Yesterday 6:52 pm
He has a green card and an American wife. They have an American child together. You're quibbling. You're framing his circumstances dishonestly.Skans » Today, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑ Starting trouble as an invitee on a visa is a far cry different from being deported for wrongthink.
Oh, no, you've said too much. You haven't said enough. That's you in the corner.Skans » Today, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑ I've already said what I have to say about Trump's actions. You can respond intelligently to them, or you can blather on about Trump, "fellate", "israel's bitch", rubio riding a dick, hating jews and ***, etc.
As for Apartheid in South Africa - I was 100% for it. It worked and worked well for South Africa. Much much better than what they have now. When your GLOBALISTS started protesting here in the US about how South Africa ran its country, I treated them about as well as the Vietnam protesters treated our Military. And, that's all I have to say about that.
The hoopla over South Africa occurred in the 80s. You would have been a child, if you were alive at all, based on past statements.
So would I. But he didn't.Skans » Today, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑ Like I said, I'm not into debates over definitions. That's a circle-jerk I've never been much interested in. I really don't care who "defines" what. I know what a girl is. I know what a boy is. I know what a fruitcake is. And, I know what a semite is.
As for Harvard, I'm glad Trump cut off billions from Harvard. Go back and look at some of my topics (some of which were in the "other" forum). I've been **** on Harvard for about a decade now. If Trump cut off the government's money supply to Harvard (and other Ivy League Huge endowment scammers) simply because he doesn't like green eggs and ham, I'd be thrilled.
So that is a cheap dodge of the issue - not an argument.
The nine will soon decide what he can and cannot do from a Constitutional perspective. It is my hope they will defend the Constitution against his assaults upon it.Skans » Today, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑ Going back to what I POSTED in response to one of your posts in this thread, I was discussing, and thought we were discussing, what Trump could do and what he cannot do from a Constitutional perspective. In that regard, I did not get much in the way of a response from you to what I actually wrote.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?