Author Topic: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump  (Read 67922 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,444
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #300 on: October 20, 2016, 01:16:31 am »
No I will never unite  with a NeverTrumper, not ever. Elect Hillary and you are on your own.
We won't be electing Hillary. But if Hillary becomes President, you can unite with us against her policies, or you can unite with her against us.

This, my dear acquaintance, is what one would call "a taste of your own medicine."
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #301 on: October 20, 2016, 01:46:41 am »
Oh exactly.  We offer a bit of grace to a poster and they use it as a knife completely out of context.  They must protect their beloved Trump.  It is really really off the mark for them to be so blindly devoted to him.  They should rewrite that song "Hopelessly devoted to you" for Trump.  (I don't know if that's the title.  I just remember the phrase.)

I've noticed how the Trump trolls come after Christians opposed to Trump on moral, Scriptural grounds with holier-than-thou personal attacks against the Christians.

It's pretty obvious what their motives are, and they're not admirable.

Not only have they put their love for Trump above the good of the country, the Republican party and Conservatism, but they put their Trump love above what is right and what is wrong.

It's shameful, but I'm not going to be deterred by their ad hominems against us.  I will not stop posting the truth about who Trump is no matter how stupid or nasty the attacks of Trump lovers become.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #302 on: October 20, 2016, 02:00:03 am »
It this comedy? Hillary has gotten us into war after war in the middle east and north Africa. Hillary says if elected she will impose a no fly zone over Syria. I wonder how Russia will react to us shooting down their war planes in Syria? Hillary is a cowardly neocon warmonger that left Americans to die in Benghazi. Trump is a saint compared to Hillary.
Hate to bust your bubble, but Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had absolutely no authority in the military chain of command to order a rescue/relief mission, nor did she have the command authority to tell one to stand down. That has to come from the top, and belongs on one person only: Barrack H. Obama.

I have little doubt that DOS machinations set up the situation that led to that attack and the outcome, but The Secretary of State does not command troops.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #303 on: October 20, 2016, 02:10:16 am »
That you Trump Militants will just quit and leave in a huff?

If that be the case, I'll gladly 'taste' all the flavor of tantrum and departure you have to offer and hold the door open for your exits.

Like there's anything new there.

WRONG.

REPUBLICANS and TRUMPIANS will hate us, you have already made that perfectly clear, simply because we have refused to embrace your prince at any time during this fiasco of an *election*. The Establishment made the fact they hate us perfectly clear long before Trump ever announced.

So again, we frankly don't give a rat's ass that we're hated.  We are well aware in this day and age that this world will hate anyone standing for truth or principle.

Well, I assert Trump is a greater danger to my liberty than Hillary.  Your fellow militants have made that abundantly evident.

Once again, your scare tactics don't work anymore. 

We're done being frightened into supporting someone to *block* another Democrat Leftist simply because they are *worse* than the incompetent liberals you people have foisted upon the rest of us.
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #304 on: October 20, 2016, 02:18:41 am »
Ideally that is true.  It's just that some state governments are so corrupt that they would send worse senators than the people themselves select.  Perhaps it would be good overall anyway just because the goal would be to protect the rights of the state.  But I can't help but think that at this point the two parties would just collude to plant partisans in the Senate who still only care about federal control for their particular political party.  Way back when travel and communication were far more limited, it was easier to contain those interests.  Now it sort of depends on both which party holds power in a state AND whether or not they are true to federalism/constitutional principles.  Just like everything else, it is liable to rock back and forth as power shirts back and forth over time.

In summary, I'm a little afraid that rather than selecting senators that would rein in the federal government's overreach, it would work the opposite by expanding the federal reach further into the various states.
I think the long range effect would be to get more people involved on their State (and local) levels. You want to fix Washington, it starts in your back yard. Repealing the 17th would bring that home. The other effect, though, is that some Federal programs enacted as 'universal fixes' favor some regions and hurt others.

Imagine your flyover country state not being stuck with what California and the Northeast population centers think is appropriate, much less ICLEI (UN Agenda 21 for locals).
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #305 on: October 20, 2016, 02:30:42 am »
So then, in keeping with the interpretation style favored by you and the great orange constitutional scholar, since the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to establish a "well regulated militia" and as a result of our standing army and National Guard providing for the security of the State, private ownership of firearms is not protected by the BoR.
Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

HonestJohn

  • Guest
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #306 on: October 20, 2016, 03:08:34 am »
Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.

One can argue that the term "the People" does not refer to "the Individual".

I don't agree, but it's a valid case.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #307 on: October 20, 2016, 03:21:34 am »
One can argue that the term "the People" does not refer to "the Individual".

