Search results

Careful there. From just using technology developed through understanding how the universe works, you'll find yourself stepping outside that dark damp cave you'd seem to prefer to be spending your life in.

One can imagine anything. That's trivial. But discovering the way the universe actually works, rather than how you might want or imagine it to, is the ultimate goal for human reasoning.

....fine, but then watch how the universe don't give a shit. No matter how much power you think it possible to give those imaginary concepts, God, Higher Consciousness, Mother Goose, whatever, they do not have, nor can anyone give them the power to exist the way an ordinary pencil on my desk does.

A theory of God or Mother Goose and scientific theory are way, way different things. That much we could agree on.

You do see how if anything is possible it is then also possible, that it isn't ?

Captain, My comment is a serious one. Greater minds than yours or mine have even used quips regarding teapots to make their point. If you do think the subject is not meaningless and is worth serious consideration, maybe drop the supercilious and judgmental attitude and explain why God is any...

...or that man created Mother Goose. Does it necessarily mean that Mother Goose is not real?

God is the name given to that which instructs how not to understand.

As tempting as it may be to accept friendly compromise, to put it mildly, that's way too much of a stretch. I'll call God a failure of human reasoning. Is that any good?

Whether making a cake or a God, first, above all, you need a universe.

That isn't everything.

It's everything.

The issue is too small for the Court to screw around with the 14th. Extended families must petition to reside with a US citizen anyways, they don't have any automatic right to join so called anchor babies. That's just whipped up political fear mongering bs. Basically the whole deal is about...

It would be easier to interpret the 2nd into denying the keeping and bearing of arms than it would to interpret the 14th into denying birthright for anyone born in the US.

goddamn after all these years you've finally said something sensible to agree with.

Then I take it you are suggesting a reinterpreting of the 14th won't deal with anything other than babies born in the US, are US citizens, irrespective of their illegal immigrant parents.

I think you might consider that, to argue the Court could reinterpret the 14th Amendment, turning it on its head to rule against birthright citizenship (for instance by redefining the word jurisdiction, already defined in law), isn't any argument that the Court would be likely to do any such...

I'm only repeating because you are repeatedly missing the same point. AAA, because internet links say something, that doesn't mean it's true! I know you will understand that much. Neither does it mean what they say is legally or even logically true. It's really obvious in this case they are...

No go piezoe. The clause is too straightforward. Unless the drafter was speaking Martian, where all words mean exactly the opposite to what they do here on Earth, then there is no room to interpret 'jurisdiction' into anything else but what it means. Sorry dude, black does not mean white.

It's no use piezoe. Not you, nor Arnie's and Jem's links or even Trump, make the Constitution say something it doesn't. The 14th affirms that all people born in the USA are American citizens. You mean I should pay them properly?!:eek: The question is about stopping/restricting/returning...