(04-29-2025 09:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 07:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 07:34 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 04:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Opinions vary, lawyer man. I'll go with Mark Levin over you every time, him being a constitutional lawyer and all, with his own successful TV show.

And "all over the place" obviously doesn't mean just 9-0 on the last one or two specific, narrow rulings. Levin is talking about the last 100 years or so, and he cited court decisions, as well.

You claim the last 75 years have been consistent on due process for illegal aliens. Levin very clearly said no, and gave examples.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have come to the idea that if you didn't come here through due process, then no way in hell does an illegal criminal alien deserve due process on the way out. That's not justice. That's suicide. For our country and our culture.

How would you know they are illegal and a criminal without due process?

This person lied and gaslit more than any government official in American history.

Yes, most likely correct. Does nothing with respect to the comment responded to, though. Except in the 'whadabout' manner, that is.

Maybe in the same vein I should complain about the taste of Brussels sprouts in an equally germane retort.

I accidentally put it in the wrong thread somehow. Not even sure how and I don't even remember which thread now. Someone said Trump was lying so this felt appropriate. So, it's to whoever said that in whatever thread that was.

Many put Ms Leavitt on a greater level when you normalize on a time-wise basis.

And yes, Trump is absolutely a pathological liar. I dont think there can or could be much doubt about that.

(04-29-2025 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 04:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Opinions vary, lawyer man. I'll go with Mark Levin over you every time, him being a constitutional lawyer and all, with his own successful TV show.

And "all over the place" obviously doesn't mean just 9-0 on the last one or two specific, narrow rulings. Levin is talking about the last 100 years or so, and he cited court decisions, as well.

You claim the last 75 years have been consistent on due process for illegal aliens. Levin very clearly said no, and gave examples.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have come to the idea that if you didn't come here through due process, then [b]no way in hell does an illegal criminal alien deserve due process on the way out[/]. That's not justice. That's suicide. For our country and our culture.

Then cite him directly. Or just give broadass shallow hosanna.

Here's a hint: as to the bolded, how exactly does one arrive at the conclusory 'illegal criminal alien' *without* due process

Mull it over a bit there, champ.

As to even more broad application of your broad comment, maybe you need to call up Kendall County here. Lots of illegals enjoying due process in their misdemeanor trials Here.

The problem is you dont seem to understand to actually understand the concepts of due process and merely repeat it as a broad phrase without regard to the meaning or context. And latch on to some dude on TV screaming something about the phrase and latch onto that wo any further thought process.

In conclusion I'll be happy to consider the comments of your demigod Levin. Maybe give us a precise cite to this section that cuts against actual practice in immigration procedure for 75 years, and in criminal procedure for closer to 200 if actually as broad as you blather.

I'll be happy to give you the Krndall Court number so you can tell everyone there how wring they are and broadly say 'that's what Levin said'.

Later champ. Look forward to the specific Levin comment.

Here ya go, Clarence. Didn't think I could produce it, huh? Been a bit busy today planning my next vacation trip.

I expect a full book report, as usual.

(04-29-2025 07:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 04:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Opinions vary, lawyer man. I'll go with Mark Levin over you every time, him being a constitutional lawyer and all, with his own successful TV show.

And "all over the place" obviously doesn't mean just 9-0 on the last one or two specific, narrow rulings. Levin is talking about the last 100 years or so, and he cited court decisions, as well.

You claim the last 75 years have been consistent on due process for illegal aliens. Levin very clearly said no, and gave examples.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have come to the idea that if you didn't come here through due process, then [b]no way in hell does an illegal criminal alien deserve due process on the way out[/]. That's not justice. That's suicide. For our country and our culture.

Then cite him directly. Or just give broadass shallow hosanna.

Here's a hint: as to the bolded, how exactly does one arrive at the conclusory 'illegal criminal alien' *without* due process

Mull it over a bit there, champ.

As to even more broad application of your broad comment, maybe you need to call up Kendall County here. Lots of illegals enjoying due process in their misdemeanor trials Here.

The problem is you dont seem to understand to actually understand the concepts of due process and merely repeat it as a broad phrase without regard to the meaning or context. And latch on to some dude on TV screaming something about the phrase and latch onto that wo any further thought process.

In conclusion I'll be happy to consider the comments of your demigod Levin. Maybe give us a precise cite to this section that cuts against actual practice in immigration procedure for 75 years, and in criminal procedure for closer to 200 if actually as broad as you blather.

I'll be happy to give you the Krndall Court number so you can tell everyone there how wring they are and broadly say 'that's what Levin said'.

Later champ. Look forward to the specific Levin comment.

Here ya go, Clarence. Didn't think I could produce it, huh? Been a bit busy today planning my next vacation trip.

I expect a full book report, as usual.

Didn't know if you could, or would. Appreciate it. I'll digest it and let you know if/ where the issues are.

If you wantva critique after, I'll be happy to do so. If you want to preemptively criticize those comments (as you do above) I don't think I will waste my time.

Good for you for the first step in debate of issues. Sources are important. I see you are already highly proud of yourself for actually completing that first, basic, not large step, and seem to Yale unbridled glee at doing so. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't understand the inherent rancor from you for my asking for the base source that you glom onto as dogma.

Again, I'll be happy to comment. If you are already pre-butghurt as your past paragraph seems to convey, not much use in it.

Except your unbridled glee at barely completing the first basic step of actually documenting your sources.

(04-29-2025 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 07:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 04:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Opinions vary, lawyer man. I'll go with Mark Levin over you every time, him being a constitutional lawyer and all, with his own successful TV show.

And "all over the place" obviously doesn't mean just 9-0 on the last one or two specific, narrow rulings. Levin is talking about the last 100 years or so, and he cited court decisions, as well.

You claim the last 75 years have been consistent on due process for illegal aliens. Levin very clearly said no, and gave examples.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have come to the idea that if you didn't come here through due process, then [b]no way in hell does an illegal criminal alien deserve due process on the way out[/]. That's not justice. That's suicide. For our country and our culture.

Then cite him directly. Or just give broadass shallow hosanna.

Here's a hint: as to the bolded, how exactly does one arrive at the conclusory 'illegal criminal alien' *without* due process

Mull it over a bit there, champ.

As to even more broad application of your broad comment, maybe you need to call up Kendall County here. Lots of illegals enjoying due process in their misdemeanor trials Here.

The problem is you dont seem to understand to actually understand the concepts of due process and merely repeat it as a broad phrase without regard to the meaning or context. And latch on to some dude on TV screaming something about the phrase and latch onto that wo any further thought process.

In conclusion I'll be happy to consider the comments of your demigod Levin. Maybe give us a precise cite to this section that cuts against actual practice in immigration procedure for 75 years, and in criminal procedure for closer to 200 if actually as broad as you blather.

I'll be happy to give you the Krndall Court number so you can tell everyone there how wring they are and broadly say 'that's what Levin said'.

Later champ. Look forward to the specific Levin comment.

Here ya go, Clarence. Didn't think I could produce it, huh? Been a bit busy today planning my next vacation trip.

I expect a full book report, as usual.

Didn't know if you could, or would. Appreciate it. I'll digest it and let you know if/ where the issues are.

If you wantva critique after, I'll be happy to do so. If you want to preemptively criticize those comments (as you do above) I don't think I will waste my time.

Good for you for the first step in debate of issues. Sources are important. I see you are already highly proud of yourself for actually completing that first, basic, not large step, and seem to Yale unbridled glee at doing so. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't understand the inherent rancor from you for my asking for the base source that you glom onto as dogma.

Again, I'll be happy to comment. If you are already pre-butghurt as your past paragraph seems to convey, not much use in it.

Except your unbridled glee at barely completing the first basic step of actually documenting your sources.

LOL. You are one pompous ass, Clarence. It was a TV show. Twenty minutes of him talking while I listened while doing something else, and didn't take notes.

I had no clue if it would be documented at all and available, much less in a format I could post here. That's why I was happy to find it, but not for the reasons you seem to believe.

Let me give you a little history lesson, sir. When I first arrived on this board years ago, I was polite to everybody, and willing to engage people with different political viewpoints. I am equally willing to listen and change my viewpoints on issues, either direction.

You saw that when I did a 180 on due process literally in the middle of typing a sentence, from full unquestioned support for it, to suddenly questioning if the founding fathers actually meant for foreign invaders to receive the same rights as citizens.

When I mentioned that, you not only ridiculed my position, you talked down to me and acted like I was an effing moron for daring to hold a position contrary to your own.

Concerning due process for criminal illegal aliens, it's sort of like the Japanese having made it to our shores in WWII, and us standing there with open arms welcoming them in, even though they were there to kill us and destroy our country. Doesn't make sense.

As for you, I would love to have a civil debate, but you don't allow it, and I'm too old to spend time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion, resorts to childish name calling, and cherry picks issues to respond back to, while ignoring salient points made from the opposing viewpoint.

If I thought it was just me, I might be tempted to go at it again differently, but no, it's your bedside manner. You do this with everyone here who disagrees with you. You just did it again multiple times to me above.

So watch it if you want, but honestly, I never cared if you believed me, and I never cared whether I could find the video or not. I had no clue it existed, and I posted my opinion about Levin's comments soon after his show, and probably before the video was available.

One thing is, I don't lie about anything. I forget things. I mishear things at my age (78), and I sometimes, in an effort to be brief, likely make a less than coherent argument.

But when I say I heard something, you can bet I heard it, and I have no obligation to prove it. I don't care what you think. I lost respect for you long ago, due to YOUR actions, not mine, so take it FWIW.

(04-29-2025 10:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 07:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 04:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Opinions vary, lawyer man. I'll go with Mark Levin over you every time, him being a constitutional lawyer and all, with his own successful TV show.

And "all over the place" obviously doesn't mean just 9-0 on the last one or two specific, narrow rulings. Levin is talking about the last 100 years or so, and he cited court decisions, as well.

You claim the last 75 years have been consistent on due process for illegal aliens. Levin very clearly said no, and gave examples.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have come to the idea that if you didn't come here through due process, then no way in hell does an illegal criminal alien deserve due process on the way out[/]. That's not justice. That's suicide. For our country and our culture.

Then cite him directly. Or just give broadass shallow hosanna.

Here's a hint: as to the bolded, how exactly does one arrive at the conclusory 'illegal criminal alien' *without* due process

Mull it over a bit there, champ.

As to even more broad application of your broad comment, maybe you need to call up Kendall County here. Lots of illegals enjoying due process in their misdemeanor trials Here.

The problem is you dont seem to understand to actually understand the concepts of due process and merely repeat it as a broad phrase without regard to the meaning or context. And latch on to some dude on TV screaming something about the phrase and latch onto that wo any further thought process.

In conclusion I'll be happy to consider the comments of your demigod Levin. Maybe give us a precise cite to this section that cuts against actual practice in immigration procedure for 75 years, and in criminal procedure for closer to 200 if actually as broad as you blather.

I'll be happy to give you the Krndall Court number so you can tell everyone there how wring they are and broadly say 'that's what Levin said'.

Later champ. Look forward to the specific Levin comment.

Here ya go, Clarence. Didn't think I could produce it, huh? Been a bit busy today planning my next vacation trip.

I expect a full book report, as usual.

Didn't know if you could, or would. Appreciate it. I'll digest it and let you know if/ where the issues are.

If you wantva critique after, I'll be happy to do so. If you want to preemptively criticize those comments (as you do above) I don't think I will waste my time.

Good for you for the first step in debate of issues. Sources are important. I see you are already highly proud of yourself for actually completing that first, basic, not large step, and seem to Yale unbridled glee at doing so. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't understand the inherent rancor from you for my asking for the base source that you glom onto as dogma.