I don't agree, but it's a valid case.
No. Not when every other Right in the Bill of Rights reserved to the individual is just that, a Right of the People. Nor when in the Federalist during the discussion of the size of (and if there should be) a Federal Army, it was decided that if the Army tried to usurp power the people by sheer force of numbers and using their arms, even lacking martial training, would be able to prevail.
Then the example of the practice of the day, including privately owned cannon. Every military arm of the day which the individual could afford was available to be owned by the individual, and was, depending on the means of the individual. (Think ship owners and canon).
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #308 on: October 20, 2016, 03:27:02 am »
Nope. The Second specifically states "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no way to read and misinterpret that except by will fully ignoring the language used.
Place it in historical contest by reading the Federalist, and it's a lock. The right belongs to the people.

You're not getting what I meant.

If one is to read what is NOT in the text of the US Constitution, and instead opt to interpret the rights protected by the intention of some of the Framers at the time that the Amendment was written, then one has to give the same constant reading to every part of the Constitution.

To interpret the intent of the Second is easy if that is how you wish to read the Amendment... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being the intent, then the right to bear arms is subject to it.

It's not. And whatever the intent of the XIV Amendment may have been at the time of its ratification, the words are simple: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Mind yoi, another poster raised a question about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they did not intend to make citizens out of people whose [parents were loyal to another country. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE AMENDMENT. It says that anyone born on this soil, and subject to the applicable laws of the land and society, are citizens.

If they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" (A.K.A. subject to all applicable laws) of the United States then what right would the U.S. government have to deport them, since they're not subject to our immigration or entry laws?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #309 on: October 20, 2016, 03:30:15 am »
If the militia is not regulated (constrained), the state will not remain free for long. Thus, being able to contain the ambitions of that militia by practical means is a necessity to remaining free: to a "free State". To that end, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes perfect sense.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #310 on: October 20, 2016, 03:41:15 am »
And whatever the intent of the XIV Amendment may have been at the time of its ratification, the words are simple: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Mind yoi, another poster raised a question about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they did not intend to make citizens out of people whose [parents were loyal to another country. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE AMENDMENT. It says that anyone born on this soil, and subject to the applicable laws of the land and society, are citizens.

If they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" (A.K.A. subject to all applicable laws) of the United States then what right would the U.S. government have to deport them, since they're not subject to our immigration or entry laws?
I addressed the Second in the previous post. To elaborate a smidgin more, to regulate is to constrain, by law or physical force. So it is with everything from speed limits to gas pressures. I do not understand the semantic gymnastics of those who would have that mean "trained"--any Militia would be. The concern instead, with the existence of a Free State in mind, would especially be that that Militia would turn against its own people and seize power. That is where the constraint comes in, that constraint to be provided by the People, armed, and thus the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As for those born on this soil and subject to applicable law and jurisdiction, yep that is what it says. Those not subject thereto would be the children of diplomats and visiting heads of state and their retinues. ("diplomatic immunity")
The argument can certainly be made that all visiting here, whether legally or illegally are subject to our laws, should we enforce them.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 03:41:50 am by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #311 on: October 20, 2016, 03:52:36 am »
If they are here illegally, they clearly are not subject to the immigration laws.  It is absurd to think that we owe full citizenship to any child of someone who stole her way across the border.  The very minimum should be that they are here legally.  Otherwise any enemy or thief could steal the benefits of citizenship.  It is like saying you owe dinner at your house both to those you invited to dinner and to those who broke in to your house.  Sweet deal for burglars.
Then that should be clarified, even though I agree. End the anchor baby mess by stopping the birthright citizenship for people not legally here. If illegals were not subject to our laws and jurisdiction, then we couldn't arrest them for bank robbery or drug smuggling. :shrug:

This has, indeed, been a sweet deal for those burglars.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 03:53:45 am by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #312 on: October 20, 2016, 03:58:17 am »
If they are here illegally, they clearly are not subject to the immigration laws.  It is absurd to think that we owe full citizenship to any child of someone who stole her way across the border.  The very minimum should be that they are here legally.  Otherwise any enemy or thief could steal the benefits of citizenship.  It is like saying you owe dinner at your house both to those you invited to dinner and to those who broke in to your house.  Sweet deal for burglars.

If they are not subject to our laws, they can't be here illegally, because then their being here could be defined by our laws. So to even say that they are here illegally, or not here legally, means that they are subject to our laws, or under the jurisdiction of our laws.

If you are born on US soil, and subject to US laws, you are a citizen, and since all people (other than foreign diplomats and their children) on US soil are subject to US laws, than anyone who is both born on US soil and subject to US kaws is a citizen at birth.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #313 on: October 20, 2016, 04:00:38 am »
Then that should be clarified, even though I agree. End the anchor baby mess by stopping the birthright citizenship for people not legally here. If illegals were not subject to our laws and jurisdiction, then we couldn't arrest them for bank robbery or drug smuggling. :shrug:

This has, indeed, been a sweet deal for those burglars.

Exactly, so illegals are illegal because they are subject to (or under the jurisdiction of) our laws, making theur babies citizens.

You can't have it both ways. If they're NOT under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws) then they can't be deported because the immigration laws do not affect them.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

HonestJohn

  • Guest
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #314 on: October 20, 2016, 04:01:45 am »
Exactly, so illegals are illegal because they are subject to (or under the jurisdiction of) our laws, making theur babies citizens.

You can't have it both ways. If they're NOT under our jurisdiction (subject to our laws) then they can't be deported because the immigration laws do not affect them.

Nor could they be arrested for any crime.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #315 on: October 20, 2016, 04:02:27 am »
If the militia is not regulated (constrained), the state will not remain free for long. Thus, being able to contain the ambitions of that militia by practical means is a necessity to remaining free: to a "free State". To that end, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes perfect sense.

You know that we're in agreement on this, right?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those who want to use intent to define the meaning of any particular part of the US Constitution.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #316 on: October 20, 2016, 04:02:46 am »
You failed him. You failed Donald. You couldn't bring us to heel. Donald gave you one job. One. And you disappointed him.

You. Disappointed. Donald. You. YOU!!!

Do the honorable thing and atone your sin. The sin of disappointing... Donald.

hahaha... Nothing to do now but fall on the sword.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #317 on: October 20, 2016, 05:58:53 am »
You know that we're in agreement on this, right?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those who want to use intent to define the meaning of any particular part of the US Constitution.
I figured as much. I just wanted to crush the line of reasoning that misled people into believing the RKBA is anything but an individual right.

Unfortunately, the meanings of words change. When there is any doubt as to the particular meaning of a phrase in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, one has to look at the usage of the words at the time of those being written. Where that is less than clear (not often), intent is the guide to the meaning of the language of the passage at issue, and that intent is often quite clearly stated elsewhere in other writings. In general, the Founders were careful to write unambiguously, and most ambiguity is only introduced later by people who seek to subvert the intent of the Founders and the letter of the law. With that in mind, it is an unsupportable argument that the Founders would have found any of the restrictions on the RKBA from the NFA of 1934 onward to be Constitutional.

If there is a problem with the letter of the law, and it needs to be modified in order to cope with situations (such as the looting of the Unconstitutional welfare system by illegal aliens, or 'anchor babies'), then the law should be changed to encompass the situation and achieve the desired outcome. If that requires a Constitutional Amendment, so be it. The Fourteenth could be amended by adding the words underlined and in bold: All persons born or naturalized of parents legally present in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"  to exclude those born of illegal alien parents.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

geronl

  • Guest
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #318 on: October 20, 2016, 06:50:53 am »
This is just a taste of what you NeverTrumpers have coming should Trump lose. The Rats will not like you  and conservatives are going to downright hate you for helping to elect Hillary

NeverTrumpers ARE the conservatives, and the NeverTrumpers are 100% correct. The truth is usually met with hate.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,081
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #319 on: October 20, 2016, 06:53:30 am »
NeverTrumpers ARE the conservatives, and the NeverTrumpers are 100% correct. The truth is usually met with hate.
You are correct!  (He cracked me up with that cognitive disconnect.)
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

geronl

  • Guest
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #320 on: October 20, 2016, 06:54:01 am »
You failed him. You failed Donald. You couldn't bring us to heel. Donald gave you one job. One. And you disappointed him.

You. Disappointed. Donald. You. YOU!!!

Do the honorable thing and atone your sin. The sin of disappointing... Donald.

As @sneakypete would say, Do it, do it now!

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #321 on: October 20, 2016, 09:20:51 am »
We won't be electing Hillary. But if Hillary becomes President, you can unite with us against her policies, or you can unite with her against us.

This, my dear acquaintance, is what one would call "a taste of your own medicine."
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #322 on: October 20, 2016, 09:30:51 am »
NeverTrumpers ARE the conservatives, and the NeverTrumpers are 100% correct. The truth is usually met with hate.
No you're not, no conservative would ever help elect Hillary Clinton, no, not ever.

Online Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,245
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #323 on: October 20, 2016, 09:34:04 am »
If the NeverTrumpers elect Hillary I am done with politics. Under a president Hillary there is no point in voting or donating to her opposition. She will weaponize the entire federal government against conservatives and there is not a damn thing that can be done to stop her once she becomes president. So yeah, you elect her you deal with her.


Who did you vote for in the primaries?

Online libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,216
  • Gender: Female
Re: WSJ: The Cheap Moralizing of Never Trump
« Reply #324 on: October 20, 2016, 11:08:29 am »
If they are here illegally, they clearly are not subject to the immigration laws.  It is absurd to think that we owe full citizenship to any child of someone who stole her way across the border.  The very minimum should be that they are here legally.  Otherwise any enemy or thief could steal the benefits of citizenship.  It is like saying you owe dinner at your house both to those you invited to dinner and to those who broke in to your house.  Sweet deal for burglars.

With a Hillary presidency it's not going to matter if they are here illegally or legally and she will certainly 'revisit' our rights under the second amendment.
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.