Bronut

@7oh7_ @magicmitts @CBSSportsGolazo Tell me you suck off RM for breakfast every day without telling me you suck off RM for breakfast every day

@BR0NUT @magicmitts @CBSSportsGolazo Tell me you have the IQ of room temperature with out telling me you do

Bernardo Silva sees red for a handball on the line. Vini Jr. converts the penalty. Real are heading to the quarterfinals 👀

@magicmitts @CBSSportsGolazo They did but UEFA sucks RM off for breakfast every day

@CBSSportsGolazo I thought they called offside before this play!?? I’m lost

@GavinNewsom Shut up, twat

The corrupt and repressive Iranian regime must never have nuclear weapons. The leadership of Iran must go. But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people. President Trump is putting Americans at risk abroad because he is unpopular at home.

@ProfessorPape This is the most surface-level, braindead take I’ve read all week.

Regime change in Iran is a much harder task than the Forever Wars— 6 times larger than Iraq, double the size of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. At 92 million people, over twice California’s population. Pres Trump should explain what he’s really thinking…

@mistergeezy Go ahead, try justifying “super delegates.” I’ll wait.

Hillary has always been right about this loser.

@JoyousReligion @MosabHasanYOSEF 👌🏻

@MosabHasanYOSEF Because Iran is a real nation with millennia of history, culture, language, and national identity. The countries you mentioned are artificial constructs, post-colonial entities. Bombing them wasn’t going to make them into a nation. You Arabs are so dumb.

We bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, failed every damn time. No democracy, no change, just blood and chaos. So what makes you so sure Iran’s gonna be different? Drop the moronic regime-change wet dream, it’s way beyond your capacity. Just dismantle the bomb. And don’t burn the house while you’re trying to catch the rat— especially not for some crown-wearing clowns who think American destroyers take orders from their couch selfies.

I’ll never understand how Lamine Yamal could calculate the wait of the ball so perfectly,setting his leg just on the last line to prevent the ball out of play before the nutmeg on Giuliano Simeone. 1000 IQ play 🧠, made in La Masia 🔥

@TheWhiskyDaddy @LewSpears Chill out, you can eat all the bushmeat you want my guy, nobody’s stopping you!

There is not a single Australian here that has any desire to purchase beef from any other country on Earth, least of all from America.

@here_lulz @etheriatic @esjesjesj You people are straight up retarded

@etheriatic @brolipoli @esjesjesj Exactly. And also depending on their age, immigrating here legally could juat mean showing up on a boat at a port and being processed. There weren't exactly visas and proper paperwork back in the day

It rocks that they immediately called the supreme court’s bluff and just put everyone on a class action

@etheriatic @here_lulz @esjesjesj What deceit? You people are just retarded. Not one of my ancestors obtained US citizenship through “birthright.” They were each either a foreigner who came here LEGALLY and was naturalized LEGALLY, or they were a natural born citizen (born a citizen because born to a citizen).

@here_lulz @brolipoli @esjesjesj Amazing how he didn’t reply to this. Shows how purposefully deceitful he’s being.

@ViralManager @lilbrudder2 @MichaelAlleged @esjesjesj You’re actually retarded

If you think that can be reinterpreted, I highly recommend taking an Intro to Logics class. or actually let me ask o4 Here’s a stripped-down logical rendering of the key clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: 1.Define your predicates over all persons x: •B(x): “x was born in the United States” •N(x): “x has been naturalized” •C(x): “x is a citizen of the United States” 2.The text says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States …” which in predicate logic is ∀x [ (B(x) ∨ N(x)) → C(x) ]. – “For every person x, if x was born here or x was naturalized, then x is a U.S. citizen.” ⸻ Common mis-reading (the “only if” fallacy) Some people slip from the above one-way implication (B ∨ N) → C to the (invalid) converse C → (B ∨ N) i.e. “If you’re a citizen, then you must have been born or naturalized here.” That’s an affirming the consequent fallacy: from P → Q and Q you cannot infer P. ⸻ Could we rewrite it as a biconditional? If you did restate it as ∀x [ C(x) ↔ (B(x) ∨ N(x)) ], you’d be claiming two things: 1.Everyone born or naturalized is a citizen (the original). 2.And no one else is a citizen.  That extra bit (2) isn’t in the Amendment’s text. In practice, Section 1 doesn’t spell out that there are no other paths to citizenship (children born abroad to citizen parents, for instance, derive citizen status under federal statute, not by this clause). So inserting the “↔” would change the meaning: you’d be closing off any future or statutory methods of acquiring citizenship beyond birth-or-naturalization. ⸻ What does that mean? •Original (“→”)  ✅ Protects anyone who is born or naturalized in the U.S., guaranteeing their citizenship. •Biconditional (“↔”)  ❌ Would forbid Congress from ever defining any other class of citizens (e.g. derivative citizenship by parentage abroad), because it says “if and only if.” ⸻ Bottom line •The plain text gives you ∀x\,(B(x) ∨ N(x)) → C(x), not ∀x\;C(x) ↔ (B(x) ∨ N(x)). •Reading it as the latter adds an un-stated restriction and commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

@here_lulz @esjesjesj Not through birthright citizenship

@brolipoli @esjesjesj How'd your ancestors get their citizenship you fucking moron

@PaulStuffins @MichaelAlleged @86onions @esjesjesj Nope

@brolipoli @MichaelAlleged @86onions @esjesjesj It quite literally is what the 14th Amendment says!

@PaulStuffins @MichaelAlleged @86onions @esjesjesj That’s not what the 14th Amendment says.

@brolipoli @MichaelAlleged @86onions @esjesjesj If they overrule United States v. Wong Kim Ark, then they are going against the plain wording of the Constitution with says ANYBODY born in the United States is a citizen of the United States

@BadCatLoki @buc1080 @Dmac_1125 @loporium @esjesjesj How long was slavery legal for until it wasn’t anymore? Have patience.

@brolipoli @buc1080 @Dmac_1125 @loporium @esjesjesj lol, it’s been the law of the land since the amendment was written, every challenge against it has died in court, and the theory you morons are positing is less than 30 years old born out of heritage society bullshit. Stop with your “it’s ambiguous.” Over 100 years say it isn’t

@PaulStuffins @MichaelAlleged @86onions @esjesjesj SCOTUS overrules itself all the time.

@brolipoli @MichaelAlleged @86onions @esjesjesj They already have, and they ruled that EVERYONE born in America is an American Citizen!

@PaulStuffins @esjesjesj There’s a large body of scholarly work on this. Don’t be lazy, at least understand the counter argument to your position. ChatGPT it or whatever.

@brolipoli @esjesjesj So tell me your interpretation of jurisdiction then!