No More Identity Politics
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 05:47
VIEWED: 6691
PAGE 4 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Totally agree. Assault is assault. Battery is battery. The only category I would carve out is crimes against children.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And we need to eliminate the concept of the "Hate Crime" completely from the lexicon as well.
A crime is a crime is a crime.
All a "Hate Crime" is, is an additional punishment that gets doled out on top of anything else, but only if you're a white male between the ages of 18 and 55. It's just been another tool in the Establishment arsenal for decades.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
Yeah...
But you've always got to be REAL careful with that one.
According to quite a few politicians, many of them no doubt in your own state, it is a crime against a child if you don't allow them to mutilate their reproductive organs if they feel like they're not a boy or a girl that week.
The problem with anything having to do anything with "for the children" attached, is that anybody in power seems to really like using that as a cudgel to get stuff that they want that isn't even logically related to the children unless you're willing to follow them down rabbit holes.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
Index to this page
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights
The Bill of Rights became law on December 15, 1791. On the 150th Anniversary of that historic date, December 15, 1941, this program was broadcast to an estimated 63 million listeners (almost half of the U.S. population).
Later Amendments
Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
Amendment 12 Presidential elections
Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
Amendment 14 Civil rights
Amendment 15 Black suffrage
Amendment 16 Income taxes
Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
Amendment 20 Terms of office
Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
Amendment 25 Presidential succession
Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage
Amendment 14
Civil rights
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Trumps trying to change some of these laws including the one right above.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Proof, dummy.
Also, you forgot the apostrophe in "Trump's" again because you are a very stupid person who is incapable of learning any lessons.
Also, also... none of those laws in the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. Some, such as the prohibition of alcohol, were decided after the fact to have been a mistake and they were ratified.
Maybe we'll be ratifying more. But I doubt it very much. Any addition or subtraction to the Bill of Rights requires a 2/3rds vote in the house and senate.
I was 13 years old the last time this happened. I don't see any point in the near future where any one party is going to have that much control, and getting enough of either party to go with the other one to pass a 2/3rd majority is impossible in this climate.
The only way this is going to happen is if Democrat Politicians keep doing things that piss everyone off and even more people defect.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This was originally meant to grant citizenship to former slaves.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In its historic context, IDK what the highlighted phrase means.
Does anyone?
Supreme Court might rule on this
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even the Supreme Court can read polls. If MAGA thinks they win if Trump is made all powerful, wow. They are too stupid to realize, from day one of that occurring they lose all their rights. And Trump only leaves office when he dies with the next dictator ready to take over. If that's what they want then life is just too much for them to handle. It's like a women staying in an abusive marriage. She does that because she is damaged. Jack, you're a fucking mess.
T
Trump's MOST DESPERATE Ploy HAUNTS HIM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You heard it here, boys.
We're Legal As Fuck.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You heard it here, boys.
We're Legal As Fuck.
Put the bottle down Jack. Your post makes no sense.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:This was originally meant to grant citizenship to former slaves.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In its historic context, IDK what the highlighted phrase means.
Does anyone?
Supreme Court might rule on this
It's a great question. Certainly made me think.
It's funny how the mind works. You've gone right to asking about historical context, and my mind went straight to geography.
Dug into it a little and here's a brutally and terrifyingly honest read of that line from the American Immigration Council...
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/researc
h/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf
Quote:
We begin, of course, with the text of the Citizenship Clause.
To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance. All must obey.
The more bright among you probably picked up on the fact that while they go very far out of their way to let everyone know that the illegals must obey like the rest of the cattle, they also don't fail to let you know that there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Diplomatic immunity comes to mind. It's not enuf to be a citizen of another country visiting or living in the USA to be exempt from our laws, but diplomatic immunity will do. IDK if (some? all?) tribal reservations - which are their own nations - are subject to USA law.
there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.
Now, IDK if "diplomatic immunity" was a "thing" back then when that was written, so I don't know if that's what is being referred to.
If your quote is correct, then everyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen (except children of foreign diplomats who apparently inherit their parents' citizenship) and "anchor babies" are legal.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What happened to "No More Identity Politics"?
Identity politics:
"Political attitudes or positions that focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation." -American Heritage Dictionary
"politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group" -Mirriam Webster
You turned this thread into a nonstop, and mostly baseless, hysterical attack. Here's your latest example:
Quote:
Even the Supreme Court can read polls. If MAGA thinks they win if Trump is made all powerful, wow. They are too stupid to realize, from day one of that occurring they lose all their rights. And Trump only leaves office when he dies with the next dictator ready to take over.
First of all, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be ruling on the basis of opinion polls but on insightful reading of the Constitution and subsequent case law.
Secondly, I guess you haven't been keeping track of what's been happening to our "rights" over the past few decades, have you?
The first big incursion happened under GWB. The so-called Patriot Act (written BEFORE 9-11), the definition of "enemy combatant", splitting into AT&T international communications cables to scrape content as it passed thru the the SF center, establishing torture sites and a prison not subject to American law or Geneva Convention, expanding the right of government to dig thru information on citizens held by third parties (doctors, libraries, etc) turning the USA into a "surveillance state"
Quote:
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act
Then, Obama upped the ante by estblishing a ginormous data center in Utah, holding all that snooped data on you and me, he also designated an American citizen as an enemy combatant and had him executed without trial or conviction. He also made direct CIA propaganda in the USA legal. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spread
s-government-made-news-to-americans/ and failed to close Guantanamo, like he promised.
UNDER TRUMP'S FIRST TERM, I CAN RECALL NO SUCH INCURSIONS INTO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If you have any examples, please post them.
The Biden* admin went completely off the rails, engaging in both censorship and propaganda on a massive scale. So much so that our President was non compos
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME