Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Bkite said:

I did suggest that Joe Biden...are enemies domestic.

Click to expand...

I believe more and more that while Creepy Joe was a full fledged domestic enemy up to not that long ago, it's becoming more obvious that he's not fully cognizant of current situations. His mental acuity now is such that he's nothing more than a front man for the actions of those around him. They wipe his chin, wind him up, put him in front of the cameras (not too often) to hopefully say what's on the teleprompter and whisk him away without answering any questions. Of course, that doesn't absolve him of what he's done in the past. More concerning right now is who's really pulling the strings and what their end game is. I know Kneepads Harris has to be deep in it. I still smell lots and lots of Obama in the background also. Biden's administration is full of Obama sycophants and holdovers. It's not conducive to pleasant vibes.

Bkite said:

I might would have some sympathy for him if it were not for the fact that he and others are conspiring to kill this once great Constitutional Republic.
Watch: Joe Biden Falls on Steps While Boarding Air Force One (breitbart.com)

Click to expand...

Maybe we should get him a shorter plane?

45_Fan said:

You would have others believe, in blind faith even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in such a narrative? How can a republic even exist when a core belief of any losing side in any election is “this is fraud” and “this means war”?

Click to expand...

And yet the dems are endeavoring to enshrine in law HR 1, the For The People Act of 2021, which will codify the various illegal actions taken by various dem state officers, as opposed to the state legislatures where those powers actually reside, that effectively changed the rules for the 2020 election. All while republican controlled state legislatures are attempting to clean up their state's voting rules. Why the huge push to pass HR 1 if those illegal actions weren't illegal? And the Constitution clearly states that the individual state legislatures, not the federal government, are responsible for determining how their elections are conducted. HR 1 effectively puts the feds in charge of determining how elections will be conducted. What could possibly go wrong with that?

HR 1

The Rabbi said:

So what is your argument for opposing unfettered immigration?

Click to expand...

Hell, I'm all for it. We'd be part of that club of progressive countries that allow unrestricted immigration. Come one, Come all! Yay!

Oh, wait. There aren't any other countries that allow unrestricted immigration. Silly me.

The Rabbi said:

So why would you not support unrestricted immigration?

Click to expand...

Why would you support unrestricted immigration? What benefit does it impart to our country? C'mon. Entrall us.

The Rabbi said:

There arent any countries that have a 2A either. Would you like to follow them there too?
That isnt a very good argument.

Click to expand...

Nice deflection. What other countries do or don't do isn't our concern.

The Rabbi said:

Sure. But you're deflecting from my question.
Really the only reason to oppose relaxed immigration standards is lack of understanding of immigration or bigotry. I have never found another reason.

Click to expand...

Then I - or we - am bigoted. I have no desire to emulate the Central African Republic or Niger.

The Rabbi said:

You're exactly right. So why did you argue that other countries don't have unrestricted immigration as if that should be a model for us too?

Click to expand...

Obviously, no other country is as stupid as the US is relative to its immigration laws. Even when they're 3rd world shit holes.

Ya know, I don't think it matters what or how anyone responds to you on anything. You just take it and turn it back on them and provoke them further. I don't believe you have any center core of actual belief. You're in it just to burn the candle at both ends, pissing off people along the way. You're an arrogant, self-centered bitch much like our Texas "friend." But hey, look, you got your 50+ posts - and in only five days too - so enjoy selling your AR pistol.

The Rabbi said:

Again, if you aren't prepared to debate with facts and logic you shouldn't engage. Resorting to ad hominem arguments when you can't defend your position just looks bad.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem? Nah, just calling it like I see it, Skippy. There's nothing to debate with an asshole. But maybe I can help you out. You'd fit right in with the crowd at this other (mostly) Georgia gun forum. You'll find a lot of soul mates over there.

Phil1979 said:

I'll play. Let's not limit immigration based on raw numbers. Rather, let's have across the board qualifications that applies to everyone, and let everyone come here that wants to, who qualifies.

Qualifications such as non-terrorist, speak english, understand and agree to support and defend our Constitution (with a clear and strong support of the first, second, fourth, and fifth amendments), free of dangerous disease, of a sound mind, have a means to support themselves and their families.

Click to expand...

I'll go you one better. Let's repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Johnson and Kennedy's wet dream of immigration, which basically destroyed American homogeneity. American immigration demographics went tits up by opening our borders to pretty much anyone and anybody from anywhere. And clean up or get rid of that damn "anchor baby" bullshit in the 14th Amendment. If that makes me a racist then so be it. My grandparents didn't come here to live in Krapphucistan. I could go on but I'd rather not get banned.

Malum Prohibitum said:

Are you suggesting a repeal of the 14th Amendment (or at least a part of it)? What would you repeal, the word "born?" With what would you replace it? How would you make sure that black Americans born here would still be citizens?

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment being born in the US generally meant citizenship, too. It seemed to be that way at the founding for free blacks as well. Then came the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that blacks born on US soil were not citizens because,

Click to expand...

I thought I was clear about that. Section 1 only. It needs to be repealed or more realistically clarified to stop the abuse of non-American women, whether here legally or illegally, from dropping a kid on US soil and claiming American birthright for it. Which then initiates a form of chain migration.

There wasn't much illegal immigration in post-Civil War America. That amendment should have clearly specified that it applied to black people of that era but it didn't. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be clearly restated through a new amendment which would also clearly eliminate the anchor baby abuse going forward.

Last Thursday April 8, Tucker Carlson did a segment on immigration which immediately riled up the "cancel culture" squads who wanted him fired from Fox News. The ADL was particularly annoyed at him claiming his comments were racist, toxic and - wait for it - anti-Semitic! Oh noes! What bigger death blow could befall anyone, let alone a Fox conservative, than having the "anti-Semitic" epithet hung around your neck! Fox appears to be standing by him and this Monday April 12 Tucker came back and doubled down on his comments. His basic premise is that the dems are running (and have been for decades) "replacement immigration" to eliminate or at least drastically minimize white and black voters with a new electorate of third world voters forever beholden to the democrat party.

The April 12 video contains relevant portions of the April 8 video

April 12 (~20 minutes)

April 8 (~7.5 minutes)

The Rabbi said:

First off, because it deals with "replacement" of white people by people of different races it is ipso facto racist. Categorizing people by race and attributing characteristics to them is in fact the defintion of racism.
SEcond, it is a conspiracy theory pushed by white nationalists and their allies America First, whose name was actually used by racists in the 1930s.
Just because the Left wants to label everything they don't like as racist doesn't mean racism doesn't actually exist.

Click to expand...

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 isn't a conspiracy theory. It's fact and the law of the land. At its very core is the replacement of the then extant American demographic with a new demographic of second and third world losers that will always vote for their new democrat overlords who will provide for their every need for free for that vote. If you don't understand that then you're just a useful idiot and apologist for the left and Marxism.

The Rabbi said:

Right, see here is the conspiracy theory right there in bold.

Click to expand...

There in bold is the stupidity of a closet Marxist.

The Rabbi said:

That's your response? Really? Calling someone a Marxist, when you don't know the first thing aboyt him? Or about Marxism, obviously. It's truly pathetic.

Click to expand...

Someone kick some sand in your mangina?

The Rabbi said:

Anyone who can't engage intelligently needs to shut the 🔇 up, regardless of his opinion.

Click to expand...

That's less cordial than we're used to around here. Apparently you got far more sand in your mangina than I thought.

gunsmoker said:

I never paid any attention to this thread until now , and even now I've only seen this last page --the ninth page of the thread.
I can tell you your assessment of the quality of chat at this forum is spot-on.
Paranoia and nonsensical drama is the rule,
not the exception.

Click to expand...

I could have sworn this was the "Off Topic Political" forum. Were you expecting to come across a treatise on why Boyle's four laws of thermodynamics may or may not hold on Neptune? Good luck.