WhiteWonder Posted July 4 Posted July 4 2 hours ago, TimHauck said: Correct, you posted an emoji indicating you agreed with someone arguing against someone else saying it wasn’t meant only for slaves. Thanks for confirming I asked you to link to me saying anything about slaves… but I posted an emoji you feel indicated I agreed with someone who was arguing with someone else … . Put the computer/phone down and enjoy your 4th little guy. 2nd half of the year can only go up for you Quote
TimHauck Posted July 4 Posted July 4 3 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said: I asked you to link to me saying anything about slaves… but I posted an emoji you feel indicated I agreed with someone who was arguing with someone else … . “I feel,” lolololol. You’re trying to tell me doesn’t indicate agreement? Quote
Caine Mutiny Posted July 4 Author Posted July 4 I love the United States. Love our Constitution, so proud of it. Birthright citizenship is an amazing thing. So proud to be an American. Happy 4th of July to all! Quote
WhiteWonder Posted July 4 Posted July 4 1 hour ago, TimHauck said: “I feel,” lolololol. You’re trying to tell me doesn’t indicate agreement? Your very first post to me said I was arguing that the 14th was about slavery. You couldn’t find evidence of me arguing it so you moved the goalposts, like usual, to an emoji response I posted to someone else. so was I arguing it? Was I agreeing with someone else’s argument? Make up your mind Timmy. 1 Quote
WhiteWonder Posted July 4 Posted July 4 On 7/3/2026 at 12:53 PM, WhiteWonder said: why did you only put "did it the correct way" in quotes but left out the following words that I typed... "at the time"? the full quote was "did it the correct way at the time" completely consistent with what i've been saying, that times have changed @timhack why did you ignore this? Quote
TimHauck Posted July 4 Posted July 4 2 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said: @timhack why did you ignore this? I didn’t. But very odd that you seem to care so much about whether or not I used quotes around words that I acknowledged you wrote. 8 hours ago, TimHauck said: And actually I think the second part of Strike’s post below is relevant to your other question to me. Getting past the fact that I did use the words “back then” so asking why I just didn’t put them in quotes is an incredibly odd question as it doesn’t change the context, as I also called out that you said “times have changed.” I just think it’s worth calling out that while times have changed, “back then” it was pretty easy. To that point though, Strike said “Immigration wasn't the thing it is nowadays and they never envisioned it would be abused as is it is,” but I’d disagree with that. When Ellis Island opened, which wasn’t that long after the 14th amendment, we pretty much let in almost anyone that showed up. The government made it more strict later, so if anything if we’re arguing what people “intended” 150 years ago, you could probably make the argument that over the years we made it more strict than was originally intended. In fact I visited the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island this week, the Statue celebrated our Liberty following the end of the Civil War and even included broken shackles at her feet symbolizing the end of slavery. As @The Girlfriend notes below, Lincoln famously said that “all men are created equal,” so I think it is fair to imagine that there’s a decent chance he’d be for more open immigration even today. Happy 4th! Quote
TimHauck Posted July 4 Posted July 4 4 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said: Your very first post to me said I was arguing that the 14th was about slavery. You couldn’t find evidence of me arguing it so you moved the goalposts, like usual, to an emoji response I posted to someone else. so was I arguing it? Was I agreeing with someone else’s argument? Make up your mind Timmy. Yes technically you were agreeing with someone else’s argument. That’s pretty much the same as arguing to me, but you can take your semantics W if you wish. Quote
WhiteWonder Posted July 4 Posted July 4 4 minutes ago, TimHauck said: I didn’t. But very odd that you seem to care so much about whether or not I used quotes around words that I acknowledged you wrote. Why would that be odd? You quoted me in order to make a point but cut off the quote mid sentence… who wouldn’t find that odd? Quote
WhiteWonder Posted July 4 Posted July 4 Just now, TimHauck said: Yes technically you were agreeing with someone else’s argument. That’s pretty much the same as arguing to me, but you can take your semantics W if you wish. You spent really long time on that post with all the various quotes of people I’d never even read before so I’ll let you have an emotional W. You need it Quote
TimHauck Posted July 4 Posted July 4 1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said: Why would that be odd? You quoted me in order to make a point but cut off the quote mid sentence… who wouldn’t find that odd? I also included the words “back then,” just not in quotation marks. It did not change the context at all, so it’s odd you keep complaining about it. Happy 4th. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 4 Posted July 4 1 hour ago, WhiteWonder said: You spent really long time on that post with all the various quotes of people I’d never even read before so I’ll let you have an emotional W. You need it You replied with a to a post you’d never read? Odd. Quote
WhiteWonder Posted July 5 Posted July 5 On 7/3/2026 at 7:01 AM, TimHauck said: I get you’re saying “times have changed,” but I also find it amusing how you point out that your family “did it the correct way,” but the “correct way” then (before about 1924) was basically just showing up on a boat then you’re a citizen in a few hours, with ~98% of people getting approved. If it was more difficult to do it “the correct way” back then then there likely would have been a lot more people who would not have done it “the correct way.” you intentionally left out the rest of my sentence about my family and then went on to talk about how back then it wasn't as difficult. you love playing word games to fit your agenda in a topic or a post. 2 hours ago, TimHauck said: I also included the words “back then,” just not in quotation marks. It did not change the context at all, so it’s odd you keep complaining about it. Happy 4th. not to sound too much like you and be a stickler but using quotes at all means you wanted to directly reference me. So yes, leaving back then out of the quotes is odd and makes it seem obvious that you were talking about the general term back then. you were literally saying how you found it amusing that I had been talking about changing times but also talked about how my family did it. Leaving out my words "back then" allowed you to act as if I was contradicting myself. HTH 2 hours ago, TimHauck said: You replied with a to a post you’d never read? Odd. We know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit... I said you quoted a bunch of posts I never read. Did you not quote like 7 posts including a bunch that seem to be a direct back and forth between strike and the girlfriend? I did not read those. The only one I had even read or replied to was with the again, HTH Quote
dogcows Posted July 5 Posted July 5 The good news is that a majority of Justices still know how to read the plain text of the Constitution. The bad news is that 4 of them don’t. Clarence literally wrote 91 pages trying to come up with reasons why the words don’t mean what they actually say. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 5 Posted July 5 32 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said: you intentionally left out the rest of my sentence about my family and then went on to talk about how back then it wasn't as difficult. you love playing word games to fit your agenda in a topic or a post. not to sound too much like you and be a stickler but using quotes at all means you wanted to directly reference me. So yes, leaving back then out of the quotes is odd and makes it seem obvious that you were talking about the general term back then. you were literally saying how you found it amusing that I had been talking about changing times but also talked about how my family did it. Leaving out my words "back then" allowed you to act as if I was contradicting myself. HTH We know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit... I said you quoted a bunch of posts I never read. Did you not quote like 7 posts including a bunch that seem to be a direct back and forth between strike and the girlfriend? I did not read those. The only one I had even read or replied to was with the again, HTH I wasn’t trying to imply you were contradicting yourself. I was simply saying that “back then” (I used the quotes this time…happy?) it was pretty easy to come here legally, relatively speaking. So it’s not really an apples to apples comparison to essentially say (and yes I know this isn’t a direct quote) “my family did it the right way at the time so everyone now should do it the right way too.” And I’m not excusing people coming here illegally, just pointing out that it’s more difficult to do it legally now than it was then. The post you replied to with the also included the below quote from the poster that @Horseman / @JuneJuly / @jose m (banned) / @rogerdodger (banned) was replying to. @Strike likes to complain that I don’t use enough quotes to provide the full context, and I guess now you’re complaining that I included too many. Can’t win with you righties I guess. The text says "All persons," not "all former slaves." To say it was only about slavery ignores teh explicit text of the constitution and the recorded intent of the people who wrote it. Why don’t you clear it up…do you agree with the following statement? ”the 14th amendment was meant for freed slaves” ? Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 5 Posted July 5 Just now, TimHauck said: I wasn’t trying to imply you were contradicting yourself. I was simply saying that “back then” (I used the quotes this time…happy?) it was pretty easy to come here legally, relatively speaking. So it’s not really an apples to apples comparison to essentially say (and yes I know this isn’t a direct quote) “my family did it the right way at the time so everyone now should do it the right way too.” And I’m not excusing people coming here illegally, just pointing out that it’s more difficult to do it legally now than it was then. The quote you replied with the also included the below quote from the poster that @Horseman / @JuneJuly / @jose m (banned) / @rogerdodger (banned) was replying to. @Strike likes to complain that I don’t use enough quotes to provide the full context, and I guess now you’re complaining that I included too many. Can’t win with you righties I guess. The text says "All persons," not "all former slaves." To say it was only about slavery ignores teh explicit text of the constitution and the recorded intent of the people who wrote it. Why don’t you clear it up for us, do you agree with the following statement? ”the 14th amendment was meant for freed slaves” ? I didn’t read any of your horseshit there, saw your name and just wanted to remind everyone that you walked around the earth as an (alleged) grown man believing that football helmets were made of medal. Get an alias numbnuts. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 5 Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: I didn’t read any of your horseshit there, saw your name and just wanted to remind everyone that you walked around the earth as an (alleged) grown man believing that football helmets were made of medal. Get an alias numbnuts. You believed a made up story about a trailer of bibles being burned. And still refuse to admit you got duped. Get an alias. Quote
WhiteWonder Posted July 5 Posted July 5 20 minutes ago, TimHauck said: I wasn’t trying to imply you were contradicting yourself. I was simply saying that “back then” (I used the quotes this time…happy?) it was pretty easy to come here legally, relatively speaking. So it’s not really an apples to apples comparison to essentially say (and yes I know this isn’t a direct quote) “my family did it the right way at the time so everyone now should do it the right way too.” And I’m not excusing people coming here illegally, just pointing out that it’s more difficult to do it legally now than it was then. The post you replied to with the also included the below quote from the poster that @Horseman / @JuneJuly / @jose m (banned) / @rogerdodger (banned) was replying to. @Strike likes to complain that I don’t use enough quotes to provide the full context, and I guess now you’re complaining that I included too many. Can’t win with you righties I guess. The text says "All persons," not "all former slaves." To say it was only about slavery ignores teh explicit text of the constitution and the recorded intent of the people who wrote it. Why don’t you clear it up…do you agree with the following statement? ”the 14th amendment was meant for freed slaves” ? All I said was you put a lot of time into your reply, quoting a bunch of posts, most of which were a convo between two totally different posters. So I wasn’t really seeing the relevance. and you’re still not understanding my point regarding your choice to quote “my family did it the right way” rather than “my family did it the right way back then”. imo it’s very important context when you’re attempting to say you find it comical that I’m talking about our changing world but also talking about how my family did it. You were clearly implying that it was a contradiction on my end. Any rational thinker would have understood I was prefacing the comment to show that, yeah, they did it the right way but it was a totally different time period. You were trying to manufacture a gotcha that didn’t exist. And that’s why I really shouldn’t be wasting time with someone like you. Thankfully the DD is picking us up in 20. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 5 Posted July 5 7 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said: All I said was you put a lot of time into your reply, quoting a bunch of posts, most of which were a convo between two totally different posters. So I wasn’t really seeing the relevance. and you’re still not understanding my point regarding your choice to quote “my family did it the right way” rather than “my family did it the right way back then”. imo it’s very important context when you’re attempting to say you find it comical that I’m talking about our changing world but also talking about how my family did it. You were clearly implying that it was a contradiction on my end. Any rational thinker would have understood I was prefacing the comment to show that, yeah, they did it the right way but it was a totally different time period. You were trying to manufacture a gotcha that didn’t exist. And that’s why I really shouldn’t be wasting time with someone like you. Thankfully the DD is picking us up in 20. I used the words “back then” in my reply, they just weren’t in the quotation marks. I also included your comment about “times have changed.” I was still including the context. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 5 Posted July 5 29 minutes ago, TimHauck said: You believed a made up story about a trailer of bibles being burned. And still refuse to admit you got duped. Get an alias. Huh? Anyway, What kind of medal did you think the football helmets were made of? Quote
Strike Posted July 5 Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Huh? Anyway, What kind of medal did you think the football helmets were made of? Dude, it's metal, not medal. This is the 2nd time. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 5 Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Huh? Anyway, What kind of medal did you think the football helmets were made of? You fell for a conman claiming a trailer of bibles got burned in front of his church. Medal Quote
Strike Posted July 5 Posted July 5 Just now, TimHauck said: You fell for a conman claiming a trailer of bibles got burned in front of his church. Medal You're making fun of him? He's not the one who literally thought football helmets are made of metal. FFS. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 5 Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, Strike said: Dude, it's metal, not medal. This is the 2nd time. It’s a typo. Chill Quote
Strike Posted July 5 Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said: It’s a typo. Chill The first time is a typo. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 5 Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Strike said: The first time is a typo. You have issues. Whatever. Quote
Strike Posted July 5 Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: You have issues. Whatever. ROFLMAO. You're making fun of someone's mistake and, in doing so, making your own mistake not once but twice. You don't see the irony in that? Then you pretend it's just a typo when it clearly wasn't. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 5 Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Strike said: ROFLMAO. You're making fun of someone's mistake and, in doing so, making your own mistake not once but twice. You don't see the irony in that? Then you pretend it's just a typo when it clearly wasn't. You’re right. You don’t have issues. It’s all good. You win. Dooshbag Quote
Strike Posted July 5 Posted July 5 2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: You’re right. You don’t have issues. It’s all good. You win. Dooshbag Awwww. Did I hurt your feelings? Quote
TimHauck Posted July 5 Posted July 5 11 minutes ago, Strike said: The first time is a typo. You should do @Horseman / @JuneJuly / @rogerdodger (banned) / @jose m (banned) repeatedly writing “Isreal” next Quote
Strike Posted July 5 Posted July 5 Just now, TimHauck said: You should do @Horseman / @JuneJuly / @rogerdodger (banned) / @jose m (banned) repeatedly writing “Isreal” next You should look up the composition of football helmets. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 5 Posted July 5 12 minutes ago, Strike said: Awwww. Did I hurt your feelings? Really? Me, hurt feelings? Come on now. You know better. Quote
HellToupee Posted August 6 Posted August 6 hopefully this puts an end to the Chinese birth tourism but some judge will probably come to the rescue of the commies from China Section 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the President this authority, 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Very rarely used, probably one of the strongest laws in the entire federal code gives him this power." "That's not the only, but it's the main statutory authority that's being used in this order." "Birth tourism is by definition a fraud on the American system, on the American taxpayer, on the American visa." "If you're coming here, and again, your state of purpose is that you're a tourist, then by definition you are here to come for a few weeks, look what we have, engage in commerce and leave." "So if you're telling a officer, you're here as a tourist, but your true purpose and intent is to go to a baby mill, give birth, and try to mint an American citizen while you're here, then you're committing a fraud against the American government!" Quote
dogcows Posted August 7 Posted August 7 1 hour ago, HellToupee said: hopefully this puts an end to the Chinese birth tourism but some judge will probably come to the rescue of the commies from China Section 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the President this authority, 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Very rarely used, probably one of the strongest laws in the entire federal code gives him this power." "That's not the only, but it's the main statutory authority that's being used in this order." "Birth tourism is by definition a fraud on the American system, on the American taxpayer, on the American visa." "If you're coming here, and again, your state of purpose is that you're a tourist, then by definition you are here to come for a few weeks, look what we have, engage in commerce and leave." "So if you're telling a officer, you're here as a tourist, but your true purpose and intent is to go to a baby mill, give birth, and try to mint an American citizen while you're here, then you're committing a fraud against the American government!" This is a direct violation of the Constitution and the recent Supreme Court ruling. And MAGA is already cheering for yet another illegal series of actions from the president. MAGA openly admits wanting to overthrow the Constitution, and they have a sitting president actively doing all he can to make that happen. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted August 7 Posted August 7 Democrats want to get rid of the senate and dogcows is worried about the non existent constitutional rights of foreigners. Quote
dogcows Posted August 7 Posted August 7 38 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Democrats want to get rid of the senate and dogcows is worried about the non existent constitutional rights of foreigners. Somebody born in the USA is not a foreigner. It’s right there in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that words matter AGAIN as they have in the past. And your deflection attempt was weaker than this: Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted August 7 Posted August 7 Trumps executive order applies to tourists entering our country, not people born here. Nice work dogcows. Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted August 7 Posted August 7 3 hours ago, HellToupee said: Reminds me of the tariff loss where he just up and issued another EO. He’s a one trick pony. Quote
EternalShinyAndChrome Posted August 7 Posted August 7 1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: Reminds me of the tariff loss where he just up and issued another EO. He’s a one trick pony. The one trick pony that has you and the other leftist gals in a hysteria now for a decade? That doesn't sound like a one trick pony, that sounds like a Stallion putting all the mares in heat. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.