Cory1848

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It has been seriously questioned in regard to the children of immigrants, but not in regard to the children of illegal aliens. 

Does the fact that the First Amendment was ratified in the days of quill and parchment, does that mean it does not apply to radio, TV and internet? 

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

A free state, with citizenry capable of rising up again a tyrannical government. 

On your first point, I was born in the US to immigrant parents. However, I pretty much look and talk like a white guy. With regard to the current assault on birthright citizenship, I think we pretty much know that white people are not those being targeted, and that if white people were still the majority of those benefiting from birthright citizenship, this constitutional right would not be under attack.

On your second point, sure, TV and the internet can also have deleterious effects on society, but their use clearly falls under the umbrella “freedom … of the press.” Individual lunatics with assault rifles are not part of any “well-regulated militia.”

On your third point, it seems pretty clear that growing numbers of Americans are coming to realize that the current executive branch of government is subverting the separation of powers (which is also spelled out in the constitution) by making demands of and threatening the legislative and now the judicial branches. So, “a free state, with citizenry capable of rising up against a tyrannical government,” as you suggest?

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No, but you are supposed to understand that what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."  is arguable. 

 

That you do not is telling. You are not from the United States, are you? 

 

To be clear, I think the court strikes it down, but to dismiss it out of hand as unconstitutional is pretty week. 

 

Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924. 

Fair enough with respect to Native Americans in the nineteenth century, who were at least to some extent considered to belong to sovereign nations and thus under separate jurisdictions. However, I don’t believe the constitutionality of birthright citizenship has ever been seriously questioned with respect to immigrants and their children; at least, as I understand it, the Supreme Court has routinely upheld this standard.

The first person I was responding to pointed out the unassailability of Americans’ right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment, but the application of the phrase “a well-regulated militia,” and the fact that firearms have evolved considerably over the past 200 years, have certainly rendered that amendment debatable: whether the amendment should be interpreted to mean that everyone and their drunk uncle has the right to go out and purchase an assault rifle.

I’m no legal scholar but would suggest that the phrase “well-regulated militia” has been debated far more vigorously than the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” especially as the 2nd Amendment has had a far more deleterious effect on US society than the 14th, but both have been pretty broadly interpreted, as far as I know.

39 minutes ago, riclag said:

Weak at best! The second Amendment takes care of that argument  And your pipe dream of a Newsom or Cotez is weak too . The only way is to repeal it and thats a pipe dream too .

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-it-even-possible/

Exactly! And what is the current issue all about? Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship. And what does the 14th Amendment say? <All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.> So where exactly does your confusion lie? Or, I suppose, some constitutional amendments carry more weight than others, depending on how deep down in the Trump rabbit hole your brain resides.

On 6/27/2025 at 10:13 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Another great victory, thanks supreme court, just shows common sense still sometimes prevails

Oh, good! So you’re saying that, in January 2029 (if not sooner), when President Newsom or President Ocasio-Cortez takes office, they can immediately issue an executive order that likewise flies in the face of the Constitution, say sending the military into US neighborhoods to go door to door and collect everyone’s guns, and the order takes immediate effect even while the matter works its gradual way through the lower courts, a process that could take years. Even if the courts ultimately rule against the order, by then it will be a fait accompli as the guns will have already been confiscated. Something to look forward to!

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What a load of nonsense, there are plenty of biological/genetic differences between ethnic groups. Susceptibility to certain diseases and response to certain drugs to name but two. 

 

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-2328-0

 

 Let me guess, you think man and woman are social constructs in order to "other" (whatever that Wokery means) the trans community... 😆

 

Yes, some population groups are more prone to certain diseases than others; I have no argument with that. The following Wikipedia page (many people find Wikipedia suspect, but it’s a quick reference, and this article includes more than a hundred references to scientific research) makes for an interesting read. But none of this argues for the existence of human “races” in the way that most people interpret and use that word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Genetic_basis_for_race

As for the verb “to other,” it’s in broad use with widespread applications in history and sociology and more real-life examples than I can count. If the word sounds too “woke” for you, then why aren’t you more woke? Snark will only get you so far.

Good luck to you.

1 hour ago, proton said:

 

You are totally wrong, it's not racist and Islamophobia is a made up word by muslims to demonise and shut down any critic of Islam. I will tell you what was racist, Muhammad having black African slaves!

Muhammad certainly kept slaves, but they were largely from neighboring Arab tribes, not Africa (his conquests largely took place on the Arabian peninsula, so I’m not sure what contact he would have had with Black Africans). Likewise, many Black African tribes kept slaves, whom they routinely acquired during raids on neighboring tribes. Once European slave traders started appearing on their shores, African chiefs would supply them with slaves, whom they had likewise kidnapped from neighboring tribes.

So the Arabs of Muhammad’s time, and West African chiefs of the 1600s–1700s, did not “see” race in the same way we do. Slaves were slaves; the “race” of the slave was immaterial. Race as a marker of social standing came later.

Islamophobia, by the way, is as real as antisemitism or anti-Black hatred; in other words, as much as you might wish to deny it, it’s as real as the sun.

17 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Shocking we have a President that can account for his earnings. Still amused they chose the cleanest man in politics to run smear campaigns and forensic investigations lasting a decade looking for non existent corruption🤣

Wait, by "the cleanest man in politics," you're referring to Trump? This is high satire, right?

46 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Getting pretty far afield there.  The topic is unvetted immigration.  Is it racist to be against inviting people in that you then have to support financially, and who advocate the downfall of your very society? 

 

I think not.  And it has very little to do with race or skin color.

 

Well, at least in a US context, most all immigrants -- whether documented or undocumented -- work, pay taxes, and purchase items in their local economy. The benefits they receive are commensurate with their contribution. The same as with US citizens. As for the downfall of (US) society, I expect there would be only a very few immigrants in the US advocating for that, and they would be handled by law enforcement.

I don’t know enough to comment about the situation in European countries that have accepted refugees; one friend of mine who spends time in Sweden says that Somali refugees there are overcompensated by the Swedish government, and I have no reason to doubt him. Those immigrants who use their relative freedom to commit acts of terror should of course be arrested and deported, but again, I would think that’s a very small minority.

I’m a dual US/Estonian citizen but have lived most of my adult life in neither of those places. However, I have the luxury of choice. Remember, the great majority of migrants leave their homes for an uncertain future elsewhere not by choice, but because they can no longer provide for their families in their home countries -- whether because of war, environmental destruction, or the collapse of their society. You might say, <That’s not my concern>; I would say, we are all responsible for each other regardless of “states” and “borders” -- which in the end are purely political structures and as such are temporary. That’s probably where we differ.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Holding a belief that western culture is under threat from mass immigration is not advocating violence. The two are not even nearly the same thing. 

 

It is simply an opinion that you do not like being voiced, therefore you try to conflate it with a non existant call for violence in order to shut it down.

 

Nobody listens when the left shout RACIST at people they disagree with, so now they are shouting TERRORIST instead. It's pretty pathetic to see. 

Well, for one thing, human migration has been occurring for millennia, unabated, with varying effects. Cultures as a result are forever evolving, and usually not in a bad way. If a million Syrian and Iraqi migrants, whose homes have been destroyed, are given refuge in Germany, most, at least those who stay, will learn German and assimilate culturally and in other ways even if they retain their Muslim faith. Plus, they will add in their own ways to an evolving German culture: thanks to earlier migrations of Turks, you can now get some of the world’s best doner kebobs in Berlin. That’s a plus!

To think that these refugees will suddenly create a state based on sharia law, for instance, is ludicrous. There are 85 million Germans.

And second, while the belief that mass immigration is a “threat” to some notion of a “local culture” may not provoke violence on *your* part, the simple characterization of immigration as a “threat” may indeed lead to violence by those who in fact do lean toward xenophobia and racism and fascism -- violence for the sake of some glossed-over, idealized notion of “local culture.” Demagogues throughout history have invented such “threats” for their own political advantage, as is happening right now in the US.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Look up GDP per capita, then correlate that with the founding principals of the countries.  How many non Judeo-Christian societies in the top 25%?  (Other than where God happened to put a bunch of oil...)

 

If you’re going to measure a culture’s worth by its GDP, that’s a pretty short-sighted criterion. How much of the West’s wealth did it steal from non-Western civilizations, during the centuries of colonialism for instance (Africa and Asia), or the conquest of Indigenous territories (the Americas)? And in the present day, how much of that wealth is hoarded by the uppermost tier as the wealth gap only continues to grow, at least in those Western countries that follow the neoliberal economic model, which is linked indelibly with your “Judeo-Christian values”?

Western culture has indeed produced much of value -- in innovation that benefits humanity, in the arts, sometimes even in philanthropy. However, that has gone hand in hand with violence, destruction, and abject greed. I think the same can be said of most all cultures.

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Does anyone even watch modern movies these days?

 

I can't remember the last good one. 

 

I don't go the the cinema to be lectured to about women's empowerment or some other Woke rubbish. 

 

Even Netflix is now trotting out politically motivated garbage like Adolesence and "Harry and Meghan". The Western movie industry is dying, particularly Hollywood.  

No, it's not dying. It's just passed you by.

11 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  I am not your Wife, there's no need to speak to me like I am 

I would never talk to my wife that way!😆

16 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

The Eastern Front is in large part a direct result of Russia having enabled  Nazi Germanys expansion and the start of WWII.  It was Russia which helped initiate WWII with its expansionism.

 

- 23 August 1939: The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a pact that created a partnership between them in dividing up Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. On September 17, Russians stabbed Poland in the back and invaded. 

- In June 1940, Russia attacked, invaded and brutally occupied the 3 Baltic states

Russia then proceeded to attempt to annex other parts of Eastern Europe. In so doing it left a trail of  destruction.

 

Germany's attack on Russia came in part because the Russians were too aggressive and presented a threat to the Nazis. Two greedy sick despots had a turf war and the  death and destruction that followed  is history. Much of the Russian military  deaths is attributable to the  lack of concern for the personnel. Sacrificing tens of thousands  was nothing to Stalin. Even the Germans were shocked by the Russians's callous disregard for the well being of military personnel. The Russians  sent unarmed people into battle. It often denied weapons to jews and other ethnic groups because of "shortages".  An estimated 500,000 jews  served in the Russian military and it was this group of POWs who were the most mistreated, if they survived capture.

 

The cruelty on both sides is unimaginable. My parents (Estonians) lived through the first Soviet occupation in 1940, then three years under the Germans, then fled when the Red Army returned in 1944. According to them, life under German occupation was not so bad (German soldiers were polite enough not to rape local women, and they even listened to classical music!), but Estonia had only a minimal Jewish population; those few whom my parents knew disappeared.

13 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Did a web search :

 

"No results found for US did “more than any other Country [sic], by far,” in beating the Germans in the war,."

 

   But even though , lets not get into yet another discussion about what Donald Trump has said or didn't say 

Oh for heaven's sake it's all over the news. But of course, how would you know?

6 hours ago, Yagoda said:

The white feather again. Another one bites the dust.

 

You know where the topics are.  You have had the white feather for a while. You might want to read Kubizeks memoirs when you get a chance

Kubizek’s memoir might indeed be an interesting read, but what are you saying, that Hitler professed some curiosity about socialism during their chats, when they shared lodgings in Vienna in 1908? So what? They were teenagers! By the 1930s, Hitler knew in which direction his political fortunes lay.

“Another one bites the dust”? Really? That’s so cute!

14 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

There is no large scale denial of Russia’s role in the defeat of Germany, as far as I know.

Well, a certain present-day US megalomaniac just a few days ago posted that the US did “more than any other Country [sic], by far,” in beating the Germans in the war, and 35 percent of US Americans will fall in line and unquestioningly believe the statement, so there’s that. Said megalomaniac I'm sure has never heard of the Eastern Front.

56 minutes ago, connda said:

And then there are those who will deny that Russians, Slavs, Roma, and a host of other Utermenchen were also subjected to genocide in concentration camps and the Nazi Holocaust.

Who is denying this? More than 3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody. This figure from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's website.