Total posts: 396
-->
@Mall
No I'm not trolling I'm serious. That can't be refuted or else I would of gotten a serious counter argument.
The. I definitely know 10 year olds smarter than you.
Not engaging with an uneducated adult putting for preposterous false equivalence analogies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
This was the question before SCOTUS:
Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
This case is irrelevant to Kamala Harris’ parents and her lack of citizenship for the bolded italicized reason.
Harris’ parents were NOT “lawful permanent residents of the United States.” They were foreigners visiting on VISAs at the time of her birth. Essentially “tourists” under the law. Her mother didn’t even apply to become a permanent legal resident until 1966 & wasn’t approved until 1968, four years AFTER Kamala’s birth.
Kamala is NOT a US Citizen. She has dual citizenship in India and Jamaica or can choose one over the other. But she is NOT a US Citizen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
You’re still wrong.
I already looked things up and verified what the anonymous person wrote. They are not wrong, you are.
You can’t take a present day layman definition of jurisdiction out of Webster’s and apply it in a legal context back to when the 14th was debated and formally passed.
You clearly have no conceptual idea of what legislative history research is and why the courts use it to understand what the writers of the law/statutory framework was as originally intended.
When we travel we are beholden to follow another country’s laws not because we are under their (political) jurisdiction, but guests of their sovereign nation that has every legal right to enforce their laws upon any visitor the same they would any illegal alien or their own citizens.
None of any of you contesting the content of the OP have proven said content wrong. I understand what was written because I took the responsibility of verifying it myself to see that under the framework in which the 14th was drafted, taking language from the Civil Rights Act referenced, in relationship to the 13th, and how/why the language was debated as it was before ratification whereas none of you do.
So if you want to come at me, best take the same responsibility I did and verify it for yourself before opening your big fat mouths of ignorance throwing up the same ignorance and corruption the left uses to pervert birthright citizenship upon those who have no right to it.
Good night. It’s 🛌 time where I’m at.
PS. I won’t engage anyone who doesn’t do or reflect that they have done a respectable amount of research as I have on the subject. Not going to entertain uneducated mouthy people who can’t act like an adult and speak to me like one with actual intelligence in the subject matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Random post on FB ≠ factually inaccurate information. Names of senators I cocked in the debates and ratification of the 14th are clearly mentioned. The details are easily verifiable. I’ve looked already and nothing this person wrote of is wrong. Nothing.
All you’re doing is regurgitating leftist demoKKKrsric talking. Points. If u actually looked behind those fallacious talking points and did a little legal research on point you’d see that which I posted from the anonymous source is 100% correct.
But no, like so many on the left you don’t want to exercise the muscle between your ears and just drink whatever koolaid of the day is being handed to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Thanks for demonstrating that single digit IQ you’re sporting there HB.
You clearly know nothing about legislative history behind an act/law, the debates that went on to define terms, intent and purpose to give them meaning in its application.
You’re not worth my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
For now though, no, jurisdiction does not mean political allegiance, it means you are subject to the laws of a certain jurisdiction.
No it does not. You clearly didn’t read the OP in its entirety.
The legislative history is clear, jurisdiction means political Allegiance.
Diplomatic immunity is a political courtesy and has nothing to do with all other persons subjected to the 14th jurisdiction (political allegiance) restrictions.
If my husband and I visit France as either tourists with passports or for work on VISAs, we are subject to their laws as they are a sovereign nation. But if I pop out a kid they’re not a France citizen no more than if the reverse happened here in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bingo. None of the DACA illegals are citizens either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Based on what I read/posted in the OP, that article and all others parroting the same are wrong.
They're just regurgitating the left's talking points about the 14th without doing the legal research to prove it.
What I read and posted addresses actual legislative history that is far more sound and logical than the lies from the left.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Thoughts?LOL, you guys need to get some new material.
Not a guy, so don't lump me in with others.