Again, I'll be happy to comment. If you are already pre-butghurt as your past paragraph seems to convey, not much use in it.

Except your unbridled glee at barely completing the first basic step of actually documenting your sources.

LOL. You are one pompous ass, Clarence. It was a TV show. Twenty minutes of him talking while I listened while doing something else, and didn't take notes.

And still cite to him and that as the ultimate in the matter. All while not really listening.

Quote:I had no clue if it would be documented at all and available, much less in a format I could post here. That's why I was happy to find it, but not for the reasons you seem to believe.

And thank you for it. Apparently you are ESP like as to my state of mind as to why. Cool cool.

I said I would be happy to review, and additionally happy to comment on it. Period. Imagine that.

Quote:Let me give you a little history lesson, sir. When I first arrived on this board years ago, I was polite to everybody, and willing to engage people with different political viewpoints. I am equally willing to listen and change my viewpoints on issues, either direction.

I find with you pretty much the opposite. You dont seem receptive at all to such from this perspective.

Quote:You saw that when I did a 180 on due process literally in the middle of typing a sentence, from full unquestioned support for it, to suddenly questioning if the founding fathers actually meant for foreign invaders to receive the same rights as citizens.

If you mean invaders, in the real sense of the word (i.e. an armed invasion by a foreign state, with the invaders being their armed forces), there has *never* been support in the issue of due process for such due process for those invaders.

If you are talking rhetorical invaders, Im pretty sure that the founding fathers knew what the term 'no PERSON' meant. And specifically distinguished that group from 'citizens.' Very specifically. Across a number times in that document.

As a whole, the founding fathers were pretty sharply and adroitly versed in English language, political and philosophical constructs, and laid a pretty good side record of the 'whys' of many of the issues.

If you want to argue that Hamilton and Jefferson were ignorant as to the differences in meaning between 'person' and 'citizen' -- go right ahead. If you want to posit that Hamilton and Jefferson and such were ignorant that immigrants, of all stripes, are actually persons -- again -- knock yourself out on that posit.

Quote:When I mentioned that, you not only ridiculed my position, you talked down to me and acted like I was an effing moron for daring to hold a position contrary to your own.

Honestly because Im sick of stupid rhetorical constructs being used to replace the actual words, for one.

Quote:Concerning due process for criminal illegal aliens, it's sort of like the Japanese having made it to our shores in WWII, and us standing there with open arms welcoming them in, even though they were there to kill us and destroy our country. Doesn't make sense.

Nope. Ive addressed some of the issues above in fact. If you want to equate an actual invasion by a state (which would trigger the AEA without a doubt) to a rhetorical invasion -- it is a stupid attempt to do so in the face of the language of the AEA.

Quote:As for you, I would love to have a civil debate, but you don't allow it, and I'm too old to spend time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion, resorts to childish name calling,

Specifically, and with particularity, where in the post this is in response to have a 'called you a name'?

Where in this response have I done so?

Quote: and cherry picks issues to respond back to,

When the cherry picks are fatal to the overall argument, damn fing straight I cherry pick them.

Quote: while ignoring salient points made from the opposing viewpoint.

The only salient points I see in this thread are three fold. And all fatally incorrect.

1. Persons;
2 Somehow one has to use due process at a beginning to have due process apply at the back;
3. Somehow equating the term 'invade' in the AEA to a rhetorical invasion.

And the favorite knee jerk of 'illegal aliens dont have due process rights.' They do. Across multiple aspects of the law. Including those aspects dealing with removing or deporting them.

Quote:If I thought it was just me, I might be tempted to go at it again differently, but no, it's your bedside manner. You do this with everyone here who disagrees with you. You just did it again multiple times to me above.

I asked you if you really wanted a response to the Levin video, which isnt really indicated by your snivelly comment about it. And you take umbrage at that, given that? Seriously?

Quote:So watch it if you want, but honestly, I never cared if you believed me, and I never cared whether I could find the video or not. I had no clue it existed, and I posted my opinion about Levin's comments soon after his show, and probably before the video was available.

But when I say I heard something, you can bet I heard it, and I have no obligation to prove it. I don't care what you think. [b]I lost respect for you long ago, due to YOUR actions, not mine, so take it FWIW.

Got it. MY actions. Solely. None whatsoever from you. Got it. Everyone elses fault. That is *everyone* who has the temerity to point out historical and legal problems with a seriously thin rationale.

Look, if you want to say "no person" doenst mean "no person", and come up with some logical reason that backs that that doesnt destroy the notion of 'no person' -- go for it. Dont get mad when that lil ol discrepancy gets swatted in your face, or when you try to roll up the notion of an *actual* invader as a member of a nation state at war with the US, with a convenient and super thin rhetorical excuse.

Here is the funny part, 3A. *Just* above you say that *you* dont wish to spend *any* "time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion".

re - read the bolded directly above. Cant get anymore hypocritical than that. In the same post to boot.

And yes, when someone continuously references a comment made elsewhere, I fully expect that unsubstantiated comment to be sourced. Most rational people would do so. I suggest live with it when you do just that. If you simply want to be pissy abuot having your feet held to your linguistical fire -- thats a 'you' issue. Through and through.

Again, Ill be happy to comment on the Levin piece. And I will listen to it, and consider it. And I will actually check the cites if need be.

I already have a fkton of cites that unequivocally say that 'due process rights are held by everyone, even aliens'. Supreme Court level. But even given that I will consider the Levin remarks.

(04-29-2025 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 10:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 07:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Then cite him directly. Or just give broadass shallow hosanna.

Here's a hint: as to the bolded, how exactly does one arrive at the conclusory 'illegal criminal alien' *without* due process

Mull it over a bit there, champ.

As to even more broad application of your broad comment, maybe you need to call up Kendall County here. Lots of illegals enjoying due process in their misdemeanor trials Here.

The problem is you dont seem to understand to actually understand the concepts of due process and merely repeat it as a broad phrase without regard to the meaning or context. And latch on to some dude on TV screaming something about the phrase and latch onto that wo any further thought process.

In conclusion I'll be happy to consider the comments of your demigod Levin. Maybe give us a precise cite to this section that cuts against actual practice in immigration procedure for 75 years, and in criminal procedure for closer to 200 if actually as broad as you blather.

I'll be happy to give you the Krndall Court number so you can tell everyone there how wring they are and broadly say 'that's what Levin said'.

Later champ. Look forward to the specific Levin comment.

Here ya go, Clarence. Didn't think I could produce it, huh? Been a bit busy today planning my next vacation trip.

I expect a full book report, as usual.

Didn't know if you could, or would. Appreciate it. I'll digest it and let you know if/ where the issues are.

If you wantva critique after, I'll be happy to do so. If you want to preemptively criticize those comments (as you do above) I don't think I will waste my time.

Good for you for the first step in debate of issues. Sources are important. I see you are already highly proud of yourself for actually completing that first, basic, not large step, and seem to Yale unbridled glee at doing so. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't understand the inherent rancor from you for my asking for the base source that you glom onto as dogma.

Again, I'll be happy to comment. If you are already pre-butghurt as your past paragraph seems to convey, not much use in it.

Except your unbridled glee at barely completing the first basic step of actually documenting your sources.

LOL. You are one pompous ass, Clarence. It was a TV show. Twenty minutes of him talking while I listened while doing something else, and didn't take notes.

And still cite to him and that as the ultimate in the matter. All while not really listening.

Quote:I had no clue if it would be documented at all and available, much less in a format I could post here. That's why I was happy to find it, but not for the reasons you seem to believe.

And thank you for it. Apparently you are ESP like as to my state of mind as to why. Cool cool.

I said I would be happy to review, and additionally happy to comment on it. Period. Imagine that.

Quote:Let me give you a little history lesson, sir. When I first arrived on this board years ago, I was polite to everybody, and willing to engage people with different political viewpoints. I am equally willing to listen and change my viewpoints on issues, either direction.

I find with you pretty much the opposite. You dont seem receptive at all to such from this perspective.

Quote:You saw that when I did a 180 on due process literally in the middle of typing a sentence, from full unquestioned support for it, to suddenly questioning if the founding fathers actually meant for foreign invaders to receive the same rights as citizens.

If you mean invaders, in the real sense of the word (i.e. an armed invasion by a foreign state, with the invaders being their armed forces), there has *never* been support in the issue of due process for such due process for those invaders.

If you are talking rhetorical invaders, Im pretty sure that the founding fathers knew what the term 'no PERSON' meant. And specifically distinguished that group from 'citizens.' Very specifically. Across a number times in that document.

As a whole, the founding fathers were pretty sharply and adroitly versed in English language, political and philosophical constructs, and laid a pretty good side record of the 'whys' of many of the issues.

If you want to argue that Hamilton and Jefferson were ignorant as to the differences in meaning between 'person' and 'citizen' -- go right ahead. If you want to posit that Hamilton and Jefferson and such were ignorant that immigrants, of all stripes, are actually persons -- again -- knock yourself out on that posit.

Quote:When I mentioned that, you not only ridiculed my position, you talked down to me and acted like I was an effing moron for daring to hold a position contrary to your own.

Honestly because Im sick of stupid rhetorical constructs being used to replace the actual words, for one.

Quote:Concerning due process for criminal illegal aliens, it's sort of like the Japanese having made it to our shores in WWII, and us standing there with open arms welcoming them in, even though they were there to kill us and destroy our country. Doesn't make sense.

Nope. Ive addressed some of the issues above in fact. If you want to equate an actual invasion by a state (which would trigger the AEA without a doubt) to a rhetorical invasion -- it is a stupid attempt to do so in the face of the language of the AEA.

Quote:As for you, I would love to have a civil debate, but you don't allow it, and I'm too old to spend time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion, resorts to childish name calling,

Specifically, and with particularity, where in the post this is in response to have a 'called you a name'?

Where in this response have I done so?

Quote: and cherry picks issues to respond back to,

When the cherry picks are fatal to the overall argument, damn fing straight I cherry pick them.

Quote: while ignoring salient points made from the opposing viewpoint.

The only salient points I see in this thread are three fold. And all fatally incorrect.

1. Persons;
2 Somehow one has to use due process at a beginning to have due process apply at the back;
3. Somehow equating the term 'invade' in the AEA to a rhetorical invasion.

And the favorite knee jerk of 'illegal aliens dont have due process rights.' They do. Across multiple aspects of the law. Including those aspects dealing with removing or deporting them.

Quote:If I thought it was just me, I might be tempted to go at it again differently, but no, it's your bedside manner. You do this with everyone here who disagrees with you. You just did it again multiple times to me above.

I asked you if you really wanted a response to the Levin video, which isnt really indicated by your snivelly comment about it. And you take umbrage at that, given that? Seriously?

Quote:So watch it if you want, but honestly, I never cared if you believed me, and I never cared whether I could find the video or not. I had no clue it existed, and I posted my opinion about Levin's comments soon after his show, and probably before the video was available.

But when I say I heard something, you can bet I heard it, and I have no obligation to prove it. I don't care what you think. I lost respect for you long ago, due to YOUR actions, not mine, so take it FWIW.

Got it. MY actions. Solely. None whatsoever from you. Got it. Everyone elses fault. That is *everyone* who has the temerity to point out historical and legal problems with a seriously thin rationale.

Look, if you want to say "no person" doenst mean "no person", and come up with some logical reason that backs that that doesnt destroy the notion of 'no person' -- go for it. Dont get mad when that lil ol discrepancy gets swatted in your face, or when you try to roll up the notion of an *actual* invader as a member of a nation state at war with the US, with a convenient and super thin rhetorical excuse.

Here is the funny part, 3A. *Just* above you say that *you* dont wish to spend *any* "time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion".

re - read the bolded directly above. Cant get anymore hypocritical than that. In the same post to boot.

And yes, when someone continuously references a comment made elsewhere, I fully expect that unsubstantiated comment to be sourced. Most rational people would do so. I suggest live with it when you do just that. If you simply want to be pissy abuot having your feet held to your linguistical fire -- thats a 'you' issue. Through and through.

Again, Ill be happy to comment on the Levin piece. And I will listen to it, and consider it. And I will actually check the cites if need be.

I already have a fkton of cites that unequivocally say that 'due process rights are held by everyone, even aliens'. Supreme Court level. But even given that I will consider the Levin remarks.

Damn dude, your reply is like reading book. It must be something if it takes that many words to defend your Honor.

(04-30-2025 12:00 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 10:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 07:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Here ya go, Clarence. Didn't think I could produce it, huh? Been a bit busy today planning my next vacation trip.

I expect a full book report, as usual.

Didn't know if you could, or would. Appreciate it. I'll digest it and let you know if/ where the issues are.

If you wantva critique after, I'll be happy to do so. If you want to preemptively criticize those comments (as you do above) I don't think I will waste my time.

Good for you for the first step in debate of issues. Sources are important. I see you are already highly proud of yourself for actually completing that first, basic, not large step, and seem to Yale unbridled glee at doing so. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't understand the inherent rancor from you for my asking for the base source that you glom onto as dogma.

Again, I'll be happy to comment. If you are already pre-butghurt as your past paragraph seems to convey, not much use in it.

Except your unbridled glee at barely completing the first basic step of actually documenting your sources.

LOL. You are one pompous ass, Clarence. It was a TV show. Twenty minutes of him talking while I listened while doing something else, and didn't take notes.

And still cite to him and that as the ultimate in the matter. All while not really listening.

Quote:I had no clue if it would be documented at all and available, much less in a format I could post here. That's why I was happy to find it, but not for the reasons you seem to believe.

And thank you for it. Apparently you are ESP like as to my state of mind as to why. Cool cool.

I said I would be happy to review, and additionally happy to comment on it. Period. Imagine that.

Quote:Let me give you a little history lesson, sir. When I first arrived on this board years ago, I was polite to everybody, and willing to engage people with different political viewpoints. I am equally willing to listen and change my viewpoints on issues, either direction.

I find with you pretty much the opposite. You dont seem receptive at all to such from this perspective.

Quote:You saw that when I did a 180 on due process literally in the middle of typing a sentence, from full unquestioned support for it, to suddenly questioning if the founding fathers actually meant for foreign invaders to receive the same rights as citizens.

If you mean invaders, in the real sense of the word (i.e. an armed invasion by a foreign state, with the invaders being their armed forces), there has *never* been support in the issue of due process for such due process for those invaders.

If you are talking rhetorical invaders, Im pretty sure that the founding fathers knew what the term 'no PERSON' meant. And specifically distinguished that group from 'citizens.' Very specifically. Across a number times in that document.

As a whole, the founding fathers were pretty sharply and adroitly versed in English language, political and philosophical constructs, and laid a pretty good side record of the 'whys' of many of the issues.

If you want to argue that Hamilton and Jefferson were ignorant as to the differences in meaning between 'person' and 'citizen' -- go right ahead. If you want to posit that Hamilton and Jefferson and such were ignorant that immigrants, of all stripes, are actually persons -- again -- knock yourself out on that posit.

Quote:When I mentioned that, you not only ridiculed my position, you talked down to me and acted like I was an effing moron for daring to hold a position contrary to your own.

Honestly because Im sick of stupid rhetorical constructs being used to replace the actual words, for one.

Quote:Concerning due process for criminal illegal aliens, it's sort of like the Japanese having made it to our shores in WWII, and us standing there with open arms welcoming them in, even though they were there to kill us and destroy our country. Doesn't make sense.

Nope. Ive addressed some of the issues above in fact. If you want to equate an actual invasion by a state (which would trigger the AEA without a doubt) to a rhetorical invasion -- it is a stupid attempt to do so in the face of the language of the AEA.

Quote:As for you, I would love to have a civil debate, but you don't allow it, and I'm too old to spend time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion, resorts to childish name calling,

Specifically, and with particularity, where in the post this is in response to have a 'called you a name'?

Where in this response have I done so?

Quote: and cherry picks issues to respond back to,

When the cherry picks are fatal to the overall argument, damn fing straight I cherry pick them.

Quote: while ignoring salient points made from the opposing viewpoint.

The only salient points I see in this thread are three fold. And all fatally incorrect.

1. Persons;
2 Somehow one has to use due process at a beginning to have due process apply at the back;
3. Somehow equating the term 'invade' in the AEA to a rhetorical invasion.

And the favorite knee jerk of 'illegal aliens dont have due process rights.' They do. Across multiple aspects of the law. Including those aspects dealing with removing or deporting them.

Quote:If I thought it was just me, I might be tempted to go at it again differently, but no, it's your bedside manner. You do this with everyone here who disagrees with you. You just did it again multiple times to me above.

I asked you if you really wanted a response to the Levin video, which isnt really indicated by your snivelly comment about it. And you take umbrage at that, given that? Seriously?

Quote:So watch it if you want, but honestly, I never cared if you believed me, and I never cared whether I could find the video or not. I had no clue it existed, and I posted my opinion about Levin's comments soon after his show, and probably before the video was available.

But when I say I heard something, you can bet I heard it, and I have no obligation to prove it. I don't care what you think. I lost respect for you long ago, due to YOUR actions, not mine, so take it FWIW.

Got it. MY actions. Solely. None whatsoever from you. Got it. Everyone elses fault. That is *everyone* who has the temerity to point out historical and legal problems with a seriously thin rationale.

Look, if you want to say "no person" doenst mean "no person", and come up with some logical reason that backs that that doesnt destroy the notion of 'no person' -- go for it. Dont get mad when that lil ol discrepancy gets swatted in your face, or when you try to roll up the notion of an *actual* invader as a member of a nation state at war with the US, with a convenient and super thin rhetorical excuse.

Here is the funny part, 3A. *Just* above you say that *you* dont wish to spend *any* "time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion".

re - read the bolded directly above. Cant get anymore hypocritical than that. In the same post to boot.

And yes, when someone continuously references a comment made elsewhere, I fully expect that unsubstantiated comment to be sourced. Most rational people would do so. I suggest live with it when you do just that. If you simply want to be pissy abuot having your feet held to your linguistical fire -- thats a 'you' issue. Through and through.

Again, Ill be happy to comment on the Levin piece. And I will listen to it, and consider it. And I will actually check the cites if need be.

I already have a fkton of cites that unequivocally say that 'due process rights are held by everyone, even aliens'. Supreme Court level. But even given that I will consider the Levin remarks.

Damn dude, your reply is like reading book. It must be something if it takes that many words to defend your Honor.

sorry that you are word number limited. cool cool.

Your buddy above was offended that I 'cherry picked' and 'avoided' issues.

Now you are maddy poo that I addressed fully.

Lolz.

Its always something with folks who dont want to listen for some reason. Imagine that.

I was receptive to you in the beginning. No longer. As usual, you think it's all my fault and none yours.

I'm just not going to invest the time with you. And don't worry. I'm not special. You treat everybody who disagrees with you in this manner.

(04-30-2025 12:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 12:00 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 10:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didn't know if you could, or would. Appreciate it. I'll digest it and let you know if/ where the issues are.

If you wantva critique after, I'll be happy to do so. If you want to preemptively criticize those comments (as you do above) I don't think I will waste my time.

Good for you for the first step in debate of issues. Sources are important. I see you are already highly proud of yourself for actually completing that first, basic, not large step, and seem to Yale unbridled glee at doing so. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't understand the inherent rancor from you for my asking for the base source that you glom onto as dogma.

Again, I'll be happy to comment. If you are already pre-butghurt as your past paragraph seems to convey, not much use in it.

Except your unbridled glee at barely completing the first basic step of actually documenting your sources.

LOL. You are one pompous ass, Clarence. It was a TV show. Twenty minutes of him talking while I listened while doing something else, and didn't take notes.

And still cite to him and that as the ultimate in the matter. All while not really listening.

Quote:I had no clue if it would be documented at all and available, much less in a format I could post here. That's why I was happy to find it, but not for the reasons you seem to believe.

And thank you for it. Apparently you are ESP like as to my state of mind as to why. Cool cool.

I said I would be happy to review, and additionally happy to comment on it. Period. Imagine that.

Quote:Let me give you a little history lesson, sir. When I first arrived on this board years ago, I was polite to everybody, and willing to engage people with different political viewpoints. I am equally willing to listen and change my viewpoints on issues, either direction.

I find with you pretty much the opposite. You dont seem receptive at all to such from this perspective.

Quote:You saw that when I did a 180 on due process literally in the middle of typing a sentence, from full unquestioned support for it, to suddenly questioning if the founding fathers actually meant for foreign invaders to receive the same rights as citizens.

If you mean invaders, in the real sense of the word (i.e. an armed invasion by a foreign state, with the invaders being their armed forces), there has *never* been support in the issue of due process for such due process for those invaders.

If you are talking rhetorical invaders, Im pretty sure that the founding fathers knew what the term 'no PERSON' meant. And specifically distinguished that group from 'citizens.' Very specifically. Across a number times in that document.

As a whole, the founding fathers were pretty sharply and adroitly versed in English language, political and philosophical constructs, and laid a pretty good side record of the 'whys' of many of the issues.

If you want to argue that Hamilton and Jefferson were ignorant as to the differences in meaning between 'person' and 'citizen' -- go right ahead. If you want to posit that Hamilton and Jefferson and such were ignorant that immigrants, of all stripes, are actually persons -- again -- knock yourself out on that posit.

Quote:When I mentioned that, you not only ridiculed my position, you talked down to me and acted like I was an effing moron for daring to hold a position contrary to your own.

Honestly because Im sick of stupid rhetorical constructs being used to replace the actual words, for one.

Quote:Concerning due process for criminal illegal aliens, it's sort of like the Japanese having made it to our shores in WWII, and us standing there with open arms welcoming them in, even though they were there to kill us and destroy our country. Doesn't make sense.

Nope. Ive addressed some of the issues above in fact. If you want to equate an actual invasion by a state (which would trigger the AEA without a doubt) to a rhetorical invasion -- it is a stupid attempt to do so in the face of the language of the AEA.

Quote:As for you, I would love to have a civil debate, but you don't allow it, and I'm too old to spend time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion, resorts to childish name calling,

Specifically, and with particularity, where in the post this is in response to have a 'called you a name'?

Where in this response have I done so?

Quote: and cherry picks issues to respond back to,

When the cherry picks are fatal to the overall argument, damn fing straight I cherry pick them.

Quote: while ignoring salient points made from the opposing viewpoint.

The only salient points I see in this thread are three fold. And all fatally incorrect.

1. Persons;
2 Somehow one has to use due process at a beginning to have due process apply at the back;
3. Somehow equating the term 'invade' in the AEA to a rhetorical invasion.

And the favorite knee jerk of 'illegal aliens dont have due process rights.' They do. Across multiple aspects of the law. Including those aspects dealing with removing or deporting them.

Quote:If I thought it was just me, I might be tempted to go at it again differently, but no, it's your bedside manner. You do this with everyone here who disagrees with you. You just did it again multiple times to me above.

I asked you if you really wanted a response to the Levin video, which isnt really indicated by your snivelly comment about it. And you take umbrage at that, given that? Seriously?

Quote:So watch it if you want, but honestly, I never cared if you believed me, and I never cared whether I could find the video or not. I had no clue it existed, and I posted my opinion about Levin's comments soon after his show, and probably before the video was available.

But when I say I heard something, you can bet I heard it, and I have no obligation to prove it. I don't care what you think. I lost respect for you long ago, due to YOUR actions, not mine, so take it FWIW.

Got it. MY actions. Solely. None whatsoever from you. Got it. Everyone elses fault. That is *everyone* who has the temerity to point out historical and legal problems with a seriously thin rationale.

Look, if you want to say "no person" doenst mean "no person", and come up with some logical reason that backs that that doesnt destroy the notion of 'no person' -- go for it. Dont get mad when that lil ol discrepancy gets swatted in your face, or when you try to roll up the notion of an *actual* invader as a member of a nation state at war with the US, with a convenient and super thin rhetorical excuse.

Here is the funny part, 3A. *Just* above you say that *you* dont wish to spend *any* "time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion".

re - read the bolded directly above. Cant get anymore hypocritical than that. In the same post to boot.

And yes, when someone continuously references a comment made elsewhere, I fully expect that unsubstantiated comment to be sourced. Most rational people would do so. I suggest live with it when you do just that. If you simply want to be pissy abuot having your feet held to your linguistical fire -- thats a 'you' issue. Through and through.

Again, Ill be happy to comment on the Levin piece. And I will listen to it, and consider it. And I will actually check the cites if need be.

I already have a fkton of cites that unequivocally say that 'due process rights are held by everyone, even aliens'. Supreme Court level. But even given that I will consider the Levin remarks.

Damn dude, your reply is like reading book. It must be something if it takes that many words to defend your Honor.

sorry that you are word number limited. cool cool.

Your buddy above was offended that I 'cherry picked' and 'avoided' issues.

Now you are maddy poo that I addressed fully.

Lolz.

Its always something with folks who dont want to listen for some reason. Imagine that.

"I 'cherry picked' and 'avoided' issues"

Yes you do.

My God, donny demento actually believes that he has the letters MS and the number 13 on his knuckles and not just some symbols.

(04-30-2025 12:03 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I was receptive to you in the beginning. No longer. As usual, you think it's all my fault and none yours.

I'm just not going to invest the time with you. And don't worry. I'm not special. You treat everybody who disagrees with you in this manner.

Didn't take long for me to experience it.

I was a life long independent voted for Obama (the first time). I believed we should vote for the best person for the job not the party. Unfortunately, I think those days are over. Once I saw what I voted for - first hand - every day within my career, it had become clear what was happening to the left, what was being allowed, and what seeds were being planted. Whether intentional or not was the harvesting of national destruction. In the past four years, I almost resigned about a half dozen times but I hung in there for what's happening right now.

The problem on that side, aside from self destructive ideology, is the hypocrisy and inability to have individual thought. They're just beholden to what the entertainment, media, higher education, and increasingly primary education - corrupted by a mind virus - tells them they should think. And they are wilful pawns.

And we can sit here all day and talk about things that we don't agree with Trump about like with Canada and/or I think the idea of income tax elimination borders on delusional and then the next words out of their mouths are what they themselves do. We're a cult, praise anything he does, blah, blah. Everything the Democrats accused the right of doing they've already done it 10 times over or currently doing it at the exact same time.

^^ Well said.

I have a similar background. Independent, voted for the person, not the party, since 1968.

That finally changed after I realized what the Dems were doing to our country just to hold onto power. Never again will I vote for them.

(04-30-2025 12:14 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 12:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 12:00 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-29-2025 10:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  LOL. You are one pompous ass, Clarence. It was a TV show. Twenty minutes of him talking while I listened while doing something else, and didn't take notes.

And still cite to him and that as the ultimate in the matter. All while not really listening.

Quote:I had no clue if it would be documented at all and available, much less in a format I could post here. That's why I was happy to find it, but not for the reasons you seem to believe.

And thank you for it. Apparently you are ESP like as to my state of mind as to why. Cool cool.

I said I would be happy to review, and additionally happy to comment on it. Period. Imagine that.

Quote:Let me give you a little history lesson, sir. When I first arrived on this board years ago, I was polite to everybody, and willing to engage people with different political viewpoints. I am equally willing to listen and change my viewpoints on issues, either direction.

I find with you pretty much the opposite. You dont seem receptive at all to such from this perspective.

Quote:You saw that when I did a 180 on due process literally in the middle of typing a sentence, from full unquestioned support for it, to suddenly questioning if the founding fathers actually meant for foreign invaders to receive the same rights as citizens.

If you mean invaders, in the real sense of the word (i.e. an armed invasion by a foreign state, with the invaders being their armed forces), there has *never* been support in the issue of due process for such due process for those invaders.

If you are talking rhetorical invaders, Im pretty sure that the founding fathers knew what the term 'no PERSON' meant. And specifically distinguished that group from 'citizens.' Very specifically. Across a number times in that document.

As a whole, the founding fathers were pretty sharply and adroitly versed in English language, political and philosophical constructs, and laid a pretty good side record of the 'whys' of many of the issues.

If you want to argue that Hamilton and Jefferson were ignorant as to the differences in meaning between 'person' and 'citizen' -- go right ahead. If you want to posit that Hamilton and Jefferson and such were ignorant that immigrants, of all stripes, are actually persons -- again -- knock yourself out on that posit.

Quote:When I mentioned that, you not only ridiculed my position, you talked down to me and acted like I was an effing moron for daring to hold a position contrary to your own.

Honestly because Im sick of stupid rhetorical constructs being used to replace the actual words, for one.

Quote:Concerning due process for criminal illegal aliens, it's sort of like the Japanese having made it to our shores in WWII, and us standing there with open arms welcoming them in, even though they were there to kill us and destroy our country. Doesn't make sense.

Nope. Ive addressed some of the issues above in fact. If you want to equate an actual invasion by a state (which would trigger the AEA without a doubt) to a rhetorical invasion -- it is a stupid attempt to do so in the face of the language of the AEA.

Quote:As for you, I would love to have a civil debate, but you don't allow it, and I'm too old to spend time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion, resorts to childish name calling,

Specifically, and with particularity, where in the post this is in response to have a 'called you a name'?

Where in this response have I done so?

Quote: and cherry picks issues to respond back to,

When the cherry picks are fatal to the overall argument, damn fing straight I cherry pick them.

Quote: while ignoring salient points made from the opposing viewpoint.

The only salient points I see in this thread are three fold. And all fatally incorrect.

1. Persons;
2 Somehow one has to use due process at a beginning to have due process apply at the back;
3. Somehow equating the term 'invade' in the AEA to a rhetorical invasion.

And the favorite knee jerk of 'illegal aliens dont have due process rights.' They do. Across multiple aspects of the law. Including those aspects dealing with removing or deporting them.

Quote:If I thought it was just me, I might be tempted to go at it again differently, but no, it's your bedside manner. You do this with everyone here who disagrees with you. You just did it again multiple times to me above.

I asked you if you really wanted a response to the Levin video, which isnt really indicated by your snivelly comment about it. And you take umbrage at that, given that? Seriously?

Quote:So watch it if you want, but honestly, I never cared if you believed me, and I never cared whether I could find the video or not. I had no clue it existed, and I posted my opinion about Levin's comments soon after his show, and probably before the video was available.

But when I say I heard something, you can bet I heard it, and I have no obligation to prove it. I don't care what you think. I lost respect for you long ago, due to YOUR actions, not mine, so take it FWIW.

Got it. MY actions. Solely. None whatsoever from you. Got it. Everyone elses fault. That is *everyone* who has the temerity to point out historical and legal problems with a seriously thin rationale.

Look, if you want to say "no person" doenst mean "no person", and come up with some logical reason that backs that that doesnt destroy the notion of 'no person' -- go for it. Dont get mad when that lil ol discrepancy gets swatted in your face, or when you try to roll up the notion of an *actual* invader as a member of a nation state at war with the US, with a convenient and super thin rhetorical excuse.

Here is the funny part, 3A. *Just* above you say that *you* dont wish to spend *any* "time online getting into depth with someone who has zero respect for my opinion".

re - read the bolded directly above. Cant get anymore hypocritical than that. In the same post to boot.

And yes, when someone continuously references a comment made elsewhere, I fully expect that unsubstantiated comment to be sourced. Most rational people would do so. I suggest live with it when you do just that. If you simply want to be pissy abuot having your feet held to your linguistical fire -- thats a 'you' issue. Through and through.

Again, Ill be happy to comment on the Levin piece. And I will listen to it, and consider it. And I will actually check the cites if need be.

I already have a fkton of cites that unequivocally say that 'due process rights are held by everyone, even aliens'. Supreme Court level. But even given that I will consider the Levin remarks.

Damn dude, your reply is like reading book. It must be something if it takes that many words to defend your Honor.

sorry that you are word number limited. cool cool.

Your buddy above was offended that I 'cherry picked' and 'avoided' issues.

Now you are maddy poo that I addressed fully.

Lolz.

Its always something with folks who dont want to listen for some reason. Imagine that.

"I 'cherry picked' and 'avoided' issues"

Yes you do.

I see you missed the air quotes. If all you can accomplish is use words in air quotes and destroy context en toto -- pretty fing sad. Cool cool.

About par for this group.

(04-30-2025 06:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  ^^ Well said.

I have a similar background. Independent, voted for the person, not the party, since 1968.

That finally changed after I realized what the Dems were doing to our country just to hold onto power. Never again will I vote for them.

I was an independent too leaning classic liberal.

Battlelines drawn. Denocrats no longer exist they are now authoritarian marxist prog filth.

I could cite 100 examples but why bother.

Ignore the low iq dei lawyer. Its a waste of time. I would never see xe's posts of not quoted. Pure drivel

they want to fight for the "rights" of gang members, terrorists and wife beaters but want to kill innocent babies.

Make it make sense

(04-30-2025 12:03 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I was receptive to you in the beginning. No longer. As usual, you think it's all my fault and none yours.

I'm just not going to invest the time with you. And don't worry. I'm not special. You treat everybody who disagrees with you in this manner.

Funny. On the bolded, I actually suggest you read your quote. Where you assigned everything in the world to me.

My comment was saying 'Got it. All my fault. Without regard yo anything or anyone else.'

And somehow you re-translate my response to the bolded. In fing credible. And in response to *your* comment assigning every iota to me. Double in fing credible.


Your ability to re-translate explicit words to a 180 degree opposite is amazing. You might notice (as any basic reader of English might) that my comments made *zero* assignation. Zero. Zilch nada none empty set.

And completely overlook your own specific and explicit words that do *exactly * what you ***** about above.

In fing credible. Just amazing. Lolz.

(04-29-2025 03:58 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(04-28-2025 03:32 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(04-28-2025 02:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-28-2025 02:10 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(04-28-2025 01:17 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Rachel Morin? Odd thing to say. She's dead. Why does that matter at all?

well sorry for that but damn why she do that to her lips.

well, you could ask her, except that a Biden* illegal raped and killed her.

put your kids in martial arts.

Its posts like this that expose that you are one of these quack woke libs, you simply are too cowardly to admit it and stand up for what you believe in.

I believe in something no one in the Beltway has the balls to do. So go **** yourself.

"Damn dude, your reply is like reading book. It must be something if it takes that many words to defend your Honor." Redbanksdog

...and yet you did us the honor of quoting him for us, how nice, the others did too. They must like this lawyer guy that they all want us to continuously see his post in quote.

*Sigh*, when will you guys learn? Y'all are as thick as the Democrats.

If there's something in his posts that you want to contradict just quote that part. Sheesh, is it that hard?

Trump is quite possibly the stupidest human being alive (excluding a few people here) and is claiming that dude literally has MS13 tattooed on his knuckles and it isn’t photoshopped.

Clown show.