Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The camps
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Carroll
Jul 29, 2019, 9:52:56 AM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>
>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
>> "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>
> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>
>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
>> the planet is off the chart loony...
>
> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
> variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
>
> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
Amendment).
>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
>
> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
>>> Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
>>> (thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
>>> things).
>>
>> I know what it means
>
> You keep proving otherwise.
Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>
>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
>> "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>
> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>
>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
>> the planet is off the chart loony...
>
> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
> variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
>
> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
Amendment).
>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
>
> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
>>> Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
>>> (thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
>>> things).
>>
>> I know what it means
>
> You keep proving otherwise.
Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 12:13:40 PM7/29/19
to
On 7/29/19 6:52 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>
>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
>>> "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>
>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>
> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
I will stick to the idea that even darker skinned citizens are a part of
> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>
>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
>>> "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>
>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>
> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
"We the People of the United States of America". I get it... your
bigoted world view excludes them. But they are still citizens. They
*should* have all the same rights as other citizens. Your desire to
exclude them as a part of "we" is reprehensible.
>> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
>> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>>
>>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
>>> the planet is off the chart loony...
>>
>> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
>> variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
>
> That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
> to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
> United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
> Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
People" is reprehensible.
>>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
>>
>> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
>
> LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
> already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
> Amendment).
>
>>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
>>
>> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
>
> It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
> 7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
> 'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
> How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
>
>>>> Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
>>>> (thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
>>>> things).
>>>
>>> I know what it means
>>
>> You keep proving otherwise.
>
> Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
>
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 2:24:24 PM7/29/19
to
In article <gq8k9i...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> On 7/29/19 6:52 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
> >>>
> >>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
> >>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
> >>> "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
> >>
> >> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
> >
> > I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> > not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> > Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>
> I will stick to the idea that even darker skinned citizens are a part of
> "We the People of the United States of America". I get it... your
> bigoted world view excludes them. But they are still citizens. They
> *should* have all the same rights as other citizens. Your desire to
> exclude them as a part of "we" is reprehensible.
When they become legal citizens then yea.
> On 7/29/19 6:52 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
> >>>
> >>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
> >>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
> >>> "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
> >>
> >> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
> >
> > I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> > not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> > Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>
> I will stick to the idea that even darker skinned citizens are a part of
> "We the People of the United States of America". I get it... your
> bigoted world view excludes them. But they are still citizens. They
> *should* have all the same rights as other citizens. Your desire to
> exclude them as a part of "we" is reprehensible.
>
> >> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
> >> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
> >>
> >>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
> >>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
> >>> the planet is off the chart loony...
> >>
> >> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
> >> variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
> >
> > That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
> > to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
> > United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
> > Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
>
> Your bigoted denial that darker skinned citizens are a part of "We the
> People" is reprehensible.
He never said that, you did.
> >> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
> >> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
> >>
> >>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
> >>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
> >>> the planet is off the chart loony...
> >>
> >> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing a
> >> variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
> >
> > That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
> > to "the people" of the United States. The phrase: "We the People of the
> > United States" means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
> > Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
>
> Your bigoted denial that darker skinned citizens are a part of "We the
> People" is reprehensible.
>
> >>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
> >>
> >> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
> >
> > LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
> > already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
> > Amendment).
> >
> >>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
> >>
> >> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
> >
> > It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
> > 7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
> > 'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
> > How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
> >
> >>>> Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
> >>>> (thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
> >>>> things).
> >>>
> >>> I know what it means
> >>
> >> You keep proving otherwise.
> >
> > Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
> >
Snit snipped and ran here.
> >>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
> >>
> >> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
> >
> > LOL! Technically, it is (because of *who* "We the People" are, as I;ve
> > already explained) but that's not what I was referring to (read the 9th
> > Amendment).
> >
> >>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
> >>
> >> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
> >
> > It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the
> > 7th Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
> > 'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself <shrug>.
> > How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
> >
> >>>> Notably, this means even people living in foreign countries far away
> >>>> (thus making "extraordinary rendition" unConstitutional, among other
> >>>> things).
> >>>
> >>> I know what it means
> >>
> >> You keep proving otherwise.
> >
> > Perhaps to you... but I'm not that concerned ;)
> >
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 6:15:39 PM7/29/19
to
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 6:23:39 PM7/29/19
to
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 8:07:50 PM7/29/19
to
On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
LOL!
Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
LOL!
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 8:16:53 PM7/29/19
to
In article <gq9g2j...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>
> Skeeter:
> -----
> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
> -----
>
> LOL!
There is, prove me wrong.
> On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>
> Skeeter:
> -----
> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
> -----
>
> LOL!
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 8:19:51 PM7/29/19
to
discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in the
Constitution-free zone).
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 8:21:01 PM7/29/19
to
In article <gq9gp5...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <gq9g2j...@mid.individual.net>,
> > use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>
> >> On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>
> >> Skeeter:
> >> -----
> >> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > There is, prove me wrong.
> >
>
> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in the
> Constitution-free zone).
No they don't. Show proof or walk away and save face.
>
> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <gq9g2j...@mid.individual.net>,
> > use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>
> >> On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>
> >> Skeeter:
> >> -----
> >> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > There is, prove me wrong.
> >
>
> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in the
> Constitution-free zone).
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 8:23:26 PM7/29/19
to
Constitution-free zone. LOL!
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 8:25:56 PM7/29/19
to
In article <gq9gvs...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> On 7/29/19 5:20 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <gq9gp5...@mid.individual.net>,
> > use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>
> >> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <gq9g2j...@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Skeeter:
> >>>> -----
> >>>> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL!
> >>>
> >>> There is, prove me wrong.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
> >> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in the
> >> Constitution-free zone).
> >
> > No they don't. Show proof or walk away and save face.
>
> First let us start with NYC... which is in that 100 mile wide
> Constitution-free zone. LOL!
Nice spin, no deal.
>
> On 7/29/19 5:20 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <gq9gp5...@mid.individual.net>,
> > use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>
> >> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <gq9g2j...@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/29/19 3:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Skeeter:
> >>>> -----
> >>>> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL!
> >>>
> >>> There is, prove me wrong.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
> >> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in the
> >> Constitution-free zone).
> >
> > No they don't. Show proof or walk away and save face.
>
> First let us start with NYC... which is in that 100 mile wide
> Constitution-free zone. LOL!
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 8:38:57 PM7/29/19
to
100 miles of the border.
You are hilarious.
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 9:06:21 PM7/29/19
to
In article <gq9hsv...@mid.individual.net>,
You know damn well which border I am talking about. Snit has to spin to
win.
win.
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 9:14:26 PM7/29/19
to
NYC is well within that border.
https://afgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Constitution_Map1.jpg
But you had no clue.
Skeeter
Jul 29, 2019, 9:17:43 PM7/29/19
to
In article <gq9jvf...@mid.individual.net>,
No deal. We were talking about the southern border, but Snit had to
twist and shout again.
twist and shout again.
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 9:18:20 PM7/29/19
to
Just Wondering
Jul 29, 2019, 10:35:51 PM7/29/19
to
On 7/29/2019 6:19 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>
>>> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
>>
>>> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
>>
>> There is, prove me wrong.
>
> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives
> in the Constitution-free zone).
The closest New York City gets to Canada is over 260 miles.
>
> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives
> in the Constitution-free zone).
https://www.travelmath.com Straight line distances:
New York City to Kingston, Ontario is 274 miles.
New York City to Niagara Falls is 309 miles
New York City to Cape Vincent, NY is 264 miles.
[Cape Vincent is 1 mile from Canada.]
Just Wondering
Jul 29, 2019, 10:39:42 PM7/29/19
to
Just Wondering
Jul 29, 2019, 10:44:09 PM7/29/19
to
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 10:50:52 PM7/29/19
to
On 7/29/19 7:35 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 7/29/2019 6:19 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>>>
>>>> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
>>>
>>> There is, prove me wrong.
>>
>> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
>> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in
>> the Constitution-free zone).
>
> The closest New York City gets to Canada is over 260 miles.
It never moves. And it is within 100 miles of the border.
> On 7/29/2019 6:19 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/29/19 5:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>>>
>>>> There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
>>>
>>> There is, prove me wrong.
>>
>> Because NY city is a part of the 100 mile border which was being
>> discussed (I was noting that about 2/3 of the US population lives in
>> the Constitution-free zone).
>
> The closest New York City gets to Canada is over 260 miles.
https://afgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Constitution_Map1.jpg
For Skeeter to be so amazingly ignorant as to not know the NYC is near
the border is just hilarious. And sad.
And keep in mind it was that border -- the 100 mile Constitution-free
zone, that was being discussed.
> https://www.travelmath.com Straight line distances:
> New York City to Kingston, Ontario is 274 miles.
> New York City to Niagara Falls is 309 miles
> New York City to Cape Vincent, NY is 264 miles.
> [Cape Vincent is 1 mile from Canada.]
>
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 10:57:46 PM7/29/19
to
distance tool:
* Tucson is about 55-60 miles from the border. The map shows it fairly
close to the "outside" of the orange border... so at least there it
looks pretty close to 100 miles.
* Phoenix: that is about 115 miles from the border... and is just a bit
outside the orange area. Based on those two it seems reasonably close.
* Fresno, CA. It is just about at 100 miles... and that is shown at
least roughly correctly on the map.
Snit
Jul 29, 2019, 10:59:15 PM7/29/19
to
(and, really, for most purposes).
The fact Skeeter and you struggle to figure out New York is next to the
border is hilarious... and sad.
vallor
Jul 29, 2019, 11:03:26 PM7/29/19
to
Very dishonest of him. Shame-shame.
> The fact Skeeter and you struggle to figure out New York is next to the
> border is hilarious... and sad.
--
-v
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 2:03:26 AM7/30/19
to
is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
https://afgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Constitution_Map1.jpg
The fact you and Skeeter are ignorant about this is not anyone playing a
"gotcha game" -- it is just that you two are ignorant of what the border
even means. You feel bad so you lash out. So be it. That is on you, not
me. And the fact Skeeter thought more people lived in NYC than in this
100 mile wide border zone is just another sign of how deeply ignorant he is.
Just Wondering
Jul 30, 2019, 2:53:25 AM7/30/19
to
Lynchburg to Virginia Beach is 179 miles.
https://www.distancefromto.net
So it looks like the map isn't entirely accurate, as width of
orange varies depending on where you look.
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 3:18:13 AM7/30/19
to
On 7/29/19 11:53 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Toledo,+OH/@40.7467016,-83.7136062,8.69z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x883b872dfc1e4e79:0x7c3cc89f453ac345!8m2!3d41.6528052!4d-83.5378674
Apparently the "Distance" tool does not save, but right clicking on
Toledo and selecting "Measure Distance" and then selecting Columbus
gives me just about 120 miles.
Image saved here:
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Columbus-to-Toledo.png
I get 178 with Google Maps -- close enough (obviously). I am guessing
(and it is just that, a guess) that they count the James River as a part
of the border because it goes to the ocean. Looking it up now, the James
River becomes salt water near Hopewell -- which is just about at the
100 mile mark. That would put Lynchburg right on the cusp, which is
where it appears in the orange area.
> So it looks like the map isn't entirely accurate, as width of
> orange varies depending on where you look.
I doubt it is perfect but it seems pretty darn close when you think in
terms of where ANY border is, not just the "main" part of the ocean.
Still, even if you are wrong (and it seems so) I think it is a
reasonable error. Not putting you down for it -- think it was made with
good intent.
...
>>>> The border in discussion is the 100 mile border around the country.
>>>> NYC is well within that border.
>>>> https://afgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Constitution_Map1.jpg
>>>
>>> The orange "border" on that map is over 200 miles wide.
>>
>> How do you figure? Just did some playing with Google Maps and the
>> distance tool:
>>
>> * Tucson is about 55-60 miles from the border. The map shows it fairly
>> close to the "outside" of the orange border... so at least there it
>> looks pretty close to 100 miles.
>>
>> * Phoenix: that is about 115 miles from the border... and is just a
>> bit outside the orange area. Based on those two it seems reasonably
>> close.
>>
>> * Fresno, CA. It is just about at 100 miles... and that is shown at
>> least roughly correctly on the map.
>
> Columbus to Toledo is 211 miles.
According to Google Maps it is only 120 miles.
>>>> NYC is well within that border.
>>>> https://afgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Constitution_Map1.jpg
>>>
>>> The orange "border" on that map is over 200 miles wide.
>>
>> How do you figure? Just did some playing with Google Maps and the
>> distance tool:
>>
>> * Tucson is about 55-60 miles from the border. The map shows it fairly
>> close to the "outside" of the orange border... so at least there it
>> looks pretty close to 100 miles.
>>
>> * Phoenix: that is about 115 miles from the border... and is just a
>> bit outside the orange area. Based on those two it seems reasonably
>> close.
>>
>> * Fresno, CA. It is just about at 100 miles... and that is shown at
>> least roughly correctly on the map.
>
> Columbus to Toledo is 211 miles.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Toledo,+OH/@40.7467016,-83.7136062,8.69z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x883b872dfc1e4e79:0x7c3cc89f453ac345!8m2!3d41.6528052!4d-83.5378674
Apparently the "Distance" tool does not save, but right clicking on
Toledo and selecting "Measure Distance" and then selecting Columbus
gives me just about 120 miles.
Image saved here:
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Columbus-to-Toledo.png
I get 178 with Google Maps -- close enough (obviously). I am guessing
(and it is just that, a guess) that they count the James River as a part
of the border because it goes to the ocean. Looking it up now, the James
River becomes salt water near Hopewell -- which is just about at the
100 mile mark. That would put Lynchburg right on the cusp, which is
where it appears in the orange area.
> So it looks like the map isn't entirely accurate, as width of
> orange varies depending on where you look.
terms of where ANY border is, not just the "main" part of the ocean.
Still, even if you are wrong (and it seems so) I think it is a
reasonable error. Not putting you down for it -- think it was made with
good intent.
Just Wondering
Jul 30, 2019, 3:18:22 AM7/30/19
to
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 3:27:06 AM7/30/19
to
On 7/30/19 12:18 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
...
For those who are not aware of it, here is more info on it:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
-----
• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely
or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the
2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San
Jose.
-----
They list Phoenix there, but while outlying areas around Phoenix are in
that zone, Phoenix itself I do not think is. The closest part of Phoenix
itself seems to be about 105 miles away (again based on using Google
Maps... certainly not a perfect measure).
...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more people in NY city than there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> along the border.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
...
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more people in NY city than there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> along the border.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>
>>
>> It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
>> which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
>
> It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
Yes, which makes it only that much more clear that it is "along the border".
>>
>> It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
>> which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
>
> It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
For those who are not aware of it, here is more info on it:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
-----
• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
border. That's about 200 million people.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely
or almost entirely within this area.
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the
2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San
Jose.
-----
They list Phoenix there, but while outlying areas around Phoenix are in
that zone, Phoenix itself I do not think is. The closest part of Phoenix
itself seems to be about 105 miles away (again based on using Google
Maps... certainly not a perfect measure).
Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛
Jul 30, 2019, 8:26:19 AM7/30/19
to
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:18:19 -0600, LO AND BEHOLD; Just Wondering
<J...@jw.com> determined that the following was of great importance and
subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<0bS%E.110106$Yu7....@fx41.iad>:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
complete morons commonly forget or deny that the oceans are borders, which would make fortiying any land border a complete waste of effort and taxpayer funds.
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)
"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
<J...@jw.com> determined that the following was of great importance and
subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<0bS%E.110106$Yu7....@fx41.iad>:
complete morons commonly forget or deny that the oceans are borders, which would make fortiying any land border a complete waste of effort and taxpayer funds.
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)
"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Steve Carroll
Jul 30, 2019, 9:55:35 AM7/30/19
to
On 2019-07-30, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/19 12:18 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more people in NY city than there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> along the border.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
>>> which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
>>
>> It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
>
> Yes, which makes it only that much more clear that it is "along the border".
>
> For those who are not aware of it, here is more info on it:
>
> https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
> -----
> • Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
> living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
> Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
> across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
>
> • Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
> 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
> border. That's about 200 million people.
Poor Snit, he provides the proof that blows his BS into the sh*tter ;)
> On 7/30/19 12:18 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's more people in NY city than there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> along the border.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a simple fact that there is a 100-mile wide border on the US
>>> which is commonly called the "Constitution-free zone".
>>
>> It's commonly called the 100-mile border zone.
>
> Yes, which makes it only that much more clear that it is "along the border".
>
> For those who are not aware of it, here is more info on it:
>
> https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
> -----
> • Many people think that border-related policies only impact people
> living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that
> Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and
> across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
>
> • Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the
> 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal
> border. That's about 200 million people.
The question is: Can he sober up long enough to figure out how?
The Magic 8 ball says...
<https://imgur.com/a/8YZehRJ>
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 10:24:05 AM7/30/19
to
is not possible for his claim to be correct.
Let me guess: RatchetJaw will agree with you that somehow I am wrong
about that. LOL!
Steve Carroll
Jul 30, 2019, 11:27:16 AM7/30/19
to
herring has nothing to do with *my* point)?
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 11:33:16 AM7/30/19
to
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
Skeeter
Jul 30, 2019, 1:20:03 PM7/30/19
to
In article <gqb69p...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
> wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
> that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
>
>
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
> wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
> that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
>
>
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 1:35:48 PM7/30/19
to
Snit:
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
Skeeter:
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----
You called it insane... but it is true.
Snit:
-----
How do you figure?
-----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
Just Wondering
Jul 30, 2019, 4:05:23 PM7/30/19
to
into the country by sailing up the coastline to Long Island Sound.
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 4:19:13 PM7/30/19
to
Skeeter
Jul 30, 2019, 5:21:47 PM7/30/19
to
In article <gqbdfh...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
No, we were talking about the southern border, you left that part out
Snip.
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
Snip.
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 5:29:52 PM7/30/19
to
live". And you think that is "the southern border".
Do you realize how you keep digging your hole deeper as you try to
explain why you did not know NYC was within 100 miles of the US border?
> Snip.
What?
Nadegda
Jul 30, 2019, 7:00:09 PM7/30/19
to
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>
>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>
>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>
> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
>> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
>> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>>
>>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
>>> on the planet is off the chart loony...
>>
>> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
>> a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
>
> That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
> to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.
Point: kensi.
> The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.
Point: kensi.
> means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
> Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
How ironic.
>>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
>>> citizens
>>
>> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
>
> LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions. It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.
----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------
This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all, but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
planet should have standing to sue).
Point: kensi.
Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".
The Sixth Amendment changes things up a bit:
----------
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial ...
----------
This refers to "the accused". It also refers to *all* criminal
prosecutions, though, so clearly the nationality of the accused is
irrelevant. Sixth Amendment rights apply to anyone the federal government
prosecutes, citizen or otherwise.
