Thread: A voice of reason on immigration

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

Originally Posted by hak51

Just a reminder, in Nuremberg some people ended up on the gallows just for following duly legislated laws. It may disturb your self admiration but, it is a moral obligation of the human being and it is a civic duty of the citzen of this country to actively oppose, by the act of civil disobedince, the laws that you consider wrong.

In this light, breaking our current nonsensical immigration laws could be seen as acts of civil disobedience. I am not sure, check it out, it might be even protected by the Constitution.

You have got to be kidding.

the above snippet of wisdom
From the resident Rocket Scientist

JOHN -

Am I completely off my rocker or wasn't the "act of civil disobedience" protected for the CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA?

Your self admiration is pitiable.

As is yours.

It is typical for many Americans that have no first hand experience with other cultures.

Do you make the assumption that everyone here is "typical" and has no first-hand experience with other cultures?

What did newpilgrimfamily steal? On whom he depends beside the product of his own work?

If you do not know that, then you did not read his posts. He plainly stated he has and still does rely on Americans.

Just a reminder, in Nuremberg some people ended up on the gallows just for following duly legislated laws. It may disturb your self admiration but, it is a moral obligation of the human being and it is a civic duty of the citzen of this country to actively oppose, by the act of civil disobedince, the laws that you consider wrong.

Do you mention this as an attempt to intimidate and/or as a threat? If not, then why did you mention this?

it is a civic duty of the citzen of this country to actively oppose, by the act of civil disobedince, the laws that you consider wrong.

Right, its the rights of the CITIZENS not the illegals

CrocketsGhost

Our Bill of Rights, for example, is the only one that recognizes absolute rights of the People. It does not grant rights, because rights are not the property of government to grant to a free people. It recognizes those pre-existent and self-evident rights as an endowment of the Creator.

You just overlooked that in the original intention the Bill of Right was meant for the right of land owners only, and the meaning was expanded later. You conveniently omit the issue of slavery.

Originally Posted by hak51

CrocketsGhost

Newpilgrimfamily is the product of his ancestors as surely as I am the product of mine. Where mine taught me self-reliance and pride in the same, and where they taught me not to take that which is not mine, his parents apparently taught him dependency and theft. Mine taught me to honor the duly legislated laws, while his apparently taught him that he could feel free to break a law if it didn't suit him and that he could then mock those against whom he trespassed.

Your self admiration is pitiable. It is typical for many Americans that have no first hand experience with other cultures. What about you following the idea of Mark Twain from The Prince and the Pauper and moving to Brazil for some time?

What did newpilgrimfamily steal? On whom he depends beside the product of his own work?

Just a reminder, in Nuremberg some people ended up on the gallows just for following duly legislated laws. It may disturb your self admiration but, it is a moral obligation of the human being and it is a civic duty of the citzen of this country to actively oppose, by the act of civil disobedince, the laws that you consider wrong.

In this light, breaking our current nonsensical immigration laws could be seen as acts of civil disobedience. I am not sure, check it out, it might be even protected by the Constitution.

You nitwit, again you stick your foot in your silly mouth. I'll bet that I visit more different countries in a year than you have in your entire life!

Now, as to your other foolishness, whether it is the duty of a citizen to oppose bad laws is neither here nor there, because 80% of actual Americans support these laws, and those disregarding them are not citizens, but foreign invaders.

Now, that breaking the law is protected by the Constitution is the funniest thing you've said yet! The Constitution set up a legal system for determining what laws are and are not just, and allowed for a jury system whereby the People, in the form of a jury, may decide whether a law is just in any given case. It is not for the criminals to decide what should and should not be illegal, you nitwit. Stop and think about that for a second.

Originally Posted by hak51

CrocketsGhost
Did you need to fall so low when falling short of rational arguments?

As I said, this is an egotistical kid. He's one of those little momma's boys who was told so many times from the shadow of the apron what a good and bright child he was that he actually came to believe it. When confronted with the blatant falsity of his belief system, he does what every pathologically egomaniacal brat does: starts obfuscating and even blatantly lying in a vain attempt to maintain the childish fantasy of superiority. I've seen it so many times that I recognize it on sight. I called this guy in my first post.

As my mother used to say, yours are the names you call others.

Ah, so you finally DID get around to the "rubber/glue" gambit! I predicted that one as well.

Damn, I'm batting 1.000!

Originally Posted by hak51

CrocketsGhost

Our Bill of Rights, for example, is the only one that recognizes absolute rights of the People. It does not grant rights, because rights are not the property of government to grant to a free people. It recognizes those pre-existent and self-evident rights as an endowment of the Creator.

You just overlooked that in the original intention the Bill of Right was meant for the right of land owners only, and the meaning was expanded later. You conveniently omit the issue of slavery.

Are you serious? LMAO

Slavery was always a bone of contention and the Founders factored that into our documents via compromise, full well knowing the day would come when we would face the problem. Read the Founder's written works.

Landowners? omitted?
It was a given at that period of time in history. No different than not allowing females to vote. What does that have to do with the price of apples? As our permanent government was established, so was the Bill of Rights.

Is this all you've got in your "debate arsenal?"

Originally Posted by hak51

CrocketsGhost

Our Bill of Rights, for example, is the only one that recognizes absolute rights of the People. It does not grant rights, because rights are not the property of government to grant to a free people. It recognizes those pre-existent and self-evident rights as an endowment of the Creator.

You just overlooked that in the original intention the Bill of Right was meant for the right of land owners only, and the meaning was expanded later. You conveniently omit the issue of slavery.

I don't omit any issue, conveniently or otherwise. You are wrong on several points as usual.

First, the Bill of Rights applied to all citizens. It had nothing to do with slavery because slaves were not citizens at the time, and the compact applied to constraints on the government relative to the citizens of the several states by whom the federal goverment was created. The slaves did not create the United States nor were they party to the compact, so their rights were not a topic of the compact, but rather were covered under the state laws and constitutions.

You appear to be confusing protections under the Bill of Rights with the right to vote, which accrued only to male landowners. You appear to confuse a lot of things.

JohnB2012

You have got to be kidding.

I am deadly serious.

Originally Posted by hak51

JohnB2012

[quote:18b8bwx2]You have got to be kidding.

I am deadly serious.[/quote:18b8bwx2]
You are a joke.

Kindly reference the portion of the Constitution that allows for a citizen to disregard duly enacted law.

Again, there are two methods by which an unjust law may be challenged or set aside. It may be ruled in a given case to be unjust in its application by the jury deciding the case (the principle is called jury nullification), or it may be stricken down by the judiciary. Period. If you want to stretch the premise a bit, you could also consider that a lawmaking body may, pursuant the wishes of those it represents or the conscience of its members, rescind a law previously passed.

None of these methods even vaguely represents an acceptance of the sort of anarchy that you suggest.