From: LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: The Schumer Shutdown
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:50:35 -0400
Organization: laughing at far leftists
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:07:23 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2025-10-08 14:21, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:08:38 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-10-08 11:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:57:33 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-10-08 10:54, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:41:27 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-10-07 22:14, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:34:52 -0400, Governor Swill
>>>>>>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>>>>>>>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
>>>>>>>>> be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>>>>>>>>> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
>>>>>>>>> the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't apply to illegals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It applies to everyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even Thomas Matthew Crooks? Where was his due process, Dummy?
>>>>>
>>>>> So because individuals violate people's rights, the government should be
>>>>> allowed to do so as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that really what you're arguing?
>>>>
>>>> I've no idea what you're accusing me of arguing. For what it's worth,
>>>> I'm delighted that Crook was executed on the spot without a lawyer.
>>>> Fact is that due process can be very fuzzily defined.
>>>>
>>>> The idea that the BOR applies to illegals ignores the fact that even
>>>> back when it was written it did not apply to non citizens.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Simply, factually, incorrect.
>>
>> Did the BOR apply to the slaves?
>
>Not initially, but that was wrong and they fixed it.
Did you miss where I said "back when it was written" and you insisted
that was incorrect? Are you admitting your mistake?
>> Did the BOR apply to the Indians?
>
>Not to those who lived in their own "nations"...
Huh? You better rethink that..
>...but it certainly does now?
Did you miss where I said "back when it was written" and you insisted
that was incorrect? Are you admitting your mistake?
>Why would you want to replicate the inequities of the past.
Why would you think I do?
>> Who were the non-citizens that it did apply to?
Typical leftist tactic is to duck the question with out of context
stuff.
>The US constitution specifically uses the word "citizens" where it means
>to apply its provisions to just citizens:
>
>Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:
>
>"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the
>Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United
>States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State
>in which he shall be chosen."
>
>Article I, Section 3, Clause 3:
>
>"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
>thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and
>who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he
>shall be chosen."
>
>Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
>
>"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
>States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
>eligible to the Office of President..."
>
>So it's clear that those who wrote it knew what both words meant and
>when they wanted to use which.
That they used both terms does not in any way make it clear that they
are not thought of as synonymous.
>I realize you know less about your foundational documents than a Canadian...
>
>...which is a sad commentary on the state of your nation's educational
>system.
Do you always struggle so much in discourse?