What's new
By:
Filters

Here we go, first illegal alien Senator.

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,804
www.breitbart.com

John Fetterman Hospitalized After Feeling 'Lightheaded'

Newly minted Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was reportedly hospitalized Wednesday night after feeling "lightheaded."
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

The Gov can name a replacement and it was already mentioned even before he was sworn in that his wife could take his spot "if" something happened to him. Anybody that has entered the US illegally should automatically be prohibited from holding any office regardless of whether they eventually became a citizen.

For that matter anyone who entered illegally should be banned from ever getting citizenship.
 
Stuck said:
www.breitbart.com

John Fetterman Hospitalized After Feeling 'Lightheaded'

Newly minted Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was reportedly hospitalized Wednesday night after feeling "lightheaded."
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

The Gov can name a replacement and it was already mentioned even before he was sworn in that his wife could take his spot. Anybody that hasentered the USillegally should automatically be prohibited from holding any office regardless of whether she became a citizen.
Click to expand...
My question, how does that head ever get light? I figure the 3 tumor growths would hold it down...
 
Stuck said:
Anybody that has entered the US illegally should automatically be prohibited from holding any office regardless of whether they eventually became a citizen.

For that matter anyone who entered illegally should be banned from ever getting citizenship.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you say something so perfect that I 100% agree to the core with every single word you typed.
Thank you.
 
there is nothing wrong with senators and congressmen who have become american citizens eventually.. being in office

as Americans, we already break all sorts of laws all the time.

who is gonna be able to decide with laws etc you are or arent able to break.. and still be aloud to hold office
 
ArTi54N said:
there is nothing wrong with senators and congressmen who have become american citizens eventually.. being in office

as Americans, we already break all sorts of laws all the time.

who is gonna be able to decide with laws etc you are or arent able to break.. and still be aloud to hold office
Click to expand...
Catch up, dipshit - we're talking about someone who was not a citizen breaking the law in the USA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
ArTi54N said:
there is nothing wrong with senators and congressmen who have become american citizens eventually.. being in office

as Americans, we already break all sorts of laws all the time.

who is gonna be able to decide with laws etc you are or arent able to break.. and still be aloud to hold office
Click to expand...
You've been coprophagic for far too long. I mean, who even allowed you on the internet?
 
Yota Up said:
Sometimes you say something so perfect that I 100% agree to the core with every single word you typed.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Youre welcome. Im kinda special that way, like an Asshole Savant.

Vote Stuck for President.
 
Last edited:
ArTi54N said:
there is nothing wrong with senators and congressmen who have become american citizens eventually.. being in office

as Americans, we already break all sorts of laws all the time.

who is gonna be able to decide with laws etc you are or arent able to break.. and still be aloud to hold office
Click to expand...
I personally disagree. There is a reason that the office of the president has birth right restrictions and it should apply to every gov office in the US. Anything less is a NATSEC risk.

The answer to your last question is the constitution. It fully lays out who is eligible and who is not.
 
Stuck said:
For that matter anyone who entered illegally should be banned from ever getting citizenship.
Click to expand...
You just banned the founding fathers and literally every single person who came here and made laws for the later generations to argue about. None of us were invited.
 
Stuck said:
Youre welcome. Im kinda special that way, like an Asshole Savant.

Vote Stuck for President.
Click to expand...
You would probably be a little better than the dementia patient we have now. But so would my dog.
 
DMG said:
Its been a while since I saw a strawman argument this stupid.
Click to expand...
It’s only stupid because you don’t want to accept the truth of the Founding Fathers being illegal Immigrants. They came here then following generations wrote rules about immigration. Nothing better than pulling up the ladder after you get in the boat so other people can’t get in the way you did.
 
RunningProblem said:
It’s only stupid because you don’t want to accept the truth of the Founding Fathers being illegal Immigrants. They came here then following generations wrote rules about immigration. Nothing better than pulling up the ladder after you get in the boat so other people can’t get in the way you did.
Click to expand...
1. There was no country, no constitution and no such thing as an illegal alien in the days of our Founders.
2. If they could have, the natives would not have allowed Europeans to settle here.
3. Your comments sound like talking points from Slate Magazine.
 
So what I said was 100% true. The founding fathers showed up without permission, made a bunch of rules, and now later generations are butt hurt someone MIGHT become a senator. :lmao:

Good thing there won’t be a special election over this. Way better to argue about illegal immigrants POSSIBLY being put into position (won’t happen) than election results where Republicans lose again.
 
DMG said:
1. There was no country, no constitution and no such thing as an illegal alien in the days of our Founders.
Click to expand...
While the Constitution was being drafted, it was on the 3rd try. The Continental & Confederation was the first two.

And everyone knows that this "America" was to be part of Great Britain but the newcomers certainly didn't like the color *red-
Edit~ "redcoat"
 
Last edited:
RunningProblem said:
So what I said was 100% true. The founding fathers showed up without permission, made a bunch of rules, and now later generations are butt hurt someone MIGHT become a senator. :lmao:

Good thing there won’t be a special election over this. Way better to argue about illegal immigrants POSSIBLY being put into position (won’t happen) than election results where Republicans lose again.
Click to expand...

