We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Demonrats are showing that after starting a war to preserve slavery, after starting the KKK, after not voting for the Thirteenth Amendment to free the slaves and the Fourteenth Amendment to give blacks citizenship, after filibustering every civil rights law, after instituting Jim Crow laws and defining being black as having a single drop of black blood (more severe than the Nazi's definition of being a Jew), after interning US citizens of Japanese descent, after turning away Jews trying to escape the Nazis, they are still the party of racism. Some things never change.
We reread your post. The article concerns a black Democratic woman, who is running for governor of Georgia. You then rant about Democrats, clearly ignoring modern history, which says Democrats, a group which includes Abrams and the subject of the article, is all about preserving slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow. You didn't imply it. You said it explicitly.
I hope the far left socialist racist black woman wins in Georgia. It is impossible to explain to those dedicated far left socialist that their ideas won't work. So let Georgia become the example. I'm sure we remember how effectively the mayor of Baltimore proved that the black lives matter agenda doesn't work. Now Baltimore is vying for the most murders and may well beat out Chicago (another far left socialist racist government). So good luck Georgia, elect your race baiting far left radical socialist and I will pop the popcorn and watch the show.
Anon: I hope the far left socialist racist black woman wins in Georgia.
Looking at her platform, she doesn't advocate socialism (government ownership of the means of production). She does support expanding Medicaid, if that is what you mean.
Our political parties underwent a huge shift in the 1970’s. Prior to then, both were Big Tent, nonideological parties, and the Republican Party was arguably somewhat to the left of the Democrat Party on average. Progrssivism started in the Republican Party, and many Republicans were Progressives into the 1970’s, Nelson Rockefeller, for example.
During the 1970’s, the Republicans became noticably more conservative, and the Democrats purged the Southern racists and became a left wing party. They are now a socialist party with a dominant communist wing. The modern Democrat party has no connection to the defenders of slavery or the KKK, and it is tendentious to argue otherwise.
Capitalism will abolish us: "If we have to rely on our ability to persuade people to hand us their money by convincing them we have something of value to offer in return, we'll die on the vine. We have to force people to fund us for their own good, which they're not smart enough to understand."
The professor from Dartmouth is exactly what supporters of Hitler were in the 30's. His glowing praise for the fascist Antifa is exactly how Hitler supporters talked about Nazism.
The left does not like capitalism (as it is practiced in a free society) because it equals freedom. The left wants socialism which of course still must depend on capitalism but where only the state gets to practice capitalism.
Mark Bray... what an apt name. Isn't this that same pencil neck that was one of the organizers of the Occupy movement? An anarchist, in other words. Anarchy is a great gig, as long as it's within the bounds of polite society.
What? This doesn't even make any sense. You can go back to Obama himself talking about those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. In 2 years, Trump created a climate where almost 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created. This is AFTER Obama left office.
It makes perfect sense. The current trend concerning employment is a continuation of the trend started in 2009.
MissT: You can go back to Obama himself talking about those manufacturing jobs are never coming back.
Those manufacturing jobs are not coming back. New jobs requiring new skills are taking over the industry, and the number of manufacturing workers required will almost certainly never return to previous levels, even though the population is higher. So, no. Those jobs are not coming back.
MissT: Trump created a climate where almost 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created. This is AFTER Obama left office.
Gosh, you're right. It's almost as if something happened to change the trend in manufacturing employment when the new administration took office — in 2009.
The problem is that it is a disservice to people to tell them that the old jobs will be coming back, when that is not the case. The American people need to train and prepare for the new economy, an economy which will not be primarily based on manufacturing.
OneGuy: And lies don't become facts because you cherry pick data and distort the truth.
First, let's dispense with the lie part: The data is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the same place Scullman cited. As for cherry-picking: Scullman cited only a single number, while we cited the trend over the last 10 years, which tells a larger story.
The Gasbot is not dealing honestly with the issue. As we've corrected it many times, economic trends follow monetary policy and it was monetary policy that saved Small Baraq's reign of economic hardship from collapse.
In fact, the signature piece of legislation in the first part of Baraq's reign of economic hardship was American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a nearly trillion dollar Keynesian debt package.
Here, for about the tenth time, is the material the Gasbot omits. The big one.
Funny how the Gasbot invariably resorts to handwaving and the equivalent of quote-mining.
#4.1.1.1.1
Yet the gasbot Abides
on
2018-11-02 12:53
(Reply)
End asylum. It was forced on us by the UN globalist and elites. It serves no purpose for American citizens and costs us billions and billions every year and is growing in costs every year. It is probably the most abused dishonest government program in history and that is a huge achievement.
Gillum Campaign Admits They Have to Lie About Who They Are, ‘Florida is a F*cked Up Cracker State’
No. Quoting a volunteer is not representative of the campaign's position. In any case, the campaign has cut ties with the volunteer and repudiated his comments.
How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?
Are undocumented aliens under the jurisdiction of the United States?
QUOTE:
The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens.
No, because Indian nations were not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
QUOTE:
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
No, because diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
QUOTE:
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough.
Z: Are undocumented aliens under the jurisdiction of the United States?
No. As the Sen. Jacob Merritt Howar, the author of the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that excludes those not under the jurisdiction of the US explains:
QUOTE:
"this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Wrong each and every time. Is neener-neener like that considered handwaving?
#8.2
Yet the Gasbot adides
on
2018-11-02 12:58
(Reply)
Zachriel: Are undocumented aliens under the jurisdiction of the United States?
mudbug: No.
Then like diplomats they can't be charged criminally, or be required to pay taxes. But you know this isn't true.
mudbug (quoting): "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
That's right. Foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Otherwise, all those children of legal European immigrants wouldn't be citizens either. And that clearly wasn't the case. The context of the statement makes clear that children of immigrants were to be granted citizenship. Reading further:
Mr. Conness: "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so."
Are you really arguing that the children of all non-naturalized immigrants are not citizens? If so, that's probably the majority of the United States.
You're really having trouble with your reading today. Reread the quote from Sen. Howard (I apologize I lost the 'd' in copy/paste). He lists who he means by those not under the jurisdiction of the US. Aliens is one of the classes of people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they are foreigners.
You keep assuming the infernal thing argues in good faith (or is sentient).
The kernel assumption it foists on you is that 14A's language on jurisdiction is effectively 100% universal, which would make that language entirely superfluous. That 'diplomat' rubbish is Gasbot's obvious red herring.
Not so incidentally, the first case under the 14A found that American Indians were not under US jurisdiction. Like others, persons in the US from elsewhere must be naturalized in order to become citizens. There is no negative, default citizenship earned by simply standing in Douglas AZ, claiming it, and chaining yourself to a Hardees.
Obviously.
14A had a very specific focus which was not that anything may deposit itself in a borderless US to enjoy whatever it could grift. The Gasbot's premise is that oh yes it certainly can.
Find either that text or intent in 14A.
#8.3.1.1
Yet the gasbot abides
on
2018-11-02 15:46
(Reply)
Otherwise, all those children of legal European immigrants wouldn't be citizens either.
You keep making this claim, and as far as I can tell you're the only one making it. The children of legal resident aliens and naturalized citizens have always been born citizens of the U. S. and no one is talking about changing that status. The only status change is for people whose parents are not here legally.
Are you really arguing that the children of all non-naturalized immigrants are not citizens? If so, that's probably the majority of the United States.
Again, only if one accepts your premise that the choice is binary between everybody born here is a citizen, and nobody born here is/was a citizen. As has been pointed out repeatedly, there is a third group.
There is an ample, apt, deeply historical, and jurisprudential history to the post-Civil War-era 14A, quite obviously, and it utterly obliterates the Gasbot's trolling paycheck for the week.
Here's a particularly coherent, non-partisan summation. Try the last eight short paragraphs and be gasbot-free.
#8.3.2.1
Yet the Gasbot abides
on
2018-11-02 15:58
(Reply)
It's such a tiresome deliberate confusion: as if the only two categories were "naturalized citizen" and "border-crasher." There are also legal resident aliens. They ask nicely and we say yes, in certain numbers and on certain conditions. Maybe in bigger numbers if immigration enthusiasts (like myself) manage to vote higher quotas into law, but not otherwise.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if these people really don't grasp the concept that it's possible to cross the border legally. It's like bank robbers who can't learn that there's such a thing as opening an account and THEN making withdrawals from it. "But how else is anyone ever supposed to get money out of the bank? Do you want us to starve? You left us no alternative but holding up the bank at gunpoint." The same for burglars. "Of course I smashed the window! You wouldn't give me your housekey!"
mudbug: You're really having trouble with your reading today. Reread the quote from Sen. Howard (I apologize I lost the 'd' in copy/paste). He lists who he means by those not under the jurisdiction of the US. Aliens is one of the classes of people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they are foreigners.
You're really having trouble with your reading today. Reread the quote from Sen. Howard. He refers to foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of aliens. The word "aliens" is a redundancy for clarity and emphasis.
Why do we know this? Because of the context. You are relying on a quote-mine, and have repeatedly neglected to look at the context.
Why do we know this? Because your reading makes no sense! You are saying that the children of a legal immigrant are not citizens, but that issue was decided by the Supreme Court over a century ago.
Christopher B: You keep making this claim, and as far as I can tell you're the only one making it.
Mudbug is making the claim. His out-of-context reading of Howard says that children of foreigners or aliens would not be citizens under the 14th Amendment. But we know that is not the case!
Taki Theodoracopulos has a interesting take on the 14th Admendment and "birthright citizenship". The problem that I see with her argument is how does one define "citizenship" - is it something that happens when one resides in a country regardless of where you were born? I would assume that, as a result of being born in a different country and using her argument, that I could be considered an "alien" because I was born in England to American parents? That I'm really a loyal subject of Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth? (Side note: I am married to a Queen Elizabeth - my spouse is definitely Queen of this house).
I'm not smart enough to do the legal mental legal gymnastics that attorneys do to make their points, but it seems to me that (1) if one or both of your parents are American citizens then that makes you an American Citizen and (2) if you are born here, it logically follows that you can be an American citizen.
There is one thing that Taki is wrong about - diplomats and members of foreign military visiting in the US can claim American citizenship for the child or that child when it reaches a majority age can claim American citizenship as a result of being born here. If they choose not to, that's fine but it can be done.
8 CFR §101.3 (a) Person born to foreign diplomat—(1) Status of person. A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Handwaving. Your gasbotting premise has been that 14A includes completely superfluous language related to unnecessarily establishing US jurisdiction from which you gaslight that thereby all persons in the US are subject to US jurisdiction, except for a couple extreme outliers you toss around to appear objective.
For this you have no basis - by your nonsense man-eating space aliens are entitled to all the benefits of US hospitality and probably residence simply by showing up at a speakeasy in Berkeley. Which come to think of it, there they probably are.
And this 14A's writers intended and laid out in bold 16pt Helvetica.
Of course, 14A's real context is blatantly evident, there is no superfluous such language, and you're doing your usual. What PDT has proposed is not only constitutional, it's a long term strategic plan.
#9.1.1
Yet the Gasbot abides
on
2018-11-02 13:45
(Reply)
You missed the point my friend - claim to citizenship is not an automatic grant.
Tom Francis: You missed the point my friend - claim to citizenship is not an automatic grant.
A claim implies something that is due, and the 14th Amendment does not automatically grant such citizenship. If one parent is a U.S. citizen, then they would become citizens. Otherwise, they are conferred legal resident status. One can always apply for citizenship, if that is what you mean.
For many years, the USA has granted citizenship to those born on US soil, and expected such "birth citizens" to fulfill the obligations expected of ordinary American-born citizens: filing of annual tax returns and fulfilling draft obligations.
Back in the '50s, there was a mine up the northwest coast of British Columbia. The mine townsite was small, so pregnant women were routinely sent to Juneau to give birth. No one thought about the citizenship of those children until the Viet Nam war, when draft notices were sent to the Canadian boys born at Juneau. Since the mine had long closed, and most of the residents were living in southeastern British Columbia, not far from the border (and were used to going to Spokane for shopping rather than far-away Vancouver), this was a problem. I never did here how it was resolved.
That chart from Zero Hedge was once an argument against the USA. I can recall from the ‘60s and ‘70s that “the US consumes/produces one-quarter of the world’s resources/wealth” was meant to indict the USA for its gross excesses.
Tracked: Nov 04, 09:03