Can we talk about the 14th amendment?

>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, unless said citizens belong to a demographic group which disproportionately commits violent crime
What did he mean by this?

Niggers aren't citizens, they are barely human.

If you believe that, then go get the constitution amended to reflect that.

Not my personal belief. What have niggers invented, or contributed to society as a whole? AIDS and mudhuts? They are less than dirt, modern crime statistics elaborate on why this is the case. They bite the hand that feeds them, the money we've spent on these welfare cases could have launched us to another planet by now.
Send them back to Africa if they are so ungrateful, which they are. Another cop shooting just happened, in case you haven't heard.

Okay.

If you believe that the laws should be changed, the people who set up their country gave you the tools to do that.

You amend the constitution to remove the racial protections in the 14th Amendment, and then you can pass racial laws again.

I expected a little more intellect out of a white American, but there's a bottom to every bell curve.

But it was ratified with the explicit purpose of applying to the former slaves.

Do you honestly believe that, when put to a vote, what I have said will pass? When the vote is extended to Marxist women and nu-male faggots (as well as minorities who will vote against you every single time, see black vote in literally any election past the '70's), do you really think what I say is likely to occur?
Of course not! The nation is lost, they will continue to vote for Sodomites and the lowest common denominator. McCarthy was right.

Niggers are slaves to their inferior intellect and likelihood to stoop to crime.

>tfw Veeky Forums is now /pol/
The only redeeming quality of /pol/ is that it is creating a lot of cannon fodder for future revolutions. Can't wait to see groups of /pol/sters getting rekt. The next mass graves will be filled with dirty /pol/lacks.

If you don't believe in democracy, you're literally less American then a gay communist Muslim Jew.

/pol/ is a board of peace :^)

jej, keep letting in niggers and see how far your democracy will get you. All of the traditional institutions will be abolished in the name of progress, ya dummy. Sodomites voting if they can fuck kids, just like that Salon article. S-slippery slopes, right? Forefathers never saw the 60%, my man.

>All of the traditional institutions will be abolished in the name of progress
Nothing wrong with that. Holding onto tradition for no reason other than it being tradition is the epitome of degeneracy.

>Sodomites voting if they can fuck kids
You don't seem to understand how voting works. Even if all the "Sodomites" vote to fuck kids (which isn't even plausible, sodomy includes sexual perversions other than pedophilia), what percent of the population do they make up? 20%? 30%? And if that's what the majority of the people want, who are we to forbid it? Indeed, the only real problem I see here is that kids are unable to vote, so have no means to protect themselves from that sort of thing. The problem therefore is insufficient democracy, not too much democracy.

>Holding onto tradition for no reason other than it being tradition is the epitome of degeneracy.
I don't know, something about the institution of marriage being extended to those who do not fulfil the principle marriage is based upon, or betraying your cultural values because of le current year is bad, not just for the sake of tradition.

On the second point, you are right, they are not the majority, but the judges who passed down the ruling were not fags, neither were those voting for most of the policies. Most of it is virtue-signaling or under the guise of equality(TM).
>who are we to forbid it?
jej, I am demigender panwhatever, who are you to judge? I want to anally penetrate a man and steal a child, who are you to judge? Moral relativism is cancer and you should be ashamed :^)

the 14th amendment was never legitimately ratified

it doesnt exist

>who do not fulfil the principle marriage is based upon
The only reasonable "principle" behind LEGAL marriage is to promote reproduction. I'd be okay with banning gay marriage if hetero marriages between those unwilling or unable to reproduce are banned as well.

> I want to anally penetrate a man and steal a child, who are you to judge?
The opinions of the man and child are FAR more relevant than my own views.

On the first point, I am in complete agreement with you.

By your logic, what you say is irrelevant, it is the man's choice to do so, and children are easily influenced. Who are you to judge? Cis-het shitlords, right?

Ugh

Ugh

Ugh

I am telling you, moral relativism is a cancer, it is the prerequisite for cancer.

This is not about moral relativism. It's about the government not taking a moral stance on people's private lives.

>Implying /pol/acks won't be cozy in command bunkers fighting the meme war against Chinese Soros shills in the name of God-Emperor Trump