Acosmist stop spamming all threads.
I'm getting sick and tired of reading your nickname again and again...

no?

The basis of the suit would presumably be breach of contract and there are usually hurdles to having minors execute a legally binding contract -- parents would probably have to sign as guarantors, which is why you'd sue the parents.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky was referred to as an ultranationalist.

boy this hypo sure got a lot more facts in the passage of time

I am a Constitutionalist who holds Ultranationalist beliefs. In other words, I believe that the government must loyally follow and not violate the Constitution. I believe a massive military and extremely secure borders are the only way to secure the safety of America.

lol. this is how I imagine the stereotypical jackass American but he's probably faking.

And so he chimes in... Whatever happened to "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."?

What defines a massive military? The biggest in the world? 50% of the population? What defines secure borders? No trade? A wall? No tourism or leaving the country?

Why not, it worked so well for the Roman Empire.

Oh wait...

Keep feeding the fire guys. You may have noticed that he hasn't actually engaged in any debate, nor will he. Its just provocation.

I personally believe we should violate the Constitution willy-nilly, but only in those cases where it helps the Ultranationalists.

I'd say "discuss", but my eyes are rolling so far back that I can't actually see the screen. Fortunately I can touch type, but I can't find the button to post the reply....

believing in stereotypes makes you sophisticated

OK, I'll bite.

Should the massive military and extremely secure borders also loyally follow the Constitution? For example (using the U.S. Constitution to be definite):
* no conscription (except potentially as punishment for crime) since that is involuntary servitude;
* all military (and other) expenses approved by the Congress to be approved for definite purposes spelt out in the bill and not spent on anything else;
* no starting wars (response to invasion or rebellion is different) without a declaration from Congress;
* whatever you may do AT the border, no checkpoints INSIDE the border that require people to stop and submit to questions about immigration status, since that would interfere with the common-law right to freely travel the public roads, in violation of the 9th Amendment;
* and of course, as any good constitutionalist would say, no application of the Interstate Commerce Clause to the business activities of a firm within a single state, including hiring decisions.

I'm assuming a literal reading of the Constitution, which is what the term ‘constitutionalist’ usually implies in the U.S., rather than simply accepting whatever the SCOTUS has ruled. Do you agree with these positions?

I thought he was banned..

They banned his other account so he made this one...

Legal immigration is completely ok and should be encouraged, but no one gets in illegally. Under any circumstances. Also, I believe that the American military should be bigger than the next two militaries put together. Of course, there shall be no questioning inside the border, only at the border.


"Should the massive military and extremely secure borders also loyally follow the Constitution? For example (using the U.S. Constitution to be definite):
* no conscription (except potentially as punishment for crime) since that is involuntary servitude;
* all military (and other) expenses approved by the Congress to be approved for definite purposes spelt out in the bill and not spent on anything else;
* no starting wars (response to invasion or rebellion is different) without a declaration from Congress;
* whatever you may do AT the border, no checkpoints INSIDE the border that require people to stop and submit to questions about immigration status, since that would interfere with the common-law right to freely travel the public roads, in violation of the 9th Amendment;
* and of course, as any good constitutionalist would say, no application of the Interstate Commerce Clause to the business activities of a firm within a single state, including hiring decisions."


I don't recall

So you'd be in favor of amnesty.

Oops. Accidentally hit "Post". Sorry!

Legal immigration is completely ok and should be encouraged, but no one gets in illegally. Under any circumstances. Also, I believe that the American military should be bigger than the next two militaries put together. Of course, there shall be no questioning inside the border, only at the border.


"Should the massive military and extremely secure borders also loyally follow the Constitution? For example (using the U.S. Constitution to be definite):
* no conscription (except potentially as punishment for crime) since that is involuntary servitude;
* all military (and other) expenses approved by the Congress to be approved for definite purposes spelt out in the bill and not spent on anything else;
* no starting wars (response to invasion or rebellion is different) without a declaration from Congress;
* whatever you may do AT the border, no checkpoints INSIDE the border that require people to stop and submit to questions about immigration status, since that would interfere with the common-law right to freely travel the public roads, in violation of the 9th Amendment;
* and of course, as any good constitutionalist would say, no application of the Interstate Commerce Clause to the business activities of a firm within a single state, including hiring decisions."


I don't recall saying anything about the draft, in-country checkpoints, secret spending, or starting a war without Congress' approval...

Of course not. Amnesty is like forgiveness for criminals. Would you say. "Ok, you're off the hook" to a murderer? I don't think so.

>Legal immigration is completely ok and should be encouraged

Encouraged how much? Would you be in favour of legalising immigration, like it was when the country was founded? Right now, the law states that immigration is illegal by default, with a large number of exceptions. But back in the day, immigration was legal by default, with a small number of exceptions.

>I don't recall saying anything about the draft, in-country checkpoints, secret spending, or starting a war without Congress' approval...

I know, that's why I'm asking you about them.

Man, I was so hoping that Diplofool was telling the truth about flying tourist charters off and on and that he was the pilot of the plane that went down in NYC.

"and that he was the pilot of the plane that went down in NYC."

--Sorry to disappoint, but airliners don't count as occasional tourist charters

"I don't recall saying anything about the draft, in-country checkpoints, secret spending, or starting a war without Congress' approval...

I know, that's why I'm asking you about them."

Are you asking my opinions, or what? I have to know what you're asking about. Please elaborate.

Boycotting this thread means defeat for your inferior beliefs.

Did we invite you back or did you just come back?

Is high school just not challenging you enough? Sorry...

"Boycotting this thread means defeat for your inferior beliefs."

Incorrect.

You're right. It is incorrect. Your inferior beliefs have never known true victory, so you could not possibly suffer defeat.

Irrational posts will be ignored.

America can never be destroyed by a foreign power. If we are to fall it will be from the restlessness of the american people

self-referential all up in here