Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-30-2018, 03:37 PM   #51
sir shovelhands
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
I like this method
Problem is you'll need to verify citizenship of every mother
Oh wait, what about the immigrant who doesn't know who the child's father is then goes on a Maury tour circuit of trying to prove paternity?

How would spurm donors work?
Donor is American citizen but mom is foreigner.

But I like your method at the beginning
You realize there's an e-verify program that most companies use to determine if their employees are citizens? Hospitals can easily do the same.

Sperm donors waive all rights to the kids that come from their sperm, same should apply for citizenship.

If you don't know who your child's father is, that's your problem, not the government's. There are already laws governing birth certificates.
sir shovelhands is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 05:40 PM   #52
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir shovelhands View Post
Sperm donors waive all rights to the kids that come from their sperm, same should apply for citizenship.
.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...ligations.html

Ok, man.
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 06:17 PM   #53
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default

Mark Levin is addressing this on his radio program right now.
Dallas area is 820am WBAP

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 06:18 PM   #54
donpablo
Ten Point
 
donpablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Odessa
Hunt In: Iraan, Culberson County & Public Land
Default EO's

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzzlebrake View Post
EO's should only be used to protect the citizens of the USA against any and all threats foreign or domestic...

If congress was doing it's job there would be no need for most EO's.
Do we actually need EO's for the president to do this? As Commander-in-Chief of the military, I don't believe EO's are necessary. And as for EO's not being a means of legislation, isn't that essentially what Trump and past Presidents are/have been doing? Essentially legislating through EO's under the guise of, "clarifying" laws that may only be slightly related to the EO they are writing?

I agree that they are not needed if/when congress is doing their job. However it also takes the pressure off of them to do their job if the president can/will simply legislate through Executive Order.

Finally, most of the time I prefer when congress doesn't get anything done because as a fellow TBH'er once stated, "It saves me money."
donpablo is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 06:23 PM   #55
donpablo
Ten Point
 
donpablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Odessa
Hunt In: Iraan, Culberson County & Public Land
Default Jurisdiction

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat1 View Post
So what could "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" possibly mean? It has to include someone. So if not people here illegally then please tell us who?
Levin's argument sounds good but I think it would be hard to argue that illegal's are not, "subject to [America's] jurisdiction." If/when they commit crimes here, they can be prosecuted and penalized. This wouldn't be possible if they weren't subject to our jurisdiction. The only people I could see that this would be an argument for would be foreign nationalist with diplomatic immunity. They aren't subject to our jurisdiction. Of course I'm not a constitutional scholar so that's just my meager $.02.
donpablo is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 06:42 PM   #56
BrandonA
Pope & Young
 
BrandonA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet
Hunt In: Mills and Burnet County
Default

Congress needs to amend the amendment and change language to only legal citizens
BrandonA is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 06:51 PM   #57
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default

The more I listen and read about it I think he can do it legally but I think this may be Trump's way of forcing the subject to be ruled upon by the courts.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 06:59 PM   #58
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

Yea, let them take it to the Supreme Court. Sooner the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
batmaninja is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 07:28 PM   #59
RJH1
Eight Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Abilene
Hunt In: Abilene area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
You assume the government would have the support of the military, which it would not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is what people like to think, but they were sure as hell snatching guns after Katrina....
RJH1 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:24 PM   #60
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

I personally hope Trump does issue the EO to end the anchor baby citizenship. It would be immediately opposed through federal libtard judges and this would drive it to the Supreme Court... Based on historical writing and the explanations the founders/authors wrote themselves the intent of this amendment there is a high likelihood anchor babies would be found to be unconstitutional from that point forward. This action could very well drive it to the forefront and a solution one way or the other in short order.
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:32 PM   #61
BrandonA
Pope & Young
 
BrandonA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet
Hunt In: Mills and Burnet County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
I personally hope Trump does issue the EO to end the anchor baby citizenship. It would be immediately opposed through federal libtard judges and this would drive it to the Supreme Court... Based on historical writing and the explanations the founders/authors wrote themselves the intent of this amendment there is a high likelihood anchor babies would be found to be unconstitutional from that point forward. This action could very well drive it to the forefront and a solution one way or the other in short order.
Exactly
BrandonA is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:41 PM   #62
sir shovelhands
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonA View Post
Congress needs to amend the amendment and change language to only legal citizens
Congress can't amend the constitution (though it can propose an amendment with 2/3 majority in both houses). The power to amend resides with the state legislatures, and you need 38 states to do so.
sir shovelhands is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:44 PM   #63
BrandonA
Pope & Young
 
BrandonA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet
Hunt In: Mills and Burnet County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir shovelhands View Post
Congress can't amend the constitution (though it can propose an amendment with 2/3 majority in both houses). The power to amend resides with the state legislatures, and you need 38 states to do so.
Then they need to propose and states need to amend. I think enough states to would make it happen.

Last edited by BrandonA; 10-30-2018 at 09:47 PM.
BrandonA is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 09:53 PM   #64
lunatic'hunter
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tejas
Hunt In: Texas, Colorado,
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamntxhunter View Post
I believe Mark Levin is one of the best constitutional lawyers of our time and I put a lot of weight in his thought process and how he views the situation according to the constitution. I am a Trump supporter and I think he is onto something and I bet he gets this done.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
lunatic'hunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-30-2018, 10:47 PM   #65
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamntxhunter View Post
The more I listen and read about it I think he can do it legally but I think this may be Trump's way of forcing the subject to be ruled upon by the courts.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
I believe you are correct.
I dont think there is any question our gov. Officials have been allowing this crap to happen when it never should have been. The courts will rule on this eventually and it should be in the favor of the Ameican people.
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 08:12 AM   #66
AZST_bowhunter
Ten Point
 
AZST_bowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Cypress, Tx
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...._Wong_Kim_Ark

This is a good court case to base this all off of
AZST_bowhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 08:52 AM   #67
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Old dead eye Harry agrees with Trump. So did Obama. Or is it the other way around? https://youtu.be/75a9Wa6KL7k

Again the hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds
muzzlebrake is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 01:56 PM   #68
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

I don't know how the best way to get this in front of the SCOTUS. If the President indeed issues this EO, it will immediately be blocked by a lower Federal Court Judge and that will set the process in motion... However, what will be ruled on is the President's EO NOT the constitutionality of the anchor baby policy. If that happens, likely it will be shot down by the SCOTUS... Somehow, legislatively this issue needs to get before the SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers and their INTENT... IF that can be made to happen, this anchor baby crap will be shot down totally once and for all... I'm just not sure the President taking such action is the way to make it happen... Someone with "standing" must make it happen... Who do y'all think would have "standing" in this issue? First thing comes to mind is all the public/private hospitals that must deliver and provide care for these illegal babies... However, not sure they want to change it... they all get big bucks out of it... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women... If those "patients" went away, that money (estimated to be 1.2 Billion dollars/year) could be used to maybe improve education... build roads, pay on Kalifornika's debt... Trouble is, the hospital districts stand to lose the funding and the need for their inflated budget goes away... It's a viscous, terrible cycle and I admit, I'm somewhat at a loss to know how to fix it...
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 02:16 PM   #69
donpablo
Ten Point
 
donpablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Odessa
Hunt In: Iraan, Culberson County & Public Land
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
I don't know how the best way to get this in front of the SCOTUS. If the President indeed issues this EO, it will immediately be blocked by a lower Federal Court Judge and that will set the process in motion... However, what will be ruled on is the President's EO NOT the constitutionality of the anchor baby policy. If that happens, likely it will be shot down by the SCOTUS... Somehow, legislatively this issue needs to get before the SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers and their INTENT... IF that can be made to happen, this anchor baby crap will be shot down totally once and for all... I'm just not sure the President taking such action is the way to make it happen... Someone with "standing" must make it happen... Who do y'all think would have "standing" in this issue? First thing comes to mind is all the public/private hospitals that must deliver and provide care for these illegal babies... However, not sure they want to change it... they all get big bucks out of it... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women... If those "patients" went away, that money (estimated to be 1.2 Billion dollars/year) could be used to maybe improve education... build roads, pay on Kalifornika's debt... Trouble is, the hospital districts stand to lose the funding and the need for their inflated budget goes away... It's a viscous, terrible cycle and I admit, I'm somewhat at a loss to know how to fix it...
AZST posted a case that has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS could take the case up again but would most likely let the previous ruling stand. I read the dissenting argument (in the link) but I tend to disagree that suggesting older international laws (not US laws) would be a valid argument suggesting why the amendment should be interpreted differently. I can only see this changing by amendment/congressional legislation.

A few months back I heard a Caucasian gentleman give a speech in which he revealed that his great grandmother had been a stowaway to the US on a ship from Ireland. He asked if that made him an illegal. I thought to myself, "No, that makes your grandfather an anchor baby."
donpablo is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 02:34 PM   #70
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
I don't know how the best way to get this in front of the SCOTUS. If the President indeed issues this EO, it will immediately be blocked by a lower Federal Court Judge and that will set the process in motion... However, what will be ruled on is the President's EO NOT the constitutionality of the anchor baby policy. If that happens, likely it will be shot down by the SCOTUS... Somehow, legislatively this issue needs to get before the SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers and their INTENT... IF that can be made to happen, this anchor baby crap will be shot down totally once and for all... I'm just not sure the President taking such action is the way to make it happen... Someone with "standing" must make it happen... Who do y'all think would have "standing" in this issue? First thing comes to mind is all the public/private hospitals that must deliver and provide care for these illegal babies... However, not sure they want to change it... they all get big bucks out of it... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women... If those "patients" went away, that money (estimated to be 1.2 Billion dollars/year) could be used to maybe improve education... build roads, pay on Kalifornika's debt... Trouble is, the hospital districts stand to lose the funding and the need for their inflated budget goes away... It's a viscous, terrible cycle and I admit, I'm somewhat at a loss to know how to fix it...
Just relax SS I don't think anyone is expecting you to know how to fix it. LOL
I think Trump knows how to get the results that he wants to achieve. Even if it doesn't work out I give Trump a A+ for at least trying to do something about the asinine interpretation of this amendment.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 02:46 PM   #71
Shinesintx
Ten Point
 
Shinesintx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North of Dallas
Hunt In: South Franklin County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
Yea, let them take it to the Supreme Court. Sooner the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure why some in this forum donít understand that an EO will spur a trip to the SCOTUS...which is what Trum wants.
Shinesintx is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 02:48 PM   #72
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Yea but Don, that one was not a case in which the baby's parents were illegal aliens was it? THAT's the part that I think makes a difference... It's that "jurisdiction" issue, the issue that would entitle someone to gubment bennies and regulations ... an Illegal Alien is only subject to prosecution by laws that is NOT jurisdiction as I understand it...
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 02:51 PM   #73
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinesintx View Post
Not sure why some in this forum donít understand that an EO will spur a trip to the SCOTUS...which is what Trum wants.
I'd be all for that, but as I posted above, I'm not sure that will render the judgement that Trump or many of us would like to see... Believe the left leaning libtards will file the appeal based on the EO, NOT on the anchor baby interpretation... that's what concerns me.
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 02:53 PM   #74
BrandonA
Pope & Young
 
BrandonA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marble Falls/Burnet
Hunt In: Mills and Burnet County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
Yea but Don, that one was not a case in which the baby's parents were illegal aliens was it? THAT's the part that I think makes a difference... It's that "jurisdiction" issue, the issue that would entitle someone to gubment bennies and regulations ... an Illegal Alien is only subject to prosecution by laws that is NOT jurisdiction as I understand it...
I agree with you
BrandonA is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 03:18 PM   #75
donpablo
Ten Point
 
donpablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Odessa
Hunt In: Iraan, Culberson County & Public Land
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
Yea but Don, that one was not a case in which the baby's parents were illegal aliens was it? THAT's the part that I think makes a difference... It's that "jurisdiction" issue, the issue that would entitle someone to gubment bennies and regulations ... an Illegal Alien is only subject to prosecution by laws that is NOT jurisdiction as I understand it...
I see where you're coming from but I can't come up with any other definition/interpretation of the word jurisdiction. Do you have any examples of the legal use of the word jurisdiction as you're interpreting it that would apply here? I may just be ignorant to these other uses of the word.
donpablo is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 03:30 PM   #76
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Naw Don, only what I have read and heard/seen on the tube... Some of the explanations of the early writings of its authors that indeed explained it in such a way as to fall under a "jurisdiciton" similar to being a "subject" in a "kingdom"... And it was clearly put in the Constitution to make sure all the freed slaves were not rounded up and shipped "home" to Africa... From how I understand it, it was NEVER meant to give ANY rights to unborn/born babies of folks that are here illegally, or even legal foreign agents/representatives that are here temporarily and happen to have a baby while here...
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 08:10 PM   #77
Death from Above
Pope & Young
 
Death from Above's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Henderson, Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
Hmmm they originated in Mexico although they are if Honduran descent.
You're saying we have to ship them back to Honduras?
What if they aren't actually Honduran lie to us?
They are deported by plane to country of origin.

They set detained until a full plane is heading that way.




Edit. Saw it answered

Last edited by Death from Above; 10-31-2018 at 08:14 PM.
Death from Above is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 10-31-2018, 08:30 PM   #78
iamntxhunter
Pope & Young
 
iamntxhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas
Hunt In: North Texas
Default

By the way the Democrats are really pizzed off that Trump is controlling what's dominating the news and they arent.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
iamntxhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 10:33 AM   #79
LWC
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY4yHeYSjw

Short clip - 43 seconds.

Can we just go back to 1993 Democrats? Back when politicians still thought (a little) about what was best for the country. Harry Reid sounds more sensible and conservative than 99% of Republicans today. Sad to see how far we have fallen.

Last edited by LWC; 11-01-2018 at 10:35 AM.
LWC is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 12:09 PM   #80
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamntxhunter View Post
By the way the Democrats are really pizzed off that Trump is controlling what's dominating the news and they arent.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
They(the news peeps) should thank him. Without Trump they would be out of a job
muzzlebrake is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 01:24 PM   #81
kurt68
Ten Point
 
kurt68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Hunt In: Montgomery Co. and Rocksprings and "H"
Default

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ht-citizenship

What has gotten into him lately? I disliked him always, but man he is on fire lately.
kurt68 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 01:26 PM   #82
LWC
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

If the framers wanted anyone born here to be a citizen, they wouldn't have added - and subject to the jurisdiction therof.
LWC is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 01:29 PM   #83
mchildress
Ten Point
 
mchildress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sealy,Tx
Hunt In: Polk
Default

Two wrongs do not make a right.
mchildress is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 01:32 PM   #84
LWC
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mchildress View Post
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Please explain the two wrongs
LWC is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 01:40 PM   #85
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt68 View Post
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ht-citizenship

What has gotten into him lately? I disliked him always, but man he is on fire lately.
We finally have a President with some balls. He pretty much said that in the article.
Ironman is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 02:12 PM   #86
Charles
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt68 View Post
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ht-citizenship

What has gotten into him lately? I disliked him always, but man he is on fire lately.
Another run for President
Charles is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 03:49 PM   #87
texansfan
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Littlefield
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women...
You believe this?
Can you find that article citation?
texansfan is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 04:20 PM   #88
LWC
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texansfan View Post
You believe this?
Can you find that article citation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35OCOQ5yQ4

Harry Reid said it was 2/3 illegal babies being born in LA County. That was 1993 though. I'm sure it has increased substantially since then.
LWC is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 04:32 PM   #89
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Also to be clear, that's Los Angeles County funded hospitals, NOT all hospitals in Los Angeles County... In other words, tax payer funded hospitals so good ol' USA and Kalifornika citizens/taxpayers are paying for all those anchor baby's birth and care... that's from cradle to grave too for the most part... Do you REALLY think the founding fathers intended THAT!? if you do you are even more ignorant than I gave you credit for, and believe me, I gave you plenty of credit in that department.
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 05:41 PM   #90
mchildress
Ten Point
 
mchildress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sealy,Tx
Hunt In: Polk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mchildress View Post
Two wrongs do not make a right.
When an illegal mother and an illegal father throw an anchor baby.
mchildress is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 05:47 PM   #91
batmaninja
Ten Point
 
batmaninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Hunt In: Hill Country
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
Do you REALLY think the founding fathers intended THAT!?
Seems to me like they fought a war over taxation without representation.

And now the Lefts platform is basically representation without taxation.

So, No. I dont think that was their intention. Not at all.
batmaninja is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 11-01-2018, 06:04 PM   #92
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batmaninja View Post
Seems to me like they fought a war over taxation without representation.

And now the Lefts platform is basically representation without taxation.

So, No. I dont think that was their intention. Not at all.
Me either!!
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com