Jump to content

Liberals, so desperate to look "cool."


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Did you graduate Magna Dum Loudy from Trump University?  I think there was a settlement cause Trump did a bad there and you should be able to recoup some of your losses. 

i did....the graduation party was bigly yuge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

So what I read here is you have nothing and choose not to debate with evidence on your own viewpoint; rather, you would like to just bury your head in the asshole of the birther narrative and take it as fact becuase it fits your partisan bubble. Noted. You’re fucking stupid. 

 

laurel-et-hardy-gif-10.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XC.Morrison said:

Depends on the connotation.  Like, my wife has always come up with nicknames for everyone of her family members and friends, but it's good natured and not derogatory.  Trump is a bully.

Trumps "deplorable"

:news:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DAVE said:

People who cant handle bullies...call them bullies.

Not exclusively.  People who can handle bullies also categorize bullies as bullies.  People who can't handle their favorite bully being labeled a bully are relegated to deplorable status by association.

Edited by XC.Morrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Not exclusively.  People who can handle bullies also categorize bullies as bullies.  People who can't handle their favorite bully being labeled a bully are relegated to deplorable status by association.

:lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Ok. Kind sir, would you like to debate this topic or would you rather stick with quoting right wing rhetoric based around the birther movement.

tell me how the argument applies only to obama (i assume you are referring to hillary campaign's 'birther' movement started in '08)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, oleroule said:

tell me how the argument applies only to obama (i assume you are referring to hillary campaign's 'birther' movement started in '08)?

 

I asked why you thought Harris wasn’t qualified to run. You gave a birther type answer similar to Obama and that line of crap. I responded with precedent and explanation of why she could. You refuted by dancing around the subject blaming my “liberal” education. Tell me why, via precedent, the constitution, or any other factual source, she isn’t qualified to run. Should be easy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I asked why you thought Harris wasn’t qualified to run. You gave a birther type answer similar to Obama and that line of crap. I responded with precedent and explanation of why she could. You refuted by dancing around the subject blaming my “liberal” education. Tell me why, via precedent, the constitution, or any other factual source, she isn’t qualified to run. Should be easy....

court precedent doesn't work for two reasons:

1. courts make blatant mistakes (i noted some earlier).

2. courts can't make legislation (even though that is modus operandi in recent decades).

if the 14th amendment along with father's allegiance (citizenship) to a foreign country doesn't work for you, then i can't present anything that will convince you.

the end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oleroule said:

court precedent doesn't work for two reasons:

1. courts make blatant mistakes (i noted some earlier).

2. courts can't make legislation (even though that is modus operandi in recent decades).

if the 14th amendment along with father's allegiance (citizenship) to a foreign country doesn't work for you, then i can't present anything that will convince you.

the end

Holy shit. We operate under common law in this country. That’s the law of the land whether or not you like it. Judges not only apply the law as dictated through the constitution, federal law, or state law, but they also interpret the law as their precedent holds bearing over future cases and holds the same weight as legislated law itself. No where is that more seen than at the SC.

It doesn’t matter if courts make mistakes. It’s still the law and their interpretation still holds true until another judge (mainly the SC) overturns that precedent. 

You can’t actually think what you wrote is correct? Tell me where in the 14th it explains who is or is not eligible to run for President... It does make the case that being born in the US makes you a citizen. The only mention of requirement for POTUS that refers to eligibility and citizenship is “natural born” as outlined in Section 1 Article 2 of the Constitution. Natural born is not defined in the Constitution, yet it is defined by precedent.

That precedent makes you a citizen even if your parents are not, but you were born here. You can disagree with that precedent, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the law. Sorry. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

 

That precedent makes you a citizen even if your parents are not, but you were born here. You can disagree with that precedent, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the law. Sorry. 

see #2 in the post above yours.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...