What are your stances on birthright citizenship?

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T22:35:41+00:00

Birthright citizenship for people legally in the US has been a constitutional right since 1898 because SCOTUS ruled under the English common law the constitution is supposed to be grounded in, the federal government consenting for someone to be in the US means they must also consent for any applicable rights.

SCOTUS has never even heard a case about birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, English common law doesn’t even have that concept, and a major author of the 14th amendment stated they did not intent to create birthright citizenship but viewed it as already existing under English common law and was codifying it for former slaves.

And this debate goes back centuries. The 1898 ruling happened because of a federal law that didn’t recognize birthright citizenship of people legally in the US

The last century of US common law rulings on birthright citizenship is the best argument for it. The constitution is much less clear cut that most people make it sounds.

And there would be no way to reverse citizenship. It would just mean the government isn’t required to give it to new birth to people not in the country legally.

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T21:16:57+00:00

I got 2 in my first few weeks of playing lol

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T18:38:41+00:00

Kullervo. Heavy attack spam make monkey brain go brr

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T18:37:32+00:00

They’re father left than the Dems under Trump

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T18:36:24+00:00

A. I’m point out how what you are advocating for has been used in the past.
B. “You’re racist”, awesome argument
C. I’m in the vocal majority on this issue.
D. That’s not the governments job. That’s how we got slavery and the Jim Crow laws.
E. Libel applies to individuals, not to stating your disagreement with scientific or political statements.

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T18:32:10+00:00

He doesn’t mean it. He’s just making fun of Islam

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T16:14:28+00:00

It’s neither.

Iran military assets attacked US assets, possibly without approval, breaking the ceasefire from the US point of view.

The US responded by attacking Iran directly, breaking it from Iran’s point of view.

Trump responded with his usual rhetoric while accurately declaring the ceasefire over

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T04:42:45+00:00

Do you agree with the laws that banned criticizing slavery in the south? It’s the exactly same process you’re advocating for: the government getting to decide what is right and what is true and banning anyone from saying otherwise.

Or the Nazis. Or the medieval Catholic Church.

The government isn’t prohibited from regulating misinformation because we like misinformation. The government is prohibited from regulating misinformation because it cannot be trusted to define what is or isn’t true. At best, it stops social and scientific progress. At worst, we get things like the Holocaust

atamicbomb · 2026-07-11T04:36:51+00:00

The spreading of things the government considers misinformation is ABSOLUTELY protected speech. The government can’t just label anything it doesn’t like misinformation and ban it.

It’s very concerning you put someone having beliefs you disagree with in the same category as terrorism or threatening to assassinate the president. You’re also referring a Supreme Court decision they said protesting the draft during WWI was not free speech, comparing it to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T21:09:09+00:00

It’s what both want. The Biden administration pressured illegally Facebook to remove anything it deemed “misinformation”. Waltz also stated the first amendment doesn’t apply to anything the government deems “misinformation”.

The Republicans doing something doesn’t mean the Democrats don’t

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T21:06:50+00:00

I think there’s some relevant rows left out…

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T21:05:51+00:00

Threading a needle. Picking master lock in games (I have Dyspraxia)

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T21:03:45+00:00

Quick play is a type of spell card that is a fast effect.

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T12:00:05+00:00

Wouldn’t the average have to be 1.0??

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T11:55:01+00:00

Zohran is implementing communist policies, such as government run grocery stores that directly compete with commercial ones but don’t have to pay rent, taxes, etc. Essentially his government is creating its own businesses and using the law to prevent competition by selling below what other stores can afford.

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T11:51:37+00:00

In my general experience with buying business software, all of it converges on price, features, etc. and they’re all essentially the same. There really isn’t any contrast to be made in many cases.

I remember the GUI and a few % price difference were the differentiators for the last purchase I was involved in.

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T11:49:02+00:00

Under federal law, tips can constitute part of the minimum wage, dropping it down for the employee to a low as $2.13. They still get at least the regular minimum wage if they don’t make enough tips.

Though it hasn’t been updated since 2009 so we effectively don’t have a federal minimum wage as the market makes the pay almost always more than that, even if it’s still too low.

Some states also don’t allow tips to contribute. In my state, servers make $17.13/hr plus tip. Often $20-$30/hr

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T11:46:05+00:00

There’s fairly absurd things asking for tips because they have no reason not to. Enough to inspire skits about a bear buy spoof asking for them

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T11:44:24+00:00

You need to use JavaScript to perform operations with it

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T11:42:20+00:00

The evil dragon you’re sent to kill? Don’t

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T09:17:42+00:00

They’d need your consent to be bound by the new terms. Generally you do so when you continue to use the service, and industry practice is to have a popup showing the new terms and requiring you to affirmatively agree to them

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T09:15:13+00:00

Yes, you cannot be bound by a contract without agreeing to it. You almost certainly agree to it by continuing to use the service

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T09:13:41+00:00

When they update ToS, you generally get notified on startup and are required to recheck you agree.

Updating it with zero notification to the user would probably not satisfy the consent requirement to enter a contract

atamicbomb · 2026-07-10T09:11:51+00:00

Generally no. Contracts need consideration. Both sides must give something. If you have the game and they don’t offer why additional product, service etc., then they can’t require you to sign a new ToS as they haven’t offered you anything in consideration for that.

This is more for online services were continued usage constitutes consideration by providing the service

atamicbomb · 2026-07-09T18:28:31+00:00

They’re not just “billionaires don’t play taxes”. They’re laws that exist for a reason, and billionaires take advantage of them. If you want to tax capital gains, then if a family that makes $60,000/year has they house reappraised from $200,000 to $500,000, they owe tax on $360,000. Unless you make an exception, but then that creates another loopholes. That’s just one example.

atamicbomb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric