# Trump would be correct to assert a national emergency in order to build the wall



## K9Buck

American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents. 

However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


----------



## candycorn

There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.

Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?


----------



## TNHarley

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?


Are you referring to obamacare? You know, lying and manipulating to control 20 of our eceonomy? You know, the bullshit that had to be ruled a TAX to be constitutional. Abuse like that? Or are you referring to an actual power of the federal govt like border protection?
You disingenuous retard


----------



## candycorn

TNHarley said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to obamacare? You know, lying and manipulating to control 20 of our eceonomy? You know, the bullshit that had to be ruled a TAX to be constitutional. Abuse like that? Or are you referring to an actual power of the federal govt like border protection?
> You disingenuous retard
Click to expand...


It may be news to you but its too late to impeach Obama.  I know it bugs you that a black guy was your president but you missed your chance.  

Declaring a national emergency, taking funds away from programs that were voted on by Congress, etc....  those are abuses of power.  When the impeachment train gets going (if the report of the OIC confirms what we all already know), Abuse of power is an impeachable offense.  

Stay tuned.


----------



## TNHarley

candycorn said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to obamacare? You know, lying and manipulating to control 20 of our eceonomy? You know, the bullshit that had to be ruled a TAX to be constitutional. Abuse like that? Or are you referring to an actual power of the federal govt like border protection?
> You disingenuous retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may be news to you but its too late to impeach Obama.  I know it bugs you that a black guy was your president but you missed your chance.
> 
> Declaring a national emergency, taking funds away from programs that were voted on by Congress, etc....  those are abuses of power.  When the impeachment train gets going (if the report of the OIC confirms what we all already know), Abuse of power is an impeachable offense.
> 
> Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out why you are disingenuous.
What does his skin color matter? You racist?
So, if national emergencies cost money, its an abuse of power?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?


If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
Click to expand...


Your presupposition is flawed.  More than half of the American population invites foreigners to come here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?



That is a point the right cannot accept.  Mexico and California say that improper entries are declining, not rising.  So, both states have ordered the withdrawal of troops.  

When the wall worshipers begin to fail with their arguments, they start another thread.  I'm going to finish up on the thread Is building a wall wrong?  My posts will save those who are serious about this the trouble of reading 100 threads like this one.


----------



## Likkmee

Porter Rockwell said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point the right cannot accept.  Mexico and California say that improper entries are declining, not rising.  So, both states have ordered the withdrawal of troops.
> 
> When the wall worshipers begin to fail with their arguments, they start another thread.  I'm going to finish up on the thread Is building a wall wrong?  My posts will save those who are serious about this the trouble of reading 100 threads like this one.
Click to expand...


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Porter Rockwell said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your presupposition is flawed.  More than half of the American population invites foreigners to come here.
Click to expand...

So you admit democrats want open borders? Thanks for the honesty. Most democrats deny that.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


Trump can create an imaginary national emergency but his evidence will not hold up in court

Was healthcare a national emergency?
Could have passed Obamacare that way


----------



## K9Buck

Liberals don't consider 23 million illegals (and counting) to be any problem whatsoever.   The wall needs to be built.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sawyerloggingon said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your presupposition is flawed.  More than half of the American population invites foreigners to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit democrats want open borders? Thanks for the honesty. Most democrats deny that.
Click to expand...


Are you being flippant or ignorant?  I have voted Republican all my voting life (beginning with Ronald Reagan.)  In addition, I have been an activist, having to separate the B.S. from the truth.  It's time those on the right who obsess with the wall got their heads out of their asses.  So, let's get this straight for once:

Small business owners vote for Republicans and Tea Party Republicans *44* percent of the time compared to small business owners voting for Democrats only *22* percent of the time and Independents make up *29 *percent of the time.

Which Political Party Do Small-Business Owners Identify With the Most?

Also check this link:

The 30 Fortune 500 companies that have thrown the most money at Republicans and Democrats in the last decade

The build a wall / militarized border was and is an idea* first* endorsed by Democrats.  Democrats, becoming the party of the outright communist conned the Republicans - especially Tea Party Republicans into being useful idiots (as communists call them) and allow the build the wall guys to do their dirty work and pretending to be concerned about the little brown people from across the border.

As a result, the border wall guys want to beat their own fellow Republicans down by advocating socialist solutions.  For example, the build the wall guys want to penalize private employers for hiring the employee of their choice.    Instead of doing multiple threads about this you should see this:

Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

See posts # 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603, and 4605


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
Click to expand...


I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.  

We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Liberals don't consider 23 million illegals (and counting) to be any problem whatsoever.   The wall needs to be built.



Outright insanity.  You're being played like a fiddle.


The Dems jumped off the bandwagon to watch the Republicans erect a wall and usher in the NEW WORLD ORDER.  Those Clintonistas pretending to be Republicans and shit-canning the Constitution in the process are either useful idiots or traitors.  The wall is strictly a socialist solution and its costs in terms of Freedom and Liberty make it a NO GO for any true patriot.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.



We covered all of this in the following:

Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

See posts 4572, 4581, 4585, 4597, 4603, and 4605


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
Click to expand...

It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.


----------



## rightwinger

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
Click to expand...

Now I am afraid

All these people coming to mow our lawns, make our beds and build Trumps golf courses

Has there ever been a bigger emergency?


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
Click to expand...


Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?


----------



## Likkmee

I fully agree. Those fucking Canadians cross the border and clean out all of the Harbor Freight of OUR Chinese tools leaving the border barren !


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
Click to expand...

Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.


----------



## Rambunctious

*Latest Polls*
Dem Primary Polls | GOP Primary Polls | General Election Polls | Generic Ballot | State of Union Polls | All Election Polls

*Monday, February 11
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)* *Poll* *Results* *Spread*
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 52, Disapprove 47 Approve +5


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
Click to expand...

Are you asking that of a native American Indian?


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Liberals don't consider 23 million illegals (and counting) to be any problem whatsoever.   The wall needs to be built.


Your number is made up and we already have walls and fences.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
Click to expand...

Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you asking that of a native American Indian?
Click to expand...

I'll bet they wished they turned the pilgrims back after they saw what happened. We can learn from their mistakes


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
Click to expand...

The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

More than a wall, we need Americans with guns at the border willing to shoot and not go wobbly.


----------



## Vandalshandle

There was a Latino walking down my street this morning. This a clear cut emergency, and something must be done immediately, before he rapes somebody!


----------



## Vandalshandle

K9Buck said:


> Liberals don't consider 23 million illegals (and counting) to be any problem whatsoever.   The wall needs to be built.



Are you sure it isn't 60 million?


----------



## rightwinger

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
Click to expand...

Neither was an emergency


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> There was a Latino walking down my street this morning. This a clear cut emergency, and something must be done immediately, before he rapes somebody!



I was at a hotel and the maids were speaking Spanish

Clear grounds to declare a national emergency


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

All the Progs know they need illegal voters to keep their dreams of destroying the USA alive......

So of course they're willing to fight for open borders.   Their personal agendas always take precedence over National interests.

An "emergency" to the Progs wanting America to fall, WOULD BE THE WALL being built.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

rightwinger said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither was an emergency
Click to expand...

But global warming is?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Tipsycatlover said:


> More than a wall, we need Americans with guns at the border willing to shoot and not go wobbly.



I've got my bets on the Left doing that....because we know the Right doesn't have the yangs for it.  

Most of em find voting once every two years a bridge too far and a wall too high....so good luck


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
Click to expand...

The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.

Derelict of duty?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Faun said:


> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?



If it wasn't for outright lies, would you ever have anything to say?
What's frightening is that your ilk want to rule the land.


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


Trump and corporations like his are the ones victimizing us.  Wake the fuck up!  You're listening to a guy who hires illegals telling you we need a fucking wall?  Are you stupid as fuck?  You must be.

Republicans are so stupid.  A few months ago it was learned that Mollie Tibbetts killer worked at a Republican owned farm in Iowa.  Immediately the farm said it used E-Verify and USMB Republicans defended them and said they did what they could but the guy gave them fake id.  I called BULLSHIT and now it turns out I was right.


"What we learned in the last 24 hours is that our employee was not who he said he was," said Dane Lang, Co-owner and manager of Yarrabee Farms. "And, just within the last four hours, we have come to learn that the Social Security Administration's employment verification service is not the same as E-Verify."


Ah, so they lied.  I think you will find out that all these illegal employers are purposely accepting fake ID’s.  Any documentation will do for them.  So yea it’s easy for an illegal to get a job when illegal employers don’t give a fuck.

And then for years we’ve been telling you Republicans that Donald Trump himself hires illegals.  Well now that fact must be hurting him politically because he is finally starting to let those workers go.  This is what we need.  We need all the illegal employers in America to stop hiring illegal workers.  We need to punish them when they do.  Hell, even Donald Trump advocated for punishing illegal employers. 

Undocumented Workers Lose Their Jobs at Yet Another Trump Property


The Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., where multiple undocumented workers were fired after a New York Times investigation. Two other Trump properties have terminated undocumented workers since then.

Thank god for the New York Times!  Or is it fake news?


----------



## rightwinger

BasicHumanUnit said:


> All the Progs know they need illegal voters to keep their dreams of destroying the USA alive......
> 
> So of course they're willing to fight for open borders.   Their personal agendas always take precedence over National interests.
> 
> An "emergency" to the Progs wanting America to fall, WOULD BE THE WALL being built.


Illegals don’t vote
Try again


----------



## rightwinger

sawyerloggingon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither was an emergency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But global warming is?
Click to expand...

Actually it is moving past emergency


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Illegals don’t vote
> Try again


Illegals breaking the law?! Unheard of!


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
Click to expand...

Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.


----------



## Faun

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for outright lies, would you ever have anything to say?
> What's frightening is that your ilk want to rule the land.
Click to expand...

Oh? Where’s the lie...?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Meathead said:


> Illegals breaking the law?! Unheard of!



lol.  
Yeah, DumbDems like to convince themselves they're honorable, even as they wallow in the gutters of dishonesty and deception.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
Click to expand...

Actually, unemployment was the lowest under Obama’s terms. And while trump likes to boast about record minority unemployment lows, the reality is those figures weren’t much higher than record lows when trump became president. GDP averaged 2.1% per year following Bush’s Great Recession, which is about the same for Trump’s first and only year on the books.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

There are thousands of invaders at the border now with more on the way.  Their intention is to rush the border and overwhelm our defenses.  That's an emergency.


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals don’t vote
> Try again
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals breaking the law?! Unheard of!
Click to expand...

Illegals don’t vote ......they build Trump golf courses


----------



## rightwinger

Tipsycatlover said:


> There are thousands of invaders at the border now with more on the way.  Their intention is to rush the border and overwhelm our defenses.  That's an emergency.



They intend to rush the border, mow our lawns and build Trump golf courses


----------



## rightwinger

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
Click to expand...

Trump has been surfing the Obama economic tide


----------



## Faun

Poor, BasicHumanUnit. All he can do is boost my ratings with a ‘funny’ because he can’t articulate where I lied.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Isn't it funny how almost every Commie / Fascist Left-banger  in this thread uses the word "ILLEGAL" but acts as though ILLEGALS are great American citizens?
(better than you and me by a long shot don't ya know?)

I guess they love illegal.....anarchy....chaos....dictators and stuff.

Weird people huh?
Sooooooooooooooo telling of their flawed mentality


----------



## rightwinger

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Isn't it funny how almost every Commie / Fascist Left-banger  in this thread uses the word "ILLEGAL" but acts as though they are great American citizens?
> 
> I guess they love illegal.....anarchy....chaos....dictators and stuff.
> 
> Weird people huh?
> Sooooooooooooooo telling of their flawed mentality


Yes
Guilty of trespassing


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

rightwinger said:


> Yes
> Guilty of trespassing



There it is folks...they call *Breaking International Law*, bringing drugs across the border, weapons trafficking and the prostitution of MINORS, ("trespassing")   wow.  just wow.
Most Dems think this way.   And they might rule the country soon.   

Why don't you mozy on over to this greiving parents home and tell them what you told me?
You see, they lost their child to ILLEGAL immigrants (along with thousands of other Americans) just last year alone.
THOUSANDS more stories just like that in case you think it's rare.

Mother Of Son Killed By Illegal to Pelosi: Which One Of Your Children Is Expendable For An Illegal Life?

Of course, I'm sure you'd celebrate that news.  The only "good" American is a dead American, huh RW ?


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
Click to expand...


Really?  Interesting

So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?  

And he still has not done anything.


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
Click to expand...



A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.


----------



## Vandalshandle

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Isn't it funny how almost every Commie / Fascist Left-banger  in this thread uses the word "ILLEGAL" but acts as though ILLEGALS are great American citizens?
> (better than you and me by a long shot don't ya know?)
> 
> I guess they love illegal.....anarchy....chaos....dictators and stuff.
> 
> Weird people huh?
> Sooooooooooooooo telling of their flawed mentality



You know, being "commie/fascists' is kind of convenient. If there is another world war, we could fight ourselves, instead of involving anyone else...


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...


As soon as Mexico sends the money.


----------



## rightwinger

BasicHumanUnit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> Guilty of trespassing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is folks...they call *Breaking International Law*, bringing drugs across the border, weapons trafficking and the prostitution of MINORS, ("trespassing")   wow.  just wow.
> Most Dems think this way.   And they might rule the country soon.
> 
> Why don't you mozy on over to this greiving parents home and tell them what you told me?
> You see, they lost their child to ILLEGAL immigrants (along with thousands of other Americans) just last year alone.
> THOUSANDS more stories just like that in case you think it's rare.
> 
> Mother Of Son Killed By Illegal to Pelosi: Which One Of Your Children Is Expendable For An Illegal Life?
> 
> Of course, I'm sure you'd celebrate that news.  The only "good" American is a dead American, huh RW ?
Click to expand...

Smuggling drugs, weapons trafficking, prostitution of minors are all crimes of their own merit 

Crossing a border to save your family is the equivalent of trespassing


----------



## Vandalshandle

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
Click to expand...


OMG! He is going to declare that the USA is bankrupt, too?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, unemployment was the lowest under Obama’s terms. And while trump likes to boast about record minority unemployment lows, the reality is those figures weren’t much higher than record lows when trump became president. GDP averaged 2.1% per year following Bush’s Great Recession, which is about the same for Trump’s first and only year on the books.
Click to expand...

Obama was the first president since WW2 that never achieved an annual GDP of 3% and he had two terms to do so.That's his economic legacy.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

rightwinger said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has been surfing the Obama economic tide
Click to expand...

Actually the tide was going out on Obama and his last  full quarter GDP was down to 1.9%.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had people breaking into your house demanding to be a member of your family and demanding you feed them and provide a place to sleep and medical care would you call 911 or just say come on in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
Click to expand...

He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...

in the current budget he's only asking for sections of barriers that the border patrol has identified as stretches where they need these structures to help them do their job. He's not asking for "the fucking wall".


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
Click to expand...

Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
Click to expand...



No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.


----------



## K9Buck

Border arrests up 85% from same time last year.

Border arrests up 85 percent over same period last year: US Customs and Border Protection


----------



## Vandalshandle

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
Click to expand...


saw

Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...

If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...


No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Vandalshandle said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
Click to expand...

And only Congress can fund the wall.


----------



## Vandalshandle

sawyerloggingon said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
Click to expand...


A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
Click to expand...



The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
Click to expand...



Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.


----------



## Vandalshandle

sawyerloggingon said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...


No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Vandalshandle said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’d probably call 9/11.  I wouldn’t want someone to call it a national emergency.
> 
> We’ve had the same situation, more or less, since the 1960’s or so…and for the first 2 years of the blob’s reign….  At no point during that time did we ever have a national emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.
Click to expand...


Really?  Interesting.

So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an emergency now precisely because it has been going on so long. We are the frog in ever warming water that's reaching the boiling point and we have to immediately jump out or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting.
> 
> So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?
Click to expand...

He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.
Click to expand...


Earlier you said 

"He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.”

So…which is it; he couldn’t declare an emergency because you said he’s President and now you’re saying he can declare a national emergency?


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting.
> 
> So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.
Click to expand...


Which is my question….

If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.  
Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
He’s waited 2+ years.


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...


As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.


----------



## Vandalshandle

sawyerloggingon said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.
Click to expand...


That's fine. The democrats will then get an injunction, take him to court, and win. That works, too.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earlier you said
> 
> "He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.”
> 
> So…which is it; he couldn’t declare an emergency because you said he’s President and now you’re saying he can declare a national emergency?
Click to expand...

Never said he couldn't declare a national emergency and he probably will have to do just that which is constitutional not dictatorial.


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
Click to expand...


Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.

Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> 
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earlier you said
> 
> "He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.”
> 
> So…which is it; he couldn’t declare an emergency because you said he’s President and now you’re saying he can declare a national emergency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said he couldn't declare a national emergency and he probably will have to do just that which is constitutional not dictatorial.
Click to expand...


Earlier you said he couldn’t do it because he’s not a dictator.
Now you’re saying he can do it because it would be constitutional.

If it were an actual emergency, shouldn’t he have campaigned on it and did this on 1/20/2017?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting.
> 
> So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
Click to expand...

Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Vandalshandle said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine. The democrats will then get an injunction, take him to court, and win. That works, too.
Click to expand...

And then it goes to the Supremes where Trump wins.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.
> 
> Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.
Click to expand...

I realize democrats don't think it's an emergency but Trump does. Elections have consequences.


----------



## K9Buck

sawyerloggingon said:


> And then it goes to the Supremes where Trump wins.



With Chief Justice Roberts, I'm not so sure.  It seems that much of our nation's leadership, from the entire Democratic Party to much of the Republican Party, is unwilling to protect the American people.


----------



## Vandalshandle

sawyerloggingon said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> saw
> 
> Saw, only congress can close Gitmo.
> 
> 
> 
> And only Congress can fund the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not exactly. Trump can declare a national emergency to fund border barriers and he may have to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine. The democrats will then get an injunction, take him to court, and win. That works, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then it goes to the Supremes where Trump wins.
Click to expand...


Maybe Trump can argue before the Supreme Court that the walls saved El Paso. He can always hope that the democrats don't mention this:

"El Paso had a murder rate of less than half the national average in 2005, a year before the most recent expansion of its border fence. That's despite being just across the border from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, a city plagued by drug violence. