Ric Flair

On 10/30/2018 at 2:40 PM, knapplc said:

Good thread from the LA Times debunking this.

 

Like the caravan/troops to the border, this whole 14th Amendment thing is an election season dog whistle.

 

 

The language of the Amendment itself is unclear and subject to debate. Your post itsel makes that clear when it talks about how “most legal scholars” agree. That means some, maybe many, do not.

On 10/25/2018 at 10:33 PM, Clifford Franklin said:

Please kick these people out of the government. They are rotting it from the inside out.

 

is suc

So tell the Democrats to show up and do their jobs.

Bubble Board desperately needs some conservative or independent voices. Every thread lately is a bunch of like-minded Trump haters talking anout how much they hate Trump.

#SAD

On 10/29/2018 at 3:46 PM, BigRedBuster said:

I wonder how much this election gimmick is costing the US.

 

 

 

Gotta love fiscal conservatism.

 

 

Protecting the border is a constitutional obligation. The myriad of Democratic handouts to buy votes are gimmicks.

On 10/26/2018 at 12:55 AM, It'sNotAFakeID said:

 

At a rate greater than 0.000000000000%

At a rate consistent with the number of people who claim to be transgender? Of course not.

On 10/26/2018 at 6:43 AM, Frott Scost said:

 

Just give it up already. Youve been proven wrong. Admit you were wrong and move on. 

Nope. Try again.

4 hours ago, ZRod said:

And you're wrong again. They can be X alone. Or XXY, or XYY, etc.

And how often does that occur?

I think someone needs to explain to this person what "science" is. If it's mere opinion, then why do we need scientists?

"It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones

25 minutes ago, It'sNotAFakeID said:

 

Even if Trump was not being serious, do you think that his words may be interpreted as being serious by some?

Yes. Which is why he should avoid making such statements. I think I've been clear about that.

Chromosomes line up as either XX or XY.

It's science.

5 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think the chilling comment from Mitt Romney was "corporations are people, my friend"

 

They're not. 

Under the law, they really are. 

35 minutes ago, It'sNotAFakeID said:

 

Does Ben Shapiro attmept to understand anything that might be mired in grey?

I'm not sure much about this IS gray. One's genitals and DNA paint a pretty clear picture of one's gender.

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

@Ric Flair I don't want this question to be lost in the ongoing discussion about Republican xenophobia. 

 

Should Donald Trump have encouraged his sycophantic extremists by saying he would pay their legal bills if they roughed up his political opponents? 

It amuses me that here on Bubble Board, I'm the token conservative you all run to with questions.

Trump was obviously not being serious. Despite that, no, he should not have said that.

5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I think it's pretty obvious that they are not.

It's not at all obvious. Every person from every s******e country in the world could come here and claim asylum. 

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

People seeking asylum are not coming here illegally. This article offers no proof that "liberal activists are coaching those coming here illegally."

Semantics. Illegals are coming here illegally and trying to improve their odds by making false claims of asylum.

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

This article offers no proof that "liberal activists are coaching those coming here illegally."

Quote

Among the marchers are immigration lawyers, who will advise the migrants on the best way to submit asylum applications to U.S. immigration authorities, according to Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE), one of the participating groups.

Just now, StPaulHusker said:

Linking an article from an extreme right publication will not help your cause here

Are the numbers incorrect? If not, then the publication that published them is irrelevant.

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This article offers no proof that "liberal activists are coaching those coming here illegally."

https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/25/lawyers-coach-illegal-immigrant-caravan/

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That's a pretty good answer. Thanks.

 

But election financing, as flawed an open to abuse as it is, probably should work to curtail the "money" part of free speech and be as transparent as possible. Everyone can "participate" in politics. Apple can take out ads for whatever Apple wants. The Koch Brothers can run commercials advocating Koch Brothers beliefs. But neither Sheldon Adelson nor George Soros nor a Mark Zuckerberg hoping to influence internet policy should be able to hide their massive unchecked contributions to politicians and a ballot initiatives. Especially in the case of corporations, where upper management is "speaking" on behalf of 20,000 rank and file employees who may not feel the same way at all. 

 

For a country that supposedly celebrates the individual, we should at least pretend not to favor our corporate overlords. 

 

Also, for the record, the gerrymandering and voter suppression going on at the moment isn't really open to interpretation; it's being undertaken in broad daylight by state Republicans to reduce and marginalize people with a record of voting Democrat. 

I’m in agreement on complete transparency, but oppose any limits on donations, funding, or spending as violations of the First Amendment. If the Koch Brothers or George Soros want to spend billions to elect Congressman Smith, then they should be able to. But the public should know about it and be able to question why.

Corporations and their management are ultimately responsible to the shareholders as owners.

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There's a HUGE difference in free speech and whether money constitutes speech. All of us have equal opportunity to voice our opinions but how much money we can spend to do so is very much not equal or free. Plus Citizens United had the absolutely moronic opinion that corporations (a legal entity) somehow are equivalent to people in the rights they get under the Constitution.

 

Until we get money out of politics, we will live more and more in an oligarchy and less and less in a democracy.

Putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment.

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

No, they aren't.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/09/data-indicates-illegal-immigrants-exploiting-u-s-asylum-policies-false-claims/

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Whoosh.

 

People seeking asylum should not be treated as "invaders" and should be allowed human dignity and a respite. That is the lowest of low bars we can set.

Whoosh.

Now that liberal activists are coaching those coming here illegally, they are virtually all claiming they are seeking asylum. 

Weeping and gnashing of teeth about how borders are mean doesn’t solve the problem. 

9 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Easy for you to say.  Your entire existence and ability to have rights and protections under the law isn't being questioned and there is no court case pending to erase you from existence.

 

It must be so nice to have such a cavalier attitude towards Trump's policies, because you know the religious discrimination and bigotry his administration is putting in place will never affect you.

 

And yes, you better believe that this sh** is VERY personal to me because I am in the demographic that is being erased from existence.

Enough with the melodrama about being “erased from existence.” The question is about legal definitions of sex and gender. Regardlessof the definition they settle on, it’s not like you’re going to suddenly disappear.

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Usually by the time people realize they should have been violent, it’s too late. 

Sadly that’s probably the same thinking as whoever just mailed those fake bombs to people. 

9 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Honestly, I am not so sure about that.  This administration has proven countless times they don't give a damn about anyone not rich, white, hetero, "christian".  This administration doesn't care about, and will never listen to, anyone who doesn't look like they do and have their same beliefs.

More of this nonsense? 

I think this sums it up nicely. 

Quote

The conflation of “what the medical community understands about their patients” with “what people understand about themselves” is utterly anti-scientific trash. In no other arena of medicine would we take the self-perception of a patient over an actual objective diagnosis. But here we’re supposed to, and we’re supposed to declare that such a standard-free subjective definition is based in science.

Ben Shapiro on Transgenderism