Originally posted by whodeyTell me how many of those immigrants in those sanctuary cities have done any terrorist attacks? You must have that info ready to go to prove how depraved they all are.
But Dims will ignore even this as they drive immigrants from one sanctuary city to the next.
In other words, LAWS DON'T MATTER, unless you have a Dim in the Oval Office, but not until then cuz they are not racist I reckon.
What we need in the Constitution is a provision giving Progressives the last word on everything that should be Constitutional with no limitations.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarStop it Eladar!
They want to uphold it as Obama upheld it which didn't have much impact on Washington due to geographic location.
As marauder said in another thread, we are just too crazy to understand the enlightened nature of court rulings such as this. 🙄
Sleepyguy is well on his way to becoming like us, and sh76 is the sole voice of reason on this site, which is why he has not commented on it till this point.
So instead of questioning his obvious superior grasp on reality, perhaps we should just stick to chess.
Originally posted by whodeyYou really just want to lick the faeces from Trump's anus, don't you.
Now that the courts determine immigration policy, should they also get security briefings from the CIA to help them make such decisions, or is it just a given that immigration is a natural right and, therefore, cannot be denied to anyone for any circumstance?
Hahaha
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyMakin yourself look bad man. Not the chief justice of SCOTUS. Some dimwit lower court judge. He is also a fan of BLM and I ain't talking the other suckass govt. agency that likes to steal land and kill ranchers not to confused with the other suckass agency the nazi park service or the other suckass agency that says they protect the environment unless they do the damage not to be confused with all the other suckass govt. agencys AD NAUSEAM
Judge Roberts?
Isn't he the guy who single handedly turned Obamacare into a tax in order to make it Constitutional after Obama sold it as a tax cuz he promised not to raise taxes on the Middle Class?
That judge Roberts?
Originally posted by no1marauderCall me an anarchist then. I didn't need the definition. Been one all my life. Have gun will travel. 😛
Do you think that making the President of the United States conform to the laws and Constitution promotes "anarchy"?
Actually, I would like to see anarchy as properly defined i.e. "The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief ...[text shortened]... .html#seca11
Needless to say, what you claim Progressives want is the exact opposite of this.
Originally posted by EladarA LOT. Murder, rape robbery, drug dealing etc.You name it. Spot on. And if you want to argue not the muslums as they came in legally, well, if you overstay a visa for example, you are violating the law you are a criminal and therfore an illegal alien. It just ain' the Mexicans, central american or cubans etc. They are sneakin across both borders and god knows how many sleeper terror cells are set up already. Ain't gonna be pretty. Smart people are locked and loaded. Have a nice day.
How many of those illegal aliens have broken the law and need to be deported?
Originally posted by whodeyGet your facts straight dummy. Makin youself look bad. This Judge Roberts> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3521178/posts?page=27
Judge Roberts?
Isn't he the guy who single handedly turned Obamacare into a tax in order to make it Constitutional after Obama sold it as a tax cuz he promised not to raise taxes on the Middle Class?
That judge Roberts?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI see anarchism as an alternative to oligarchism or monarchism (-arch words) not republicanism. Anarchists generally seem to want a republican government with representatives and such.
Do you think that making the President of the United States conform to the laws and Constitution promotes "anarchy"?
Actually, I would like to see anarchy as properly defined i.e. "The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief ...[text shortened]... .html#seca11
Needless to say, what you claim Progressives want is the exact opposite of this.
It's about property rights. Anarchism to me means rejecting the concept of private property (as opposed to personal property).
If you read Locke, he describes ownership in terms of possession. He describes how a person can own land by mixing it with his or her labor (possession of the land).
The idea that someone can own something across the country which they never use but expect rent checks from is very different from Lockean property ownership. To me, anarchism is the acknowledgement of that fact.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnarchists throw temper tantrums. They want to establish their own dictatorship. Well at least some of them do, the rest are just useful idiots throwing temper tantrums.
I see anarchism as an alternative to oligarchism or monarchism (-arch words) not republicanism. Anarchists generally seem to want a republican government with representatives and such.
It's about property rights. Anarchism to me means rejecting the concept of private property (as opposed to personal property).
If you read Locke, he describes o ...[text shortened]... ifferent from Lockean property ownership. To me, anarchism is the acknowledgement of that fact.