I know, how about "too old, cognitive decline"...no, that could backfire.A black woman is going to kick Trump 's lard ass....MAGA will just love that LOL.It's fucking poetic.
You clearly didn't read anything in the OP since you haven't responded to it on point.
You're just trolling, right! Why?
Why sideline my discussion that could be interesting for all to actually learn something important about our BOR and the 14th citizenship birthright section that has been so clearly misunderstood and abused by the left/demoKKKrats?
Created:
Posted in:
@IwantRooseveltagain,
You're the resident troll.
You're not worth my time.
Each of your comments will be ignored hence forth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
The "subject to its jurisdiction" clause of the 14th amendment was specifically carved out for the children of foreign diplomats.
No it is not.
Foreigners on VISAs, tourists, etc. were also included within that group of diplomats, etc.
Senator Jacob Howard explained the meaning of the #14th citizenship clause: that every person born w/in the limits of the US, & subject to the US' jurisdiction (political allegiance), is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the US. This, of course, does not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, ...
Try reading what the person wrote and make an actual effort to disprove the legal arguments within instead of spouting off with things you clearly neither understand or cherry picked in order to ignore the rest of it.
Her father was under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) of Jamaica.
Her mother was under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) of India.
Neither were under the jurisdiction (political allegiance) of the United States.
They were foreigners visiting the US on VISAs, therefore Kamala is NOT a US Citizen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>The "My Body, My Choice" is about the right to medical privacy and a woman's right to choose.So a woman can have the right to choose whether to get an abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy or is it going to be when the fetus has an X% chance of being viable (X being arbitrary)? There is nothing wrong with backing legal abortion until the moment of birth (this is my current position). Just own it if this is your position.
Convenient you left this part out of my statement: " It has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the 11th hour or 11th second abortions just before the fetus passes through the vaginal canal on the cusp of its outer edge towards birth."
You're also being very disingenuous here because you know full well that women do not get to make arbitrary decisions to abort right up to the 9th month or even the 11th hour. Late term abortions, while permissible only for medical emergencies, are restricted from willy nilly haphazard decisions. SCOTUS ruled on this and you should know this.
Your This or That scenario is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it, because your position is so weak you have to twist my words.
As I previously wrote, prior to RvW being invalidated, approximately 89-94% of ALL abortions were before 14 weeks with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions were at or after 22-24 weeks gestation.And less than 1.2% of the US population is transgender; if you forcibly relocate transgenders to Canada, then very few people would be effected, but it's still a bad policy even if it effects very few people.
WTF!?!
What do transgender people in America have to do with the price of tea in China where the abortion debate/discussion is concerned?
See, your position is weak so you have to deflect with pure nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
Saw this on Facebook and it makes a very compelling argument.
Kamala Harris is [not] a US Citizen. The #14th excludes foreigners even temporarily residing in the US & on Visas (education/work) from having birthed children declared US Citizens.The qualification clause of the #14th "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - it prevents diplomats, tourists, and (illegal) aliens alike. "Jurisdiction" refers to "political allegiance" of an individual & the jurisdiction a foreign government has over them.Just because tourists, illegal aliens, & those here on VISAs may be subject to answer to our laws (a crime, speeding ticket, etc.) doesn't place them under the political "jurisdiction" of the US. This language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act."a[ll] persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power" would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumball, a key figure in the adoption of the #14th, said that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US included "not owing allegiance to any other country".Children of foreign citizens temporarily resident in the US are - subject to [the] foreign power governing their parents' citizenship. Donald Harris was a Jamaican citizen. Shyamala Gopalan was an Indian citizen. Both were in the US on VISAs to attend UC.#KamalaHarris was born in 1964, both her parents were still in the US under VISAs. Her mother didn't even apply for permanent residency until 1966. She was not even issued her I-151 Perm Resident card until 4-10-68 per INS records.Senator Jacob Howard explained the meaning of the #14th citizenship clause: that every person born w/in the limits of the US, & subject to the US' jurisdiction (political allegiance), is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the US. This, of course, does not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States but will include every other class of persons. #KamalaHarris parents were foreigners for years b4 and after her birth.Bottom line, #KamalaHarris is NOT a United States Citizen as she was born to #foreigners / #aliens in the US on a VISA educational program, then a work program, and were not naturalized until several years AFTER Kamala's birth. Kamala is not qualified to become #POTUS
I did not write this; I am just cut n pasting it here for consideration for debate or discussion.
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>This is incorrect. A fetus has the best chance of surviving outside of the womb at the moment of birth. 22-24 weeks is arbitrary.Wrong.A 22 week old fetus has maybe an 80% chance of surviving outside the womb; a newborn baby has a 100% chance.
Hmmm...what's that old say, oh, wait, I got it.
No SHIT Sherlock!
What part of my identifying the intent and purpose of my comment being directly related to premature births did you not understand!?!
It's also precisely why abortions are heavily restricted at and after this timeframe.But if one consistently with abortion believed in, "my body, my choice", then they would favor legal abortion until the moment of birth (even if they personally would never get a late term abortion).
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for every woman on this planet.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about. The "My Body, My Choice" is about the right to medical privacy and a woman's right to choose. It has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the 11th hour or 11th second abortions just before the fetus passes through the vaginal canal on the cusp of its outer edge towards birth.
As I previously wrote, prior to RvW being invalidated, approximately 89-94% of ALL abortions were before 14 weeks with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions were at or after 22-24 weeks gestation. Clearly everyone believes in and strives to obtain abortions before 6 weeks, if not 14.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
-->@<<<Amber>>>Oh my gosh why isn't there just a conclusive answer to all of the country's most controversial issues.
Non sequitur. This makes NO sense in relation to my response to your OP query.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>Why that period of gestation? It's the best probability of survival outside of the womb for the fetus that's achieved fetal viability.This is incorrect. A fetus has the best chance of surviving outside of the womb at the moment of birth. 22-24 weeks is arbitrary.
Wrong.
Guess giving people the benefit of the doubt to read between the lines on what was said that 22-24 weeks is pertinent to premature births. It's also precisely why abortions are heavily restricted at and after this timeframe.
However, everyone (pregnant woman and doctors) does want a healthy birthed baby vs a premature birth because it is the best chance of survival since no further gestational development is needed/required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
"... abortion is killing babies."
Before the dictionaries were altered with ignorant convoluted definitions that have no association to the original term, the thousand plus years of understanding of the term "baby" was a born child, infant, a very young child
No "baby" is killed during an abortion.
Before Roe was invalidated, 89-94% of all abortions were performed before 14 weeks, majority of those before 6 weeks. No "baby" involved.
Less than 1.2% of all abortions were after 22-24 weeks.
As a woman, and a mother, I am all pro-choice up until 22-24 weeks.
Why that period of gestation? It's the best probability of survival outside of the womb for the fetus that's achieved fetal viability.
If you cannot decide by then, you have to go through with the pregnancy.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The function of sex, the inherit function of sex compares perfectly to the inherit functions of matches.
No, it doesn't.
Troll
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
-->@IwantRooseveltagainYou probably have a moron making excuses for your failures little man. It shows.
You go girl!
PS. IWantRoseveltAgain is the resident troll. So, engage at your own choosing.
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
-->@IwantRooseveltagainLol, tiny American men have large mouths and tiny brains.
And a smaller penis too! LOL!!!
Created:
I don’t think even with parental permission it should be legal. After 18, do whatever you want.
Agreed. Too many parents have been going down the Munchausen by proxy syndrome rabbit hole when it comes to their children. Just look what the mother of Jazz Jennings did to him. He really didn’t think he was a girl when he was a boy. Now his life is screwed until the day he dies.
And as of late school teachers and administrators are being given more rights than the children’s own parents; and a few states already have it codified into law where kids can be taken away from their parents if their parents don’t agree with their transition, put into group homes or foster homes that will further that Munchausen by proxy via the state.
Disgusting world we live in.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Comparing the social-psychological and physiological nature of human sexual relations to the mere act of lighting (playing with) matches is NOT a legitimate comparison. It is a piss poor analogy with zero merit. No “demonstration” needed to debunk it. It’s a crystal clear apples to oranges (false equivalence) argument.
Period.
Created:
-->
@Mall
NO!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You're unblocked.
You're on probation.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Doubling down on a stupid false comparison is pretty sad and shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part.
Created:
-->
@Democant
Nobody can tell whats fake anymore
Yeah, you can, because the TRUTH always comes out. ALWAYS!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@420-1776
Created:
-->
@420-1776
Old fake incredibly DEBUNKED news.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Consented sex is consented pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy is irrelevant.
If you don't want children, don't have sex. Plain and simple.
That is NOT how the psychology and physiology of human relationships work.
Two consenting adults can engage in relations with the proper protections and worry less about the possibility of a pregnancy.
Aside from vaginal penetration, women can engage in anal penetration if they are that worried about it. Not to mention oral sex.
But you simply cannot demand let alone force human beings not to be engaged sexually with one another merely because of the possibility of a pregnancy.
FFS, even the ancient Egyptians figured this out and created one of the first versions of a condom.
It's just like playing with matches. If you don't want to get burned, it's nothing to play with.
Non sequitur fallacy.
The problem is, people misuse sex. So we have all this issue.
Please clarify this and how it applies to the title & your premise.
Unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy.
Argument from irrelevance ad nauseum.
Stop making a game between yourselves out of lying down.
Word salad.
These are matches you playing with. The responsibility is not running from the consequences.
1. Poor grammar.
2. Clarify responsibility and consequences.
Take the responsibility not to engage. Just like with the use of alcohol. Drinking games and whatnot. So we have all these DUIs and vehicular homicides.
Again, another argument from irrelevance and non sequitur arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Odd to watch???
It was a simple well predicted shit show!!
Only a 2yo couldn't have seen that coming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Not watching the debate, that's for sure.
I waited for the pundits' review(s), and none of what they showed/discussed was of any surprise to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
This so-called "debate" website is so dead its beyond the crypt.
Created:
Posted in:
Abortion doesn't kill/murder a child
One has to be born to be recognized as a human being, a person, a child, a teenager, an adult.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no such thing as 'white supremacy.'
That term was created to replace the bankrupt 'race card.'
Created:
-->
@Benedicta
-->@<<<Amber>>>Gosh, how long ago was this almost a month? Hadn't had much time to care anyway
Then why the hell did you even register/sign up here?
If you do not "care anyway," then go pound sand.
for an adult you are pretty narrow minded.
Says the child who cannot refute anything I rebutted you with in my previous reply.
You got nothing. Go away.
Please do us both a favor and actually read the law before you quote it. Anyway,how,very you been? Tried reading a book for once?
Practice what you preach with all that ridiculous sophomoric psychological projection.
I read the law, I know the law, you do not. Obviously.
I also read a lot. I wager I have read more than 100 books than you have.
Go away, child.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Wow, you really don't have a clue.Perhaps you could look up the words "Freedom" and "Choice" in a dictionary.Paraphrasing Voltaire: I may not agree with your decision, but I will defend your right to decide.You want to control people, I want to let them have the freedom to decide despite how I feel about what their decision is.I'm sorry you don't get it.Now, even though it's incredibly stupid, you are free to repeat your stupid statement again, even though I think it's stupid.
Well said!!!! **clap clap**
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let me ask some diagnostic questions:If people could reproduce with artificial wombs "freeing" them to mutilate the hell out of their genitals and still be able to reproduce, would you have no objection?
Yes.
Such bat shit craziness doesn't need to be passed on to children to suffer that mental illness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>They go against natureSo do automobiles. Who cares?
Fallacious comparison.
are unstable and unpredictableSo is the NVDA's stock. Who cares?
Fallacious comparison.
influence impressionable young minds to do sick and twisted things to their bodies with HRT and Gender Affirming surgeriesThere is a doctor requirement to get your dick cut off at an early age and if the doctors and parents and the kid agree to do it, then it's parental rights. HRT is reversable and a logical extension of liberty and small government and free market capitalism.
Munchausen Syndrome =/= parental rights.
HRT is NOT reversable. JFC, you are really ignorant of this subject and the permanent damage it causes to children and young adults, and adults as well.
HRT has nothing to do with liberty, small government and/or a free-market capitalist state. HRT is being used and abused at the expense of human lives.
They invade safe spaces of children and adults who are disgusted by themAnd what do they do? Read books to the kids? I mean, there was this GOP politician that have called teen girls ripe and fertile and worthy to marry. That's got to be more grooming than reading a book to kids in some weird makeup. This doesn't mean we hate all GOP politicians because one of them is a pedo.
Rape children in school bathrooms.
Violently attack and seriously maim other students.
Go on mass shooting sprees in schools.
Cause serious bodily harm in sports.
The list is long.
Comparing what I said to GOP politicians is asinine and fallacious.
threats of punishment if we don't bend over and take it by all the mad hatter Ts.What punishment and what do you mean by, "bend over and take it all"?
Wow. I am removing you from my friends list. Why even send one? You are too undereducated for my tastes. Bye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@<<<Amber>>>L G B are not hated, just the T. But I wouldn't use the term hate as it really is a misnomer here. T are just despised (scorned).Why despise the T?They go against natureSaid the guy smashing buttons made out of polymerized hydrocarbons pumped from the depths of the earth to communicate with light and electricity over thousands of kilometers.
I'm not a guy.
There are only three realms of "nature":1.) The sterile world, life is unnatural to that world and does unnatural things such as collecting and using energy against the flow of entropy2.) The world of natural selection, a cruel world where mothers eat their own babies and parasitised creatures die in slow agony for the advantage of others. Philosophy and civilization is unnatural to that world.3.) The world of the sapient mind, self-aware thought, ethics, metaphysics, ethics, religion, and civilization.Each arose from the world prior and broke the rules of the more basic world.We transcend evolution. We decide what is right and wrong.
Neither of those are/is the "nature" I spoke of. I would have expected someone as intelligent as you to know/understand I meant human nature. What Mother Nature (or for the religious, God) intended for humanity and its proliferation (evolution, survival) - i.e., reproduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>L G B are not hated, just the T. But I wouldn't use the term hate as it really is a misnomer here. T are just despised (scorned).Why despise the T?
They go against nature, are unstable and unpredictable, influence impressionable young minds to do sick and twisted things to their bodies with HRT and Gender Affirming surgeries. They invade safe spaces of children and adults who are disgusted by them, and automatically go into evasion mode but the normal people will never escape them since the left and democrats are hellbent on forcing tolerance through public scorn, rule of law, and threats of punishment if we don't bend over and take it by all the mad hatter Ts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Why are the LGBT hated?
L G B are not hated, just the T. But I wouldn't use the term hate as it really is a misnomer here. T are just despised (scorned).
Why are there judgments made on the haters as well as non haters?
Emotive retorts vs Logical (rational) retorts, respectively.
Finally, how can we extinguish the hate?
You can no more "extinguish" hate than you can racism, stereotypes, generalizations, et al.
Do we copy the method of them pushing to extinguish the LGBT and reverse it, extinguishing them instead?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Mall
-->@<<<Amber>>>Transgenderism also can fit in with the supporting choice which would be supporting abortion/homosexuality.Choice/preference, whatever.
Your OP to now demonstrates you simply do not know what you are talking about. I'm done. Not wasting any more time on this nonsense with you.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Being Pro choice is being pro abortion/homosexuality.-->@<<<Amber>>>Well simply put so anyone can see there is actually no leap but a connected train of movement.
No, there is not. It's a fallacy to compare abortion to sexual preference. That's like trying to fit a square through a round hole, doesn't work. Cannot work and it will never work.
Can you support abortion without supporting the choice of it?
Sure. It is a medical procedure that should be just as available as removing a benign cyst from somewhere on or from within the body. It's tantamount to an elective surgery and if someone wants to alter the body with their own money, they have that right to do so through 'personal liberty.' Then there are the medical necessities like a dead fetus that would be stillborn that could harm or kill the pregnant woman, severely diseased fetus, ectopic pregnancy, etc. Moreover, it has been proven that abortion has reduced crime since it became legal via Roe v Wade.
Then there is the obvious: population control. We already have over 90M unwanted/orphaned children across the planet and add to that the increasing homelessness rate among children and families in increasing.
Abortion is a necessary evolutionary component of humanity surviving let alone the planet being able to sustain humanity with a sufficient amount of resources.
Being that you choose non reproductive use of (sic) reproductive capacity (abortion), that equates to a choice in homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
Still a leap off the cliff and fall to your death with that unsubstantiated assertion.
Homosexuals get surrogates and use at least one gamete between the couple in order to reproduce.
There is just no logic to this nonsensical claim (without clarification that I asked for, and you've still failed to provide) of yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Premise 1: Abortion should be legal at least if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life.
How anyone can argue otherwise to this premise is beyond all reasonable and rational logic.
A girl/woman who becomes pregnant has more moral value and societal worth as an actual human being than a potential (not guaranteed healthy - downs syndrome, etc. - non-productive) human being does.
Premise 2: Every single pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life (even if the risk of death is .0001%).
Agreed.
Conclusion 1: Because every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life, abortion should be unconditionally legal all the way until the moment of birth.
Agreed.
Please tell me where my logic is wrong if you disagree with my conclusion.
It's not. It's common sense.
But alas, most here lack that very requisite element of humanity. As evidenced by some of the responses thus far.
Created:
Moozer325,
@<<<Amber>>>I only reply to you so that I may not seem like a coward and a hypocrite. I am not blocking you because I cannot think of a way to argue against your points, it is because you refuse to have a civilized debate with me,
I am having a civil debate with you. If you think my stern and direct commentary is "offensive," you've earned the official 'snowflake' award. Not only that, but you will be blocking a lot more people/users here.
and I cannot abide by that.
Boo hoo!
I am open to a respectful disagreement, but not repeated, unprovoked attacks on my charter. (sic)
I have not attacked your character. I only observe and call you out for your demeanor, attitude, behavior, and lack of knowledge on the subjects you attempt to discuss. I do not know you personally, so it is impossible to attack your "charter," err...character.
You call me the immature child when you refuse to have any common decency,
Another term you do not comprehend.
you say I have no manners when I have been only defending myself,
Never said you have "no" manners, maybe lack them, but you are not absent of them. Again, lack of attention to detail (reading comprehension) on your part.
and you insult my honor,
LOL!!! You do not even know/understand the meaning of the term.
My husband served in the military, he has honor, you do not.
my intelligence,
You insult yourself by your lack of it on full display for all to see.
and morals in an attempt to inflate your own sense of self worth.(sic)
I don't need to demonize you for my own self-worth, I know what I am worth and what I and my family has contributed to humanity. You are a child. You have not denied it. You speak like one. You argued like one. Your lack of reading comprehension is indicative on one. So on and so forth. You have a lot to learn, little one.
If you can act like the adult that we both are, then we may continue a civil conversation, but until then, I refuse to have anything to do with you. Have a nice life.
I am an adult, you are not.
My life is very nice, thank you, but clearly yours is not.
Don't let the proverbial chicken shit door hit you on your way out with you exist stage left. Child.
Created: