Otherwise you might as well be Good and Pretti.

#1 | POSTED BY CORKY

Honestly? Might as well!

I'd be proud to go out that way.

Defending all that is right and good defending others and defending the US Constitution and being a hero to real Americans and being an example of how to stand against tyranny.

No. I will not comply.

"Trump has policies?"

Revenge and Retribution.

Racists are just gonna be racists.

Trumpy is one of those kind of (racist) guys that when they hear a foreign language being spoken around them immediately assume bad things are being said about him personally.

I dunno.

Seems like he has done a great job for the millionaires and billionaires and in manipulating the markets so he and his Epstein butt buddy's can add a few billion extra dollars to their stock portfolios to tide them over during upcoming the lean democratic years.

Remember now or let me remind you... When democrats regain power (and you and all the billionaires know they will) Congress will have to actually balance budgets because deficits will suddenly matter again.

a sign that says, "Send me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to have dinner in my home?"

Come to think of it. Why hasn't Trumpy sent his goons to take down that sign off the Statue of Liberty ("The New Colossus") yet?

And shouldn't the Statue of Liberty be renamed? The Statue of America for Only White Americans or something?

Just saying ... best get on it Trumpers!

"Can I enter your house without your permission?"

Did I leave a light on?

Do I leave my doors and wide windows open with dinner on the table and a sign that says, "Send me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to have dinner in my home?"

...

There are no absolutes except taxes and death.

#215 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

The speed of light is an absolute. It has an absolute limit. Nothing can exceed the speed of light. Absolutely Nothing.

Physics.

Re 214

That does not include the Americans who have been killed by ICE.

As of yet no ICE agent has been held accountable for the killing of American Citizens.

But I don't think that ICE is on a mission to kill non-citizens.
#198 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Does your brain hurt from all that stinkin thinkin?

ICE (under Trumpy) has killed more immigrants than in the last 20 years.

As of early 2026, reports indicated 53 people died in ICE or CBP custody in the preceding 12-month period.

Based on 2025-2026 data, 2025 was the deadliest year in two decades for people in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, with at least 32 deaths recorded, and December 2025 marking the highest monthly total.

Why is that a problem?

#203 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Again. The Problem is HOW it is done.

Breaking the law to enforce the law is the problem.

Broken immigration laws are also the problem.

Power and corruption are also the problem.

Lying to the American People is also the problem.

Are you opposed to people who are in the US illegally?
#186 | Posted by madbomber

I am opposed to treating any humans as vicious animals that do not act like vicious animals.

I am opposed to NOT helping them become legal.

I am opposed to NOT reforming our immigration laws to give them clear safe legal paths to citizenship.

I am opposed to breaking the law and violating the civil rights of anyone (or everyone) in order to enforce the law.

How is deportation from a country you're not a citizen of a deprivation of liberty?

#176 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Spoken like a Good German.

This is not just any country. This is America. (Or was)

Deportation constitutes a deprivation of liberty by forcibly removing an individual from their established life, separating them from family, and restricting their freedom of movement. It involves potential physical detention, coercion, and loss of the right to choose where to live, often violating due process rights.

In Real America Real Americans believe we all humankind have these inalienable rights.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, (with a fourth inherent right being the people's power to alter or abolish a destructive government).

We believe those rights should be defended for everyone everywhere but especially here in America.

Next!

"I would hope not."

You can hope for justice in one hand and crap in the other and I will guarantee which will get filled up first.

Especially in Trumplandia.

I wasn't there. But there certainly wasn't a constitutional limitation on black people voting.

What a cop out. You can't read? You didn't have to be there to know the truth of what has happened. And who said there was a constitutional limitation on voting?

The problem was with the racists who controlled the levers of power in the states and who wanted slavery to continue. And the constitution did not specify they couldn't be hateful racists.

It was a racist ideology that required numerous amendments to defeat and numerous laws to protect the rights that we had already declared to be self evident.

These rights were not and are still not self evident some. Apparently.

But it is a fallacy to say that the founding fathers didn't want black people to vote. Had that been their position, they could have easily included language in the constitution.

#143 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

No they could not have. Getting the Constitution ratified at all was a minor miracle. Probably a major miracle.

It wasn't called The Three-fifths "Compromise" for nothing.

So...what in the US constitution, then or now, prevented black people from voting?

#141 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What are you talking about?

The problem was not what was IN the US constitution. The problem was what was NOT in the original. Which was one of the reasons we had to have a Bill of Rights. To account for things we could not get into the original agreement.

The problem was and will always be the People. And power. Because Power corrupts people.

While the Constitution established a framework for government, the Anti-Federalists feared it lacked specific protections for individual citizens, leading to a demand for a formal list of rights.

So someone like you in the future could not say it was allowed in their State because it's not in the constitution.

Should a court of law be required for any breach of law?

Seriously?

Is that person being deprived of life, liberty, or property?

Then the answer is in the Constitution. Try reading it.

No person shall.. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"States control voting."

As they should.

When the country was established, at least some states allowed black people to vote. It was those who did not own property, regardless of color, that were not allowed to vote.

Sometimes they did sometimes they didn't. Depending on who was in charge and had control of the levers of power at the time. Sometimes you got to vote sometimes they changed the rules and you lost that right or they said you could vote but made it too difficult to actually vote (literacy tests or my favorite guessing how many jelly beans were in a jar) . Once again showing your selective understanding of American history.

While the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote in 1920, true universal suffrage in the United States was not fully realized until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This legislation removed discriminatory barriers like literacy tests, which had previously disenfranchised many minority women and men, particularly in the South.

"Who determines if a law was broken?"
The written law.
#101 | Posted by boaz

The written law determines nothing. It is just words on a page.

A court of law with a judge is what determines if a written law has been broken.

My question to you is why do you support the federal government continuing to violate the law?

As of late January 2026, a chief federal judge in Minnesota reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated 96 court orders in 74 cases within that month alone. These violations, primarily in habeas corpus cases, were described by the judge as exceeding the number of violations by some federal agencies in their entire existence.

But its sad to see you would still fail the final exam.

POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Madbummer fails the final exam on American History and it's even an OPEN BOOK TEST!!

Did he mean America the country, or the hemisphere?

#12 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

If he meant the hemisphere why would that matter to you. You are not even from this hemisphere.

Anyway.. this hemisphere includes the U.S.

Have I told you to GFY today?

No?

GFY Commie Spyboy.

It's the United States of America, after all. Not the State of America

#116 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It is currently the Divided States of Trumplandia.

Maybe we will be the United States of America again someday.

But not today. Probably not for 3 more years at least.

Women? No. Black People? Yes.
#121 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

? WTF is wrong with you? Are you that ignorant of history or are you just a liar?

So hard to tell these days.

Black men technically gained the right to vote with the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870.

However, widespread disenfranchisement meant this right was not fully realized until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which eliminated discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes for all Black people.

Thank you for the opportunity to teach you about American History and the Constitution. But its sad to see you would still fail the final exam.

I'm sure that's what the found fathers had in mind when they created the electoral college. How to keep ------ down.

#115 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Actually that's one of the reasons it was created.

The system was largely influenced by the 3/5 Compromise. Southern states, which had large slave populations that could not vote, feared a direct election would favor the North. The Electoral College allowed them to count enslaved people toward their total electoral power.

It was a compromise in order to have a constitution.

It's often called the "poison pill" whose only cure was a civil war.

The more you know.. the less maga you can honestly be.

"But as i understand it a Colombian who shows up at "Passport Control is not yet in America."

Indeed they are. No different than anyone else who has entered the United States and been stopped for not have the valid credentials required to remain in the country.

No, they are not, a person is not officially in the United States upon simply reaching passport control; they are in a legal intermediary zone. One has officially entered the U.S. only after being cleared by both immigration (passport control) and customs officers, and exiting the arrivals hall.

Again. I am not a lawyer (and obviously you aren't.)

Wouldn't it make sense to hire "judges" that only focused on immigration?

#104 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You want us to explain to you why this administration does not make any sense?

lol