Show the class where the laws were in place that prove the early settlers were here illegally.
 
rockota said:
Show the class where the laws were in place that prove the early settlers were here illegally.
Click to expand...
Not exactly surprising to see the Toyota guy arguing on the same side as a bunch of moralizing collectivist christian Taliban who's cultural influences have been nothing but an illiberal pox upon liberty for the last 400yr. :shaking:

The English settlers generally justified their taking of native lands using British common law doctrine under which the land was considered abandoned because it wasn't being cultivated, logged or a list of other specific uses previously established under British common law.

A minority of people looked at how the natives lived and used their land and realized that the existing common law doctrine was inappropriate, these existing inhabitants were using their land, just in different ways, and that if the settlers wanted it they should buy it from them. These people got shunned and wound up settling Rhode Island and the northern New England frontier.

That said, this dispute had been settled by force a couple generations before the Founding Fathers were born. So basically you're both wrong.
 
Last edited:
arse_sidewards said:
Not exactly surprising to see the Toyota guy arguing on the same side as a bunch of moralizing collectivist christian Taliban who's cultural influences have been nothing but an illiberal pox upon liberty for the last 400yr. :shaking:

The English settlers generally justified their taking of native lands using British common law doctrine under which the land was considered abandoned because it wasn't being cultivated, logged or a list of other specific uses previously established under British common law.

A minority of people looked at how the natives lived and used their land and realized that the existing common law doctrine was inappropriate, these existing inhabitants were using their land, just in different ways, and that if the settlers wanted it they should buy it from them. These people got shunned and wound up settling Rhode Island and the northern New England frontier.

That said, this dispute had been settled by force a couple generations before the Founding Fathers were born. So basically you're both wrong.
Click to expand...
To add:

The natives themselves didn't regard property for the most part the way Europeans did/do. They also don't define it the way we've heard about for the last 50 years, which is based on marxist principles that have invaded the philosophy of the remaining native communities and rewrote history within.
The Sioux regard the Black Hills as theirs. By what right? The right of the conqueror. The Sioux had only been in the region of the black hills for about 160 years when "white man" took it from them. THERE WERE EUROPEAN SETTLERS ALREADY IN AMERICA WHEN THEY FIRST MOVED IN. They pushed out several other tribes, The pawnees and utes? Can't remember, google for yourself. By their own standards, whoever is strong enough to hold it is the rightful owner. Otherwise we should give the Black Hills back to whomever had it in 1492 (something I've suggested before) if we really want to bring North America back to pre-columbian days.

Oh, and mr ass backwards: For someone who's a fan of the worst version of the ranger platform and the timing belt throwing/head gasket blowing/melt into rust lesbaru platform you sure throw a lot of shade:flipoff2:
 
arse_sidewards said:
Not exactly surprising to see the Toyota guy arguing on the same side as a bunch of moralizing collectivist christian Taliban who's cultural influences have been nothing but an illiberal pox upon liberty for the last 400yr. :shaking:

The English settlers generally justified their taking of native lands using British common law doctrine under which the land was considered abandoned because it wasn't being cultivated, logged or a list of other specific uses previously established under British common law.

A minority of people looked at how the natives lived and used their land and realized that the existing common law doctrine was inappropriate, these existing inhabitants were using their land, just in different ways, and that if the settlers wanted it they should buy it from them. These people got shunned and wound up settling Rhode Island and the northern New England frontier.

That said, this dispute had been settled by force a couple generations before the Founding Fathers were born. So basically you're both wrong.
Click to expand...

It’s a shame I have to argue against someone that judges people that lived 100s of years ago by today’s standards but whatever. I do have a question, though. Were the tribes that we took the country from the same tribes that held it 500 years before? If they were not, at what point did someone have legitimate claim to the land your house is built on?
 
IowaOffRoad said:
Oh, and mr ass backwards: For someone who's a fan of the worst version of the ranger platform and the timing belt throwing/head gasket blowing/melt into rust lesbaru platform you sure throw a lot of shade:flipoff2:
Click to expand...
My Lesbarus predate the head gasket and interference engine shenanigans. '94 is peak Ranger. Fight me. :flipoff2:

det107 said:
Yes... BTW, where did you learn your history lessons? /https://data.irate4x4.com/assets/smilies/thefinger.gif
Click to expand...
They weren't in the same places they were 500yr prior but they were the same tribes. /https://data.irate4x4.com/assets/smilies/thefinger.gif

DMG said:
It’s a shame I have to argue against someone that judges people that lived 100s of years ago by today’s standards but whatever. I do have a question, though. Were the tribes that we took the country from the same tribes that held it 500 years before? If they were not, at what point did someone have legitimate claim to the land your house is built on?
Click to expand...
I'm judging people based on what they drive. IDGAF about what happened hundreds of years ago. :flipoff2:

The only thing I take issue with from the past is the use of willful ignorance to apply an irrelevant legal doctrine. If they had just been up front about "we're moving in now, deal" like the French I wouldn't give a fuck. :laughing:
 
arse_sidewards said:
...The only thing I take issue with from the past is the use of willful ignorance to apply an irrelevant legal doctrine. If they had just been up front about "we're moving in now, deal" like the French I wouldn't give a fuck. :laughing:
Click to expand...
Eh, it wasn't willful ignorance at the beginning, but there is a bit of point here.
The French were more enlightened, so they essentially applied the native standards against them. "Oh, if you can win a fight you can just take everything? Nous avons des fusils, des navires et des canons, à vous de jouer".

You think that at a societal level there was any concept of protecting the minority from the majority before the concepts laid out in the Constitution among the native people? Even the enlightened 5 nations of iroquois really was only formed so the tribes didn't genocide each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh