It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PUBLIC HILLARY vs PRIVATE HILLARY - She Does Not Care if Supporters Know This...Wow.

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships
Yes. You can start reading here, to follow the conversation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Bob and weave, its not just a haircut, apparently.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


It's OK to chase squirrels, Phage. Burns calories, while increasing cardiovascular fitness.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Please show where in the Constitution it is mandated that the federal government maintain a restricted border. Please show where borders are mentioned.

You wouldn't want to be interpreting the Constitution now, would you?

Here's something to ponder; were African slave legal immigrants? Did they fill out the required documents?

edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

See SCOTUS ruling refusal to rehear Obama request on major immigration.
www.reuters.com...

Millions at risk of deportation....

Hint: what is the difference between immigration and invasion.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Phage


It's OK to chase squirrels, Phage. Burns calories, while increasing cardiovascular fitness.

It's cute, too.




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Hint: what is the difference between immigration and invasion.
Some see no difference, obviously.

Like I said, I am not in favor of open borders.

The claim was made that the Constitution demands restricted borders. It does not.
If you are claiming otherwise, support your position.
If not keep ...chasing squirrels.


edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

Hint: what is the difference between immigration and invasion.
Some see no difference, obviously.

Like I said, I am not in favor of open borders.

The claim was made that the Constitution demands restricted borders. It does not.
If you are claiming otherwise, support your position.
If not keep ...chasing squirrels.


Not true
Words twisted to suit your failed position.

Open borders are contrary to our constitution, could be called treason, but so could her problem with top secret info. No new revelation about her intentions.

Hillarys "dream" of eu style open borders is contrary to our constitution.
Article 4 section 4 as I indicated earlier.

But you retell it as you see fit.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Article 4 section 4 as I indicated earlier.
But you retell it as you see fit.


On the contrary, I cite it as it is.
You interpret it as you wish.

Those slaves? Illegal immigrants.
Chinese rail workers. Did they have green cards?
When exactly, did Constitution take effect?

As you interpret it?

edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Like I said, I am not in favor of open borders.

The claim was made that the Constitution demands restricted borders. It does not.
If you are claiming otherwise, support your position.
If not keep ...chasing squirrels.



Laws on record do restrict, and limit immigration,
Therefore it is the Feds obligation to enforce these laws
within the confines of the States.

Your use of "constitution demands" is just word games.
I'll leave you to your pretzel business.






edit on 12-10-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Laws on record do restrict, and limit immigration,
Yes they do. And it's a good thing, I think.


Your use of "constitution demands" is just word games.
The claim is that the Constitution requires restricted borders. It does not.

Here's one to ponder, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the people have a role in electing the President.


edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

Hint: what is the difference between immigration and invasion.
Some see no difference, obviously.

Like I said, I am not in favor of open borders.

The claim was made that the Constitution demands restricted borders. It does not.
If you are claiming otherwise, support your position.
If not keep ...chasing squirrels.



I know you agree with borders, so this isn't really important, but I guess just for funsies;

I think although the word borders may not be used, they are implied. every country in the world up into the time of the constitution had borders (to my knowledge) and so it was so common there would be no reason to specifically mention it.

So when the constitution is talking about protecting from invasions, it is implying that means we have the right to protect people we don't want from entering our borders.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




So when the constitution is talking about protecting from invasions, it is implying that means we have the right to protect people we don't want from entering our borders.

You are interpreting, right?
I don't think "people we don't want" means invasion. That may be taken to mean something else.

edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I sited the constitution
You sited your opinion


Cause you know you opinion is important and stuff



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



I sited the constitution

Yes. No mention of borders. No mention of walls.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




So when the constitution is talking about protecting from invasions, it is implying that means we have the right to protect people we don't want from entering our borders.

You are interpreting, right?
I don't think "people we don't want" means invasion. That may be taken to mean something else.


Fair point. So we are back where we started, how do you define invasion.

Lets try the dictionary. Invasion


1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun:
the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
infringement by intrusion.


www.dictionary.com...

So one through three would not deal with something like illegal immigrants, but four arguably would.

I tend to lean to the founders implied that we could enforce the border, and have the right to decide who is allowed in or out. So I would guess that they would have used the term invasion to mean something close to infringement by intrusion.

However, this is just my interpretation


edit on 12-10-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Another interpretation, which is not actually an interpretation;
There is no prohibition of laws regarding border security. That's the way the Constitution works.

While such laws may be constitutional, the Constitution does not mandate them.



edit on 10/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No mention of any legal statues or ruling to back your opinion

Ramble on rambler



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen



I think she firmly believes her followers will believe anything she says.

She's delusional, right?


"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."





See, that's only one guy that gets shot and it might just be a flesh wound.

Essentially she is shooting everyone of her supporters dead.







posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

No mention of any legal statues or ruling to back your opinion

Ramble on rambler


You are the one who claims the Constitution mandates restricted borders. It's up to you to demonstrate it. You have not done so. But if you can show me a decision which does, I'm all ears.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join