The Seventh and Eighth Amendments make no mention of any party other than
the government. So it cannot demand excessive bail from anyone, citizen or
otherwise, etc.
The last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights again mention "the people".
The Constitution as a whole mentions citizens, as distinct from generic
people, in only a few places. The first requires the President to be a
citizen. The next is Article IV, Section 2, where notably paragraph 1
mentions citizens but paragraph 2 says "a Person" instead, clearly
intending to refer more broadly to any human being. The implication from
that is that anywhere the Constitution refers to "person" rather than
"citizen" it should be interpreted as meaning any person, period.
The Amendments after the Bill of Rights rarely mention the word "citizen".
When they do it is generally in connection with voting rights, which are
of course restricted to citizens.
Point: kensi
>>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
>>
>> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
>
> It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the 7th
> Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
> 'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself
> <shrug>.
> How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
The party being protected *from* is the US Government.
Point: kensi
And the consensus of experts is:
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-
noncitizens/
----------
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the
same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans
most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any
serious controversy among experts over this matter.
----------
Point: kensi.
Oh, and:
SPNAK!
<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>
>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>
>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>
> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
>> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
>> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>>
>>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
>>> on the planet is off the chart loony...
>>
>> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
>> a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
>
> That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
> to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.
Point: kensi.
> The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.
Point: kensi.
> means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
> Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
How ironic.
>>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
>>> citizens
>>
>> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
>
> LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------
This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions. It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.
----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------
This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all, but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
planet should have standing to sue).
Point: kensi.
Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".
The Sixth Amendment changes things up a bit:
----------
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial ...
----------
This refers to "the accused". It also refers to *all* criminal
prosecutions, though, so clearly the nationality of the accused is
irrelevant. Sixth Amendment rights apply to anyone the federal government
prosecutes, citizen or otherwise.
The Seventh and Eighth Amendments make no mention of any party other than
the government. So it cannot demand excessive bail from anyone, citizen or
otherwise, etc.
The last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights again mention "the people".
The Constitution as a whole mentions citizens, as distinct from generic
people, in only a few places. The first requires the President to be a
citizen. The next is Article IV, Section 2, where notably paragraph 1
mentions citizens but paragraph 2 says "a Person" instead, clearly
intending to refer more broadly to any human being. The implication from
that is that anywhere the Constitution refers to "person" rather than
"citizen" it should be interpreted as meaning any person, period.
The Amendments after the Bill of Rights rarely mention the word "citizen".
When they do it is generally in connection with voting rights, which are
of course restricted to citizens.
Point: kensi
>>> that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
>>
>> Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
>
> It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the 7th
> Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
> 'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself
> <shrug>.
> How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
The party being protected *from* is the US Government.
Point: kensi
And the consensus of experts is:
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-
noncitizens/
----------
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the
same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans
most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any
serious controversy among experts over this matter.
----------
Point: kensi.
Oh, and:
SPNAK!
<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 7:06:05 PM7/30/19
to
On 7/30/19 4:00 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>
>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>
>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>
>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
>
> Point: kensi.
I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>
>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>
>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>
>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
>
> Point: kensi.
includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
...
Nadegda
Jul 30, 2019, 8:14:58 PM7/30/19
to
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.
When some point is reached, it's a sure bet the rightards will push an
interpretation of that law whereby the perimeters of the little bits of
foreign territory containing embassies, and the Customs desks of
international airports, also count as borders and get 100-mile
Constitution-free zones surrounding them. At which point every major city,
even in flyover states, and most of the rest of the interior becomes part
of the Constitution-free zone. That 67% becomes over 99% then.
And it's a sure bet that the Kavanaugh court will accept that
interpretation ...
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jul 30, 2019, 8:19:26 PM7/30/19
to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:14:56 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
<nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>And there's a ticking bomb lurking beneath the liberty of nearly every
>American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.
It's called The Democratic Party.
<nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>And there's a ticking bomb lurking beneath the liberty of nearly every
>American living *outside* of the Constitution-free zone.
Trouble is, it's underneath the ones living INSIDE the zone as well.
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 8:21:08 PM7/30/19
to
though that is not where the border is (and Lake Michigan is fully within
the US borders).
>
> And it's a sure bet that the Kavanaugh court will accept that
> interpretation ...
>
I fear you are correct.
> And it's a sure bet that the Kavanaugh court will accept that
> interpretation ...
>
Steve Carroll
Jul 30, 2019, 8:46:09 PM7/30/19
to
On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>
>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>
>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>
>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>
>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>
>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>
>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
> Point: kensi.
Uh... aren't you two the same person?
>>> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
>>> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>>>
>>>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>>>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
>>>> on the planet is off the chart loony...
>>>
>>> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
>>> a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
>>
>> That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
>> to "the people" of the United States.
>
> No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
> just as kensi said.
before being deported, i.e. undocumented felons as per Clinton's IIRIRA.
If you didn't like Bill's bill, you'll probably have a heart attack over
this:
<https://time.com/5632671/undocumented-immigrants-expedited-removal/>
(and, yes, the ACLU is already on it)
> Point: kensi.
>
>> The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
>
> is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.
--
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the preamble...
--
> Point: kensi.
>
>> means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
>> Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
>
> How ironic.
Quite ;)
>
>> means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
>> Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
>
> How ironic.
>>>> The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
>>>> citizens
>>>
>>> Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
>>
>> LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
>
> ----------
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press;
> ----------
> This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions.
the pattern here yet?
> It grants no
> exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
> speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
> outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
> of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
> preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
> other party but Congress itself.
immigrants who are in the country in violation of federal law.
> ----------
> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> Government for a redress of grievances.
> ----------
>
> This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
> people" at all,
reason the rest of the document even exists, are to be ignored if they
are not endlessly (Snitishly) repeated to reflect the fact the document
is in reference to "ourselves" AKA "We the People" throughout?
LOL! You realize how ridiculous that is, right?
> but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
> certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
> laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
> suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
> bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
> failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
> ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
> planet should have standing to sue).
>
> Point: kensi.
>
> Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
> to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".
> The Sixth Amendment changes things up a bit:
pretty simple, if the intention was to include "all" people, we'd see
different language used in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights.
Hint-2: The perfect "Union" being referred to is called the United States,
not the Global States.
Hint-3: If you have an argument, it lives in latter amendments. Here's
a decent set of arguments as to why (that, notably, are not being used):
<https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4617&context=caselrev>
The point is don't invoke the Bill of Rights when that's not where your
argument (if you have one) lives. If you read the article I just linked
to, you'll eventually come across this (that you'll probably flip over),
which I feel compelled to include:
--
The immediate request for and passage of a Bill of Rights, in effect
demanded by and promised to the ratifying conventions, as well as the
egalitarianism of the first quarter of the 19th century which culminated
in Jacksonian democracy, signified, to an extent, the arrival of a new
and broader base for "We, the People." The "middling" or middle class
people who had influenced the constitutional language also influenced
the Vermont guarantee of universal suffrage in 179 1;288 and in the next
few years most of the States, original and new, followed suit.28 When
politicians now spoke of "the people," therefore, they no longer
appealed to the selected few of a minority of the population; their
constituents had increased to most, if not all, of those not otherwise
disenfranchised, e.g., the Negro, so that a somewhat popular
sovereignty, if not an all-inclusive one, was emerging. That the first
judiciary was not uninfluenced by all this is disclosed by flowery and
broad language in the early reports, for example, that "the mighty hand
of the people" established a Constitution, which therefore "contains the
permanent will of the people . 280 that, according to Marshall,
the instrument was submitted to the people.... The government proceeds
directly from the people .... The government of the Union, then . . .,
is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in
substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and
are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.
But if Marshall's language here is ambiguous, that is, whom does the
"people" include, 2 years later he sought to clarify it as "the whole
body of the people; not... any subdivision of them."2 9 2 But by "the
whole body" Marshall refers to the collective people - the total,
national electorate - not merely those in one (or more) State(s); and,
as we have seen, even this collectivity is a restricted and therefore
limited one insofar as it authorized and ratified a Constitution. Thus
that a minority. 3 created a document which was to be exercised (solely)
"for their benefit," thereby excluding all others (i.e., the totality of
the people) is manifestly a redactio ad absardum! The original term
"People" in the Preamble is therefore not, as popular mythology has
dignified it, a broad and inclusive term. It is limited to a political,
not economical or sociological, use, although it may nevertheless be
used separately as an all-inclusive term for all humans in the country.
But it is then further limited in the Preamble by being restricted to
voters, and this second restriction immediately excludes a host of
people, such as minors and aliens. In this sense, therefore, the
original "We, the People" is not to be confused with the people included
in a census, or discussed in terms of the military or economic needs of
the nation, and so on.
--
In a word: voters. Only a voter can be a part of "people" who grant
power, who "ordain". If I'm wrong, does it make sense that we confer all
kinds of other Constitutional protection to undocumented people, yet, we
deny them the right to vote or to a trial in matters of deportation?
A better question: Do you think they should have the right to vote?
You likely don't realize but you've tacitly answered 'yes' via your Bill
of Rights arguments. So you have a problem... even in San Francisco,
they're having trouble just getting them the right to vote in school
board elections. Put another way, I don't think the 'electorate' would
agree with your stance to give undocumented people the right to vote in
a national election.
(snip more of the same)
Nadegda
Jul 30, 2019, 9:07:18 PM7/30/19
to
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>>
>>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>>
>>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>>
>>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
>
> ? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
Another deflection attempt.
> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>>
>>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>>
>>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>>
>>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
>
> ? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
>> Point: kensi.
>
> Uh... aren't you two the same person?
>>>> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
>>>> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>>>>
>>>>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>>>>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
>>>>> on the planet is off the chart loony...
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
>>>> a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
>>>
>>> That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
>>> to "the people" of the United States.
>>
>> No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
>> just as kensi said.
>
> Yet, we know that there are people who are not even getting a trial
> before being deported,
>> ----------
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>> or of the press;
>> ----------
>
> In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
>> This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions.
>
> When dealing with a member of the group known as "We the People". See
> the pattern here yet?
Yeah, I noticed your attempts to cheat.
>> It grants no
>> exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
>> speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
>> outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
>> of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
>> preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
>> other party but Congress itself.
>
> We're not talking about foreigners, we're talking about undocumented
> immigrants who are in the country in violation of federal law.
*THWAP!*
*THWAP!*
*THWAP!*
Here, maybe if I smack you upside the head with the Constitution enough,
eventually parts of it may sink in.
>> ----------
>> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>> Government for a redress of grievances.
>> ----------
>>
>> This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
>> people" at all,
>
> So you're now arguing that the words of the Preamble, you know, the
> reason the rest of the document even exists, are to be ignored
> A better question: Do you think they should have the right to vote?
> You likely don't realize but you've tacitly answered 'yes' via your Bill
> of Rights arguments.
explicitly restrict these to "citizens", using that exact word, rather
than just saying "the people".
[Kooky Karroll then proceeds to snip the bits that spank him the hardest,
of course]
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
Skeeter
Jul 30, 2019, 9:26:32 PM7/30/19
to
In article <gqc0qq...@mid.individual.net>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> On 7/30/19 4:00 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> >> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
> >>>>
> >>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
> >>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
> >>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
> >>>
> >>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
> >>
> >> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> >> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> >> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
> >
> > Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
> >
> > Point: kensi.
>
> I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
> includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
> this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
> ...
he didnt say that, you did
> On 7/30/19 4:00 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> >> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
> >>>>
> >>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
> >>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
> >>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
> >>>
> >>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
> >>
> >> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
> >> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
> >> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
> >
> > Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
> >
> > Point: kensi.
>
> I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
> includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
> this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
> ...
Steve Carroll
Jul 30, 2019, 9:26:52 PM7/30/19
to
On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>>>
>>>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>>>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>>>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>>>
>>> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
>>
>> ? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Another deflection attempt.
Pointing out the two are not the same isn't a deflection, no matter how
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:52:55 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-07-29, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2019 9:55 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On 2019-07-28, kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
>>>>>> preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
>>>>>> term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
>>>>
>>>> I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
>>>> not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
>>>> Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
>>>
>>> Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
>>
>> ? Snit erroneously dragged in the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Another deflection attempt.
much of Snit's stash he shares with you.
>>> Point: kensi.
>>
>> Uh... aren't you two the same person?
>
> No. And yet another deflection attempt.
>>>>> i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
>>>>> original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
>>>>>> planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
>>>>>> on the planet is off the chart loony...
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
>>>>> a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
>>>> to "the people" of the United States.
>>>
>>> No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
>>> just as kensi said.
>>
>> Yet, we know that there are people who are not even getting a trial
>> before being deported,
>
> UnConstitutionally.
>>> ----------
>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>>> or of the press;
>>> ----------
>>
>> In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
>
> No, *period*.
>>> This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions.
>>
>> When dealing with a member of the group known as "We the People". See
>> the pattern here yet?
>
> The pattern being "you keep adding stuff that isn't there in the text"?
>>> It grants no
>>> exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
>>> speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
>>> outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
>>> of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
>>> preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
>>> other party but Congress itself.
>>
>> We're not talking about foreigners, we're talking about undocumented
>> immigrants who are in the country in violation of federal law.
>
> That's a subset of "foreigners", you nitwit.
put there as to differentiate from your ambiguous term 'foreigner',
which *could* be a legal citizen. Being that you got stuck on something
*this* simple, it doesn't bode well for your ability to interpret what
you read in the Constitution (or pertinent material, like what you
snipped).
>>> ----------
>>> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>>> Government for a redress of grievances.
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
>>> people" at all,
>>
>> So you're now arguing that the words of the Preamble, you know, the
>> reason the rest of the document even exists, are to be ignored
>
> Legally speaking? Yes.
underway for which, if the ACLU doesn't win, you're head will probably
explode ;)
>> A better question: Do you think they should have the right to vote?
>> You likely don't realize but you've tacitly answered 'yes' via your Bill
>> of Rights arguments.
>
> No, because the parts of the Constitution dealing with voting rights
> explicitly restrict these to "citizens", using that exact word, rather
> than just saying "the people".
fall apart... IOW, even you are now acknowledging what I stated, that
you've snipped. Of course, if you can't get past the word 'foreigner' it
would've been a waste of time for you to attempt to read it anyway ;)
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 9:27:48 PM7/30/19
to
Oh.
Attention.
OK... I guess you got what you wanted. Well done!
Nadegda
Jul 30, 2019, 9:42:54 PM7/30/19
to
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:26:51 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> ----------
>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>>>> or of the press;
>>>> ----------
>>>
>>> In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
>>
>> No, *period*.
>
> According to you <shrug>
No, according to the experts, as described at the link you keep snipping
> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> ----------
>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>>>> or of the press;
>>>> ----------
>>>
>>> In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
>>
>> No, *period*.
>
> According to you <shrug>
because it makes you wet yourself in fear:
Steve Carroll
Jul 30, 2019, 10:22:51 PM7/30/19
to
On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:26:51 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>>>>> or of the press;
>>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
>>>
>>> No, *period*.
>>
>> According to you <shrug>
>
> No, according to the experts, as described at the link you keep snipping
> because it makes you wet yourself in fear:
??
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 01:26:51 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:46:08 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2019-07-30, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>>>>> or of the press;
>>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> In regards to the people in the group known as "We the People".
>>>
>>> No, *period*.
>>
>> According to you <shrug>
>
> No, according to the experts, as described at the link you keep snipping
> because it makes you wet yourself in fear:
Of what you snipped earlier, I pointed out the opinions of those experts
regarding the Bill of Rights... I'm dry as a bone ;)
> https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
"Not only does the Constitution grant noncitizens most of the same
rights as citizens".
Note: "most of"... not all. The link I gave you explains why your Bill
of Rights argument doesn't work... and it's not limited to voting or the
word "citizen". Being that you obviously didn't read it, you wouldn't
know that.
In any event, the history is what it is and, law being largely based on
precedent, I'm afraid you're stuck with "the People" being the "electorate"
who did "ordain". You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
Snit
Jul 30, 2019, 10:34:16 PM7/30/19
to
profiling you have backed -- your race should have NO impact on your
rights. None.
Can you agree to this now?
> The link I gave you explains why your Bill
> of Rights argument doesn't work... and it's not limited to voting or the
> word "citizen". Being that you obviously didn't read it, you wouldn't
> know that.
>
> In any event, the history is what it is and, law being largely based on
> precedent, I'm afraid you're stuck with "the People" being the "electorate"
> who did "ordain".
> You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
> but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
>
>
kensi
Jul 30, 2019, 11:48:48 PM7/30/19
to
On 7/30/2019 10:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
> but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
In case it has somehow escaped your notice until now: Rapepublicans
> You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
> but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
*cheat*. They stack the deck. They load the dice. They gerrymander, they
voter-suppress, they violate norms and rules in the House and Senate,
they ignore subpoenas, they stack the judiciary, THEY CHEAT.
The SCOTUS/Presidents are *wrong*. Worse, they're *lying*, i.e. they're
wrong on purpose and with an ulterior motive which is to enrich the
plutocrat class. And, now, fascism.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Snit
Jul 31, 2019, 12:28:12 AM7/31/19
to
On 7/30/19 8:48 PM, kensi wrote:
> On 7/30/2019 10:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
>>>
>>
>> You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
>> but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
>
> In case it has somehow escaped your notice until now: Rapepublicans
> *cheat*. They stack the deck. They load the dice. They gerrymander, they
> voter-suppress, they violate norms and rules in the House and Senate,
> they ignore subpoenas, they stack the judiciary, THEY CHEAT.
All correct -- and you left out refusing to try to reduce Russian and
> On 7/30/2019 10:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2019-07-31, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/
>>>
>>
>> You're certainly free to opine that it's unconstitutional
>> but the SCOTUS/Presidents have disagreed... they sorta run the show.
>
> In case it has somehow escaped your notice until now: Rapepublicans
> *cheat*. They stack the deck. They load the dice. They gerrymander, they
> voter-suppress, they violate norms and rules in the House and Senate,
> they ignore subpoenas, they stack the judiciary, THEY CHEAT.
other influence, suppressing votes, etc. And that is on top of a system
which grants special entitlements to those who live in less populated
states, a system akin to affirmative action.
> The SCOTUS/Presidents are *wrong*. Worse, they're *lying*, i.e. they're
> wrong on purpose and with an ulterior motive which is to enrich the
> plutocrat class. And, now, fascism.
REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).
PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM”): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the split
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM”): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. With this system the middle class does better, poverty
decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is defined
by the respect and rule of the people themselves.
Just Wondering
Jul 31, 2019, 2:29:07 AM7/31/19
to
such a thing as a Constitution-free zone.
Skeeter
Jul 31, 2019, 9:58:20 AM7/31/19
to
0 new messages