Hillary Clinton

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Jess Hawsen Arown

98% of Hillary voters are those who voted for Democrats their whole lives. They have no intention of paying attention to what she is. Fortunately, that is not enough for them to win.

That's impressive; three statements, three times wrong. During the primaries, a greater percentage of independents favored Clinton than favored Trump; although Bernie Sanders far outpolled both.

Second, we pay a great deal of attention to what she actually is. We pay no attention to your lies about her.

That is more than enough to win.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by mostpost

That's impressive; three statements, three times wrong. During the primaries, a greater percentage of independents favored Clinton than favored Trump; although Bernie Sanders far outpolled both.

Second, we pay a great deal of attention to what she actually is. We pay no attention to your lies about her.

That is more than enough to win.

Your infatuation with defending Hillary is laughable.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

A tweet from the Hillary campaign, supposedly meeting her approval:



So is she saying that some citizens of foreign countries have a right to immigrate?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602573/?platform=hootsuite#!

Of course everyone has the right to immigrate to this country. The proof lies in the fact that we are here. Unless one of us is a native American, everyone of us has an ancestor who immigrated here.

It is also a falsehood that anyone things the right to immigrate is absolute or should have no restrictions.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Your infatuation with defending Hillary is laughable.

Your infatuation with attacking Hillary is laughable. At least my infatuation is fact based.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Of course everyone has the right to immigrate to this country.

Does everyone have the right to move into your house without your permission?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Of course everyone has the right to immigrate to this country. The proof lies in the fact that we are here. Unless one of us is a native American, everyone of us has an ancestor who immigrated here.

No one has the right to immigrate to this country. SCOTUS has ruled that immigration is a privilege granted on our terms.

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950):

At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe.


Thus the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.

And that privilege is ultimately determined by the president.

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f)

(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

One point for the Orange Guy: "No one has the right to immigrate to this country."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ump-whiffs.php

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Trump exaggerates.

Clinton outright lies.

...in the street?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Tom

...in the street?

Not true. CNN uncovers the real story.

[Tom]

Not true. CNN uncovers the real story.

Knowing CNN, I have ask.....is that ture?
I mean, it is Wolfie the Foolish......

[JustRalph]

Trumps a Realtor

Clinton's a crime boss

Two different kind of liars

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Good point, If Mostie believes in the looting, rioting scum bags so strongly he should be standing next to them. Maybe he is too naive to realize most of them hate white people and blame them for all their problems. They would not view him as sympathetic to the fact they are losers and see him as evil whitey and want to do him harm. Let him go there and be among them.

Good point, If Mostie believes in the looting, rioting scum bags so strongly he should be standing next to them.
I believe in peaceful demonstrations, but sometimes peaceful demonstrations are not enough. How many times has it happened in the last year that an unarmed black man or a black man who was cooperating with the police has been shot-even in the back? Yet, there you are, more concerned with the fact someone has failed to stand up for a song, than the loss of a human life.
Maybe he is too naive to realize most of them hate white people and blame them for all their problems.
Or maybe I am correct when I believe that very few blacks hate white people. Which is amazing when I consider there are white people like you.


They would not view him as sympathetic to the fact they are losers
I can't be sympathetic to that fact, because I do not believe blacks as a group are losers. You, on the other hand, are a huge loser; blaming everyone but yourself for your failures.

ETA: Since I am tired of all the whining, I am going to try a new method of responding to posts. I will continue to use the quote button, but in those cases where I want to respond to individual segments, I will now copy and paste those after the quote box and answer each individually. I will continue to embolden my responses for clarity. An example is the post above.

You know the problem is not the format of my answers, the problem is that you guys never have a cogent response.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

Does everyone have the right to move into your house without your permission?

That's a false equivalency. You own your house. (I rent) You don't own the country. Despite what you want us to believe, there are rules for entering the country and rules for attaining citizenship. There should also be humanitarian exceptions to those rules. I understand that you are opposed to those humanitarian exceptions. I also know that your objections would be much less strenuous if the refugees were European Christians rather than Syrian Muslims.

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Good point, If Mostie believes in the looting, rioting scum bags so strongly he should be standing next to them.
I believe in peaceful demonstrations, but sometimes peaceful demonstrations are not enough. How many times has it happened in the last year that an unarmed black man or a black man who was cooperating with the police has been shot-even in the back? Yet, there you are, more concerned with the fact someone has failed to stand up for a song, than the loss of a human life.
Maybe he is too naive to realize most of them hate white people and blame them for all their problems.
Or maybe I am correct when I believe that very few blacks hate white people. Which is amazing when I consider there are white people like you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNUroAhf77s

They would not view him as sympathetic to the fact they are losers
I can't be sympathetic to that fact, because I do not believe blacks as a group are losers. You, on the other hand, are a huge loser; blaming everyone but yourself for your failures.

ETA: Since I am tired of all the whining, I am going to try a new method of responding to posts. I will continue to use the quote button, but in those cases where I want to respond to individual segments, I will now copy and paste those after the quote box and answer each individually. I will continue to embolden my responses for clarity. An example is the post above.

You know the problem is not the format of my answers, the problem is that you guys never have a cogent response.

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNUroAhf77s

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

That's a false equivalency. You own your house. (I rent) You don't own the country.

We own the country, and the government is the manager hired to run it efficiently and to enforce the rules.

I also know that your objections would be much less strenuous if the refugees were European Christians rather than Syrian Muslims.

The problem is not Syrian Muslims. The problems is unvetted Syrians. And since there is little in the way of a functional government in Syria, vetting them is difficult if not impossible.

The further problem is the federal government "adopting" unvetted Syrians at our expense. If local groups or charitable organizations want to sponsor vetted Syrians, Muslim or otherwise, that is their business. The administration has no business extending charity to non-citizens on Obama's say so.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I believe in peaceful demonstrations, but sometimes peaceful demonstrations are not enough.

You sir are advocating rioting.