchest MAGA areas are the ones most rapidly browning. Y'all scared. So silly.
 
I would just like @ZenMode to clarify something he said at least twice in this thread. He said that a child of one parent who is in the US illegally should not be a citizen.

So I ask...if an American citizen woman dates someone who happens to be in the US illegally and conceived a child with them, you believe that child should not be a citizen? Do you really believe that child should be deported along with the father? Who is to say that child is entitled to citizenship in the home country of the father? Does the child just not have citizenship at all?

The converse of all of this is true still if an American citizen man impregnates someone in the US illegally.

So now people have to check citizenship before they date or have intercourse?

Are those really things you believe?
 
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...
You really are stupid, aren't you? An atheist make a similar mistake as a believer in a god. They think that they actually know wtf is true about a universe almost 14 billion years old, so large that there is literally no comparison that will let you grasp it readily and where there is literally a couple of million stars for every person on earth. Neither of you have a thimble full of knowledge out of that ocean of information but you think you can divine whether or not there's a divinity. Your glaring idiocy, as opposed to the slightly less stupid and arrogant atheist, is that you are sure not only is there a God but you're his favorite.

Disinterested agnostic is the way an intelligent person describes themself when they understand how little they know and how little they matter and how tiny a role they play in the universe.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was absolutely clear in the 18th century. They needed people to own guns because every city had at least one militia company. But most cities also had ordinances not allowing people to carry guns around with them. They didn’t care much at all about people out on farms who did some hunting. They simply weren’t a factor in the crafting of the bill of rights, generally, and particularly not the second amendment.

If they thought it was a universal idea, then why introduce the opening clause at all? They gave a very specific reason, because that was the context in which gun ownership was useful to the nation.
 
finesse said:
You really are stupid, aren't you? An atheist make a similar mistake as a believer in a god. They think that they actually know wtf is true about a universe almost 14 billion years old, so large that there is literally no comparison that will let you grasp it readily and where there is literally a couple of million stars for every person on earth. Neither of you have a thimble full of knowledge out of that ocean of information but you think you can divine whether or not there's a divinity. Your glaring idiocy, as opposed to the slightly less stupid and arrogant atheist, is that you are sure not only is there a God but you're his favorite.

Disinterested agnostic is the way an intelligent person describes themself when they understand how little they know and how little they matter and how tiny a role they play in the universe.
Click to expand...
You’re asking the wrong question. The question isn’t “Does God or gods (whatever those terms mean) exist?” That is an unprovable question, and a logical fallacy in the negative.

Moreover, if that were the question, then every Jew, Christian and Muslim is also an atheist, because they believe that Zeus, Zoroaster, and the multitude of other gods that people have invented at one time or another don’t exist.

The proper question is “Do you believe that God exists?”

Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism is not the belief that no deity exists. Rather, it is an absence of belief that a god exists.

Belief is not a natural condition of a human being. It is a learned trait. Any intelligent Catholic would tell you that faith must be affirmed. It is not a default mode.
 
zeuxis said:
You’re asking the wrong question. The question isn’t “Does God or gods (whatever those terms mean) exist?” That is an unprovable question, and a logical fallacy in the negative.

Moreover, if that were the question, then every Jew, Christian and Muslim is also an atheist, because they believe that Zeus, Zoroaster, and the multitude of other gods that people have invented at one time or another don’t exist.

The proper question is “Do you believe that God exists?”

Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism is not the belief that no deity exists. Rather, it is an absence of belief that a god exists.

Belief is not a natural condition of a human being. It is a learned trait. Any intelligent Catholic would tell you that faith must be affirmed. It is not a default mode.
Click to expand...
It's idiotic and egotistical so not worth consideration, imo. Spent some considerable time in self examination and pain in coming to that conclusion. It's basically too big and old the universe(s), too small the mind. The truest words in the Bible is "What is man that thou art mindful of him?".
 
wmheel1287 said:
I would just like @ZenMode to clarify something he said at least twice in this thread. He said that a child of one parent who is in the US illegally should not be a citizen.

So I ask...if an American citizen woman dates someone who happens to be in the US illegally and conceived a child with them, you believe that child should not be a citizen? Do you really believe that child should be deported along with the father? Who is to say that child is entitled to citizenship in the home country of the father? Does the child just not have citizenship at all?

The converse of all of this is true still if an American citizen man impregnates someone in the US illegally.

So now people have to check citizenship before they date or have intercourse?

Are those really things you believe?
Click to expand...
I can't believe you all still engage this dip shit.

I suppose you do it for a sport.

This dumbfuk is irredeemable
 
Callatoroy said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you would like to live in a racially, culturally, and religiously homogenous country so badly, my suggestion would be that you move to Sweden. Because the United States has never been that, and in fact multiculturalism - and welcoming people from all different cultures and faiths - has generally been one of the most important parts of our country's identity. We are a nation of immigrants, and not only of white Christian immigrants, and we have never demanded or required full cultural "assimilation" from anyone. And while you're right that multiculturalism provides more possibility of internal cultural, ethnic, or religious tensions, the benefits we have always gotten from it far outweigh the downside. And that doesn't change just because various strands of "Christian Nationalism" are now on the rise in the country, as they are across Europe. The Christian Nationalists in the vein of Pete hegseth are the biggest danger to our national culture and fabric, not the (brown) people they seek to eject from American culture.

Also just to be clear there is no monolithic "Muslim culture" and many Muslims have been been living happily and peacefully in the United States for a long time. The global rise of radical Islam does not tar all Muslims and mark them as incompatible with American culture any more than the toxic, retrograde version of Christianity pushed by Hegseth and others stains all Christians.
 
Not to mention that the two groups are more alike than either are like their respective fellow believers. It's more about patriarchy and power than faith. Faith's just the cudgel used to beat yourself stupid enough to stomach that dreck.
 
Callatoroy said:
that won't work. anyone who has ever attended church is a christo-fascist to you atheists.
Click to expand...
And anyone who
rodoheel said:
If you would like to live in a racially, culturally, and religiously homogenous country so badly, my suggestion would be that you move to Sweden. Because the United States has never been that, and in fact multiculturalism - and welcoming people from all different cultures and faiths - has generally been one of the most important parts of our country's identity. We are a nation of immigrants, and not only of white Christian immigrants, and we have never demanded or required full cultural "assimilation" from anyone. And while you're right that multiculturalism provides more possibility of internal cultural, ethnic, or religious tensions, the benefits we have always gotten from it far outweigh the downside. And that doesn't change just because various strands of "Christian Nationalism" are now on the rise in the country, as they are across Europe. The Christian Nationalists in the vein of Pete hegseth are the biggest danger to our national culture and fabric, not the (brown) people they seek to eject from American culture.

Also just to be clear there is no monolithic "Muslim culture" and many Muslims have been been living happily and peacefully in the United States for a long time. The global rise of radical Islam does not tar all Muslims and mark them as incompatible with American culture any more than the toxic, retrograde version of Christianity pushed by Hegseth and others stains all Christians.
Click to expand...
I don't think some understand the history of the word "assimilation" and how that has been used to justify heinous behavior like antisemitism.

America is not supposed to be a country of assimilation. And yes, that is messy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top