pcosmar
Member

Good question, but I'd argue that off-grid isn't the same as entering another country. Everyone should be allowed to live off-grid, although the government doesn't make it easy. I'm arguing about illegal immigrants, who mostly aren't here living off-grid, hippie lifestyles. Basically, the government shouldn't have the right to hold people in databases, and I'd argue that goes even for people who were convicted of crimes, depending on the nature of the crime and the amount of time passed. I once read somewhere that if a person hasn't committed a new crime within five years, they were only as likely to commit a crime as anyone else who had never been convicted. Even crazier is that the government keeps databases of even people who were never convicted. Because of the 4th Amendment, I would argue that people should have the right to live off-grid. That being said, my argument against Swordsmyth wasn't taking this into consideration, it was about the nature of whether illegals had basic rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. To sum up, there's a huge difference between going off-grid and jumping the border into another country (which doesn't have open borders) and sapping up their resources. Out of curiosity, are you in favor of open borders, then? Like, as long as someone isn't trying to work a job or pay taxes, they should be free to go in and out as they please? I'm trying to understand your argument, because I might be missing something.

Yet many of these same cops would arrest you on the spot for the same thing.

I'm not a pro-invader person, I'm just someone who understands the intent behind the Constitution. Illegal immigrants have no right to be here; that's the issue at hand. No one has an inborn right to live in any country because the security reasons are so great, they trump even liberty in such cases. As such, deporting people who crossed the border illegally isn't infringing on their human rights. The Bill of Rights lays out what rights people have on the basis of just being people. All people, no matter where you are on this planet, have these rights (and the Bill of Rights isn't considered an exhaustive list): - The freedom to say what they want, publish what they want, meet with whom they want, practice whatever religion they want, and petition the government. - Bear arms, probably all arms including guns, knives, etc. - To not have to house soldiers in your house during peacetime and have your privacy respected. - To be safe from the government coming into your house and searching you, your property, or seizing your stuff. Basically, you have the right to privacy. - To know they can't be locked up without due process and won't be charged multiple times for the same accusations. You also cannot be charged excessive bail and the state cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment. You can also demand a speedy trial and to demand a jury, which serves a far different purpose than most people realize.

He wasn't using an analogy. He was just giving one example of how existing laws could deal with the problems some immigrants cause. At the very least you must admit that the scam behind the deliberate importation of people directly from foreign prisons is benefitting government, as well as getting it kickbacks from industries that want to drive down wages.

You forgot the third possibility: Like any prog, he just wants to be put in charge so he can kick out anyone he doesn't like.

Isn't it interesting how they take a question that more and more people are asking -- why do these "assassins" keep missing? -- and attach it to Jewish Space Lasers? SOP -- standard operational psyop. All conspiracy theories are always equally ridiculous. It's a special kind of guilt by association, the Alex Jones Gambit. If you believe that then you'll also believe this. And if you believe this you'll be wanting some dick pills.

How hard I try to spin..? Well, your basic point is certainly correct. Trying to make you dizzier than you already are would be like trying to make the Pacific flood by pissing in it.

Nothing is obvious here, least of all that you posted that to disagree with it. Except that I wasn't appealing to any "authority" that you posted. I've attacked americanthinker tripe which you had posted before.

I'm simple minded enough to want my questions answered directly (so I don't know why I ever attempt to converse with you) but that doesn't look anything like a contradiction to me. You're still reserving rights unto yourself that neither you nor any other mortal can lay claim to.

So you completely disagree with what that article says. Why?

Dizzy yet?

So what did your fundie preacher teach you about why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? Just a typo? You want permission to kill people. So name the one who is taking away your living, who is taking food out of your mouth. You don't think God prefers we allow people who wrong us a chance to repent? So why did He say vengeance is His, not ours?

No, I asked you how he was no longer a Democrat. If you responded by not answering the question, while not making it obvious that you were refusing to answer the question, that makes you the one obfuscating. But, of course, you did answer the question, whether you realize it or not: You do realize that his loyalties could well still lie with the DNC, even if it is no longer what he considers ideal, right? Or are we all relying on your ability to read his mind again? In any case, what you said about him sure reads like the definition of RINO.

Which thief? Let's just explore how much of a collectivist you really are. Which thief came to kill? I don't want to deal with it because asking you to be specific and properly cite your "facts" is even less productive than asking Kamala Harris to do the same.

What part of He is the Potter and you're not, He has the sure knowledge and the right, and you do not, are you hoping people will ignore?

The thread's about the current race. His record is relevant to the current race, both as to intent and as to ability. You said, "We are talking about the current campaign" to begin that statement. And you think it's me who is being confusing? Do you ever read what you write?

Maybe he should read the things he writes. He isn't proposing such and such. He's just reserving the right to do such and such. The Bible says we should have faith in God, not men, but he says we should trust him. So how is he not claiming to be God?

You keep making ASSumptions thinking you're making an ass out of me with them. But you only make an aSS out of yourself -- over and over. God is the Potter. He has that right. You don't. Read your own Bible. Start with the first three Commandments. Show me where God issued you written orders to kill people.

Let's try this again, alleged Christian. Which part of "all" and "unalienable" mean the opposite of what everyone thinks they mean? You figure shooting them is just as justified as deporting them, do you? "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply if someone steps over an imaginary line in the sand? How do you square that with, "Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar, and give unto God what is of God"? Because that imaginary line is of Caesar, not God. You can see that, right?

Stronger candidate? Stronger candidate? Are we talking about Biden or Harris? According to you, those footprints were left on him by people like Bolton, Pelosi and Fauci. And he had the power to fire two of the three at any time, and didn't.

Why don't you just tell the world where I do get my politics? That way I can look it up and post all the differences between that and where I stand, exposing your delusional condition for all to see. A real American also considers it heresy against God. Like Coolidge said, if all men are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, that's final.

https://x.com/scrowder/status/1836737026281836727 1836737026281836727

Something something "veto proof" something. He has footprints all over him. And an army of hypocrites making excuses for that.

Are you getting all your politics from cartoons now?

He was for sixty years. How do you know he isn't? How do you know what AG knows? You have an awful lot of faith in your ESP, but considering how many of us have been lied to about what we know or what we're thinking, it's all humorous at this point. He's not a Democrat because Democrats threw him out of the party the way you think you threw Miss Lindsay out of the GOP?

I’m going to have to disagree here. The right to bear arms is considered a natural right. It’s not a privilege granted by any government, it’s inalienable and only brought up in the bill of rights for the same reason as all the others: to demonstrate that our government recognizes that and was formed not to regulate these natural rights but to safeguard them. They aren’t American rights.