User Controls
Posts by Splam
-
2020-02-11 at 6:29 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpUN is a US puppet. UN law applies to everybody except US. UN law didn't apply when they entered Korea or Iraq.
NATO's is as much run by the US as the Warsaw Pact was run by the USSR. Again, the US declares war, then other nations follow as they please, with exceptions they almost all always do. . Theoretically no it's not run by the US, but practically yes and that's what matters. -
2020-02-11 at 1:34 AM UTC in ACQUITTED FOREVER
-
2020-02-10 at 11:29 PM UTC in what's the last thing you bought?
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny eveeytime i hear guesstistics like this i just have to ask;
how did you came to the conclusion that theres still 75% left on the tire ?
did you took out a ruler and measured the threads depth ? did you compared their weights ? did you perform complex arimethics ?
why not 80% ? how about 70%. 60% maybe ?
We all know 86.54% of all statistics are made up. Get used to it. It's a convenient way of conveying approximately how much tire tread is left. Don't take it so literally. -
2020-02-10 at 4:09 PM UTC in ACQUITTED FOREVERRussians would just ship it with fedex overnight delivery. Wouldn't have to clear customs, just hit the shores and detonate. Or transport it by suicide submarine into the harbour. So of course even N. Korea has the means to deliver a bomb to America.
Originally posted by Narc who's cities? British cities were destroyed by the Luftewaffe, and then they barely destroyed even an 1/8 of any of our cities.
What you're all talking about is siege situation which would happen over many months. You couldn't destroy a town or even a large village in just hours or a few days using artillery..
British cities were never destroyed. They were bombed yes. Heavily? Hell no, by contrast they were almost all left untouched compared to German or Russian cities.
Rotterdam was destroyed by the Luftwaffe,
Berlin was destroyed by a combination of everything, including lots of artillery.
Howitzers are not for direct fire, though may be used as it. Almost any cannon can be used for indirect fire. Artillery, depending on the context, doesn't have to be indirect fire.
The amount of explosive force dropped on German cities was way higher than the atomic bombs in Japan. -
2020-02-10 at 3:58 PM UTC in Nuclear Weapons ThreatI dunno. I'm still hoping for my nuclear powered cel phone and nuclear powered automobile. So there's hope.
-
2020-02-10 at 1:40 AM UTC in Dump idiot Trump
Originally posted by -SpectraL The only way you can bar a law is by having a newer law to bar it. You cannot bar a law with the absence of another law.
A natural born citizen IS naturally born in the USA. The word, "natural", means "by nature".
nature : being in accordance with or determined by nature
natural impulses
: begotten as distinguished from adopted
their natural son
: being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption
natural parents
: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn
: having a normal or usual character
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
It says natural born as a citizen.
It does not say natural born in country.
There is no law barring it because the interpretation you use is wrong, was never intended by the founding fathers, and has never been enforced by congress.
They are barring people who adopt citizenship, in contrast to those naturally born with it. -
2020-02-10 at 1 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpNo it's not, because there is no law barring it. Some people have interpreted it as you have, but they've never threatened to go to the courts over Cruz or McCain . It says 'natural born US citizen'. It does not say 'you must be born in the USA'. That would be plain text. AFAIK a law is only valid as it is enforced. Nowhere in the wording does it suggest what you say, and nowhere has it been enforced as you say.
-
2020-02-10 at 12:58 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpThe plain language of the law stops immigrants from acquiring citizenship then becoming president. It'll stop Arnold and that's it's intention. Also the language isn't as plain as you may think. It derives from English law, where the English wanted colonists to be regarded as British subjects. Never was it the intention of the founding fathers to verify your mom hadn't crossed the 49th parallel when you were borne, and neither does the language suggest so.
Yes the democrats do play word tricks and games like that. But this isn't one of them. -
2020-02-10 at 12:48 AM UTC in ACQUITTED FOREVER
Originally posted by Narc Artillery is mostly used for troop support now a days. If you want to flatten a city like that then you'd use bombers to do the job.
.
My initial point still stands, artillery and bombers are out of reach to most civilians. Thus you need the second amendment more than ever.
Germans used the Sturmtiger and Schwerer Gustav to destroy Warsaw btw, among many other things a lot of controlled demolitions.
-
2020-02-10 at 12:43 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpThey were denying the right specifically to IMMIGRANTS who acquire citizenship after a process of working and living in the country. Because their loyalty could never be verified, they didn't want them as president. Arnold for example. How do you know he's not still loyal to Austria? You know what happened the last time an Austrian became leader of a foreign country?
-
2020-02-10 at 12:38 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpIf the courts were to remove a democratically elected president because of a grey zone in the wording of natural born citizen,
That'd be just as crazy as removing Trump for a five minute phone call.
Also the wording there was taken from British law. British law saw foreign born persons as subjects to the British crown, 'natural born citizen' is taken directly from British law and includes subjects born overseas. The original interpretation and current usage both indicate to allow people such as Ted Cruz or John McCain to become president. -
2020-02-10 at 12:33 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpSo again why did Ted Cruz run for president? He's Canadian.
-
2020-02-10 at 12:29 AM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpI'm sorry spectral, I'll just end this here and now
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. As to those born elsewhere who meet the legal requirements for birthright citizenship, the matter is unsettled.[2][3]
If Wikipedia can't settle it, I guess we can't either.
It's actually a really interesting article over how it's been interpreted over the time,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Interpretations_by_the_courts
In any case you're wrong. Else Ted Cruz would've never bothered running for president. -
2020-02-10 at 12:26 AM UTC in Dump idiot Trumpwhat does the word natural mean in this context? is that the word that means you must be born in the USA?
I'm reading that as if you're born a citizen, you're eligible to become president. If either of your parents are citizens you're still born a citizen even if born outside the country!
I was born in Canada, but I was born a Norwegian citizen as well. I had two citizenships from when I was born. -
2020-02-10 at 12:03 AM UTC in Dump idiot Trump
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, it doesn't say anything about any children, it says to be President you have to be born in America.
- be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
Where does it say a natural born US citizen must be born in America?
There's three ways of acquiring citizenship:
- through parents whom are citizens
- being born in the USA
- acquiring citizenship by living in America for long enough and taking the test etc.
As far as I'm concerned, either of the two first points satisfy the wording of 'natural born US citizen'. Your citizenship was given to you at birth. You were born with it naturally. In contrast to acquiring it. -
2020-02-09 at 11:47 PM UTC in ACQUITTED FOREVERArtillery in this context often refers to tanks, airplanes and ships as well.
These things do the killing in war, your rifle is a personal defence weapon. Which is also among the reasons they now use .223 caliber instead of .308. If you have a building you must clear you call in an airstrike or wait for the tanks.
Artillery only works when you don't care about collateral damage. Look how efficiently the Warsaw Uprising was suppressed. There's no need to suppress an uprising when you can just destroy the city instead.
While the second amendment today is weaker than it has ever been, it still serves it's purpose. Unless the US is willing to do what's pictured below to it's own population. In Warsaw they had no second amendment, they set up shop in garages making Sten guns instead.
-
2020-02-09 at 11:28 PM UTC in Will you be watching The Oscars, tonight?Titanic was when I stopped respecting the oscars.
As a 9 year old kid, that movie was drawn out and boring! I'd rather drown than sit through it again. -
2020-02-09 at 7:16 PM UTC in Dump idiot Trump
Originally posted by -SpectraL Not true.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:
- be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
- be at least 35 years old;
- be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.
No you're wrong. Natural born citizen means you're a citizen at birth. If your mom was a citizen, so are you.
Else if you were born on vacation or on some military base you wouldn't be eligible for president. -
2020-02-08 at 2:51 PM UTC in Dump idiot TrumpEven if Obama was born in Kenya, he was born to a US citizen and thus eligible to be president.
Seriously the Obama born in Kenya theory is almost as sad as Russiagate. Just whereas the Kenya thing was mostly innocent and harmless, Russiagate is an accusation of straight up treason. -
2020-02-08 at 5:37 AM UTC in ACQUITTED FOREVER
Originally posted by -SpectraL Well, the founding fathers obviously believed it, because they enacted the Second Amendment into law for exactly that purpose, to destroy the US government once it became tyrannical. They already knew it would happen, just not exactly when.
That unfortunately doesn't work too well anymore. Artillery is now the major weapon of war, and civilians don't really have access to it.
A split in civilian ranks would also cause a split in the military. If enough units with enough equipment deserted to the other side, you could have a really bloody mess on your hands.
In the end though, any military would be unable to police an armed population that's willing to fight. As has happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. No military unit is going to fight their own civilians without some hesitation. The second amendment as such still serves its purpose today by arming the civilian population.
