Author Topic: Alex Castellanos: After Trump Loses, ‘There Will Be a Cleansing’ In GOP  (Read 3094 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Godzilla

  • Guest
Actually, we are back to my post where I said...

If you think that 'supports' you... congrats...

Oh no, Dan.  Don't make false attribution.  Here's your post.  It's not the one you put up.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
Oh no, Dan.  Don't make false attribution.  Here's your post.  It's not the one you put up.

The post where I said...

Yeah yeah, we already covered how the rules were changed several times so that the 14th Amendment could be 'ratified' and we also know that it is to certain people's benefit to take the position that once the SCOTUS has 'ruled', the matter is 'settled' (like finding abortion in the Constitution so that babies can 'legally' be murdered, dismembered and sold for parts).

We also know that liars lie and keep on lying to protect positions that benefit them.

It's more a matter of informing the educable forum members about the huge number of lies that have been told, enacted, implemented and ruled upon that have destroyed this country over the years.  It's not a new phenomenon nor is it declining from lack of use...

This certainly is my post... I put it up... there is no false attribution... it was actually my first post addressing the SCOTUS ruling issue that you brought up... apparently it's just a post that you don't want to acknowledge... there is a difference...

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,829
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
The Fourteenth Amendment has been a long-term disaster for the country.

It should be repealed, with one or more new amendment(s) passed to replace it.

At the very least, the "birthright citizenship" provision needs to be excised, and replaced with language to the effect that to be considered a "citizen of the United States" one must be born of two parents who already -are- "citizens of the United States" (can be either naturalized or "natural born", keep reading).

Also, the re-written amendment should clarify and define what "natural born citizen" is, insofar as it is used in the Constitution.

I believe that "natural born citizen" should be defined as being born to two citizens of the United States within the borders of the United States (note again that the "citizens" can be naturalized citizens, but that the birth must occur -in- the United States), or in other circumstances as legislated by the Congress. An example of an "other circumstance" might include an American couple in foreign service who has a child overseas, and registers the birth promptly. But most importantly, the ambiguity regarding the words "natural born" will be removed, replaced by an irrefutable definition. This was an oversight of The Founders at the Constitutional Convention -- it's time to nail it down.

This will NEVER come "from the Congress".
It MUST come from an Article V Convention of the States.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
The Fourteenth Amendment has been a long-term disaster for the country.

It should be repealed, with one or more new amendment(s) passed to replace it.

At the very least, the "birthright citizenship" provision needs to be excised, and replaced with language to the effect that to be considered a "citizen of the United States" one must be born of two parents who already -are- "citizens of the United States" (can be either naturalized or "natural born", keep reading).

Also, the re-written amendment should clarify and define what "natural born citizen" is, insofar as it is used in the Constitution.

I believe that "natural born citizen" should be defined as being born to two citizens of the United States within the borders of the United States (note again that the "citizens" can be naturalized citizens, but that the birth must occur -in- the United States), or in other circumstances as legislated by the Congress. An example of an "other circumstance" might include an American couple in foreign service who has a child overseas, and registers the birth promptly. But most importantly, the ambiguity regarding the words "natural born" will be removed, replaced by an irrefutable definition. This was an oversight of The Founders at the Constitutional Convention -- it's time to nail it down.

This will NEVER come "from the Congress".
It MUST come from an Article V Convention of the States.


 :beer:

I'm in an agreeable mood this balmy August evening.

Another upgrade to the constitution could conceivably -no pun intended- be Roe v Wade (and isn't it funny roe is fish eggs?).

Maybe a deep probing of the constitution could uncover language that protects the life of the unborn? Or trip across language justifying Roe!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Look!

A unicorn!
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Godzilla

  • Guest
The post where I said...

This certainly is my post... I put it up... there is no false attribution... it was actually my first post addressing the SCOTUS ruling issue that you brought up... apparently it's just a post that you don't want to acknowledge... there is a difference...

It was also not the post you addressed to me.  However, you are trying to claim it as the one addresses my way.  That's false representation.

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
It was also not the post you addressed to me.  However, you are trying to claim it as the one addresses my way.  That's false representation.

I quoted from your post and responded to it.

How is that not addressed to you?  Look again...

Yeah yeah, we already covered how the rules were changed several times so that the 14th Amendment could be 'ratified' and we also know that it is to certain people's benefit to take the position that once the SCOTUS has 'ruled', the matter is 'settled' (like finding abortion in the Constitution so that babies can 'legally' be murdered, dismembered and sold for parts).

We also know that liars lie and keep on lying to protect positions that benefit them.

It's more a matter of informing the educable forum members about the huge number of lies that have been told, enacted, implemented and ruled upon that have destroyed this country over the years.  It's not a new phenomenon nor is it declining from lack of use...


"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,420
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
So, if a German flies from Berlin to Vancouver, British Columbia....stops in Virginia, Dulles Airport, and has a baby while the jet refuels, that baby is NOT an American citizen?    :pondering:
Why would a nine-months-pregnant woman be on a transatlantic flight in the first place?
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Why would a nine-months-pregnant woman be on a transatlantic flight in the first place?

Babies can pop out at 7 months +. Especially if the mother is stressed. Flown lately?  :whistle:
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Godzilla

  • Guest
Why would a nine-months-pregnant woman be on a transatlantic flight in the first place?

Why would a 9-month pregnant resident of Hong Kong be in San Francisco in the first place?

Life happens.