|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 14:08:41 GMT
Enough of the mind games. You were never invited to this board. You are welcome to post here but you are going to post within the parameters of common sense and the rules. You don't drop F bombs here and you had better watch what you say. If you choose to employ fighting words you can expect to be called out. You cannot play innocent on Resisters and attempt to play psychological games. You know the minds you want to change are the viewers that check in to be entertained. You have never changed their minds so posting for you is some kind of cheap amusement. Get over it. I think that your lack of common sense posting and that you backed down when challenged worked out pretty good for me. I had no expectations going in and now I despise and detest you. You had every opportunity to shut Resister down. With regards to the being 17 comment. You, I, and anyone else that read that realizes what you were doing. It was an unnecessary comment and it presumed that Resister did not get parental permission and therefore lied about his service. You could have apologized for that and for having posted hearsay. Today we both know that what you say is not true. Nobody told you that the Resister was in the Merchant Marines or had ever claimed as much. That was obvious to me. That being the case I am calling you out on behalf of everybody on this board. Unless you can show proof of your service record to us then you are making a false claim to any prior military service. Do you still want to go down that rabbit hole or are you ready to apologize and drop it? Now I'm playing mind games? If I wasn't invited here then who used my moniker and posted a partial comment of mine from another board? If not you, then who? Your opinion about me changing minds, is just that, your opinion, and you know what opinions are like, everybody has one. My lack of common sense? I backed down when challenged? You had no expectation going in? I had every opportunity to shut down resister? Hard to do when you keep him in the dog house. As to being age 17, resister stated he went in at 17, I stated I also went in at 17, I then stated to go in at 17 your parent(s) would have to sign a waiver. If you don't agree with that then take it up with the military. Other than that resister backed up what I stated about being in a wreck and not going into the Army (I said I heard it was the MM's). You should work on your comprehension skills. You calling me out on behalf of posters on this board about my military service? What will I do. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 18:19:31 GMT
Only 2 states as of now allow non-citizens to vote in local elections Maryland and Vermont ( California was denied the ability: In July 2022, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ruled that the law violated the California Constitution. Ulmer ruled that "[t]ranscendent law of California, the Constitution ... reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance."[8] To read the full ruling, click here), i.e. school boards, dog catcher, etc, they are not allowed to vote in municipal, state elections, or federal elections. Those allowances are being ran through the courts and are getting denied in every venue, thus denying the localities to allow foreigners to vote, New York just denied them in 2022. Extending the right to vote should be denied in Maryland and Vermont to foreigners in local elections soon enough. Some Blacks did have voting rights during colonial times all the way up through today, from the municipal level all the way up to the state and federal level. Some blacks were entitled to all the privilege's of a citizen. The difference here is that Blacks were allowed to vote in Federal Elections in colonial times, as state constitutions state, where as those here today as foreigners are very limited in only 2 states and DC and only at the very local of levels. State Constitutions made them citizens in colonial times. States gave up the right to control their interior borders when they signed onto the US Constitution. Does the US not have any sovereignty? As to your opinion: Then its a good thing your mind isn't one that makes law or is relied upon regarding law. SCOTUS in Chy Lung merely confirmed what was already admitted, the federal government has control over immigration (the 1790 Naturalization Act that you claimed was the first immigration law in the US). You seem to be all over the board on the issue. When it suits your needs esp. on race issues you take the stand that black people were citizens by virtue of the getting a voting privilege. You flip flop on the issue when it comes to an explanation of states rights and say citizenship and all activity regarding foreigners is federal. Either you are extremely ignorant or you do not want to debate in good faith. Hopefully you will have better sense than to dig a deeper hole trying to pretend that you came out on top of a contradiction in your own opinions. You conflate citizenship with rights states have that are more about free enterprise and liberty. You need to chill out and quit making assumptions. This is laughable. Your claims show your intentional ineptness of basic comprehension. But carry on, you are amusing. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 7, 2024 18:22:37 GMT
Where does that even come from? Where did I even use that word? Maybe you should have disputed what I stated or answered the questions I posed, funny how you chose to create some off the wall claim. That's very telling. By the way, don't let your handler see that you responded to me, you might make him upset with you. Since you denied saying what you did your post was moved to the humor forum - you claim you did not say it so that was posted by a ghost and that was meant to be funny. Thanks John. Typical, when you can't refute in a discussion, hide the discussion. Pathetic. |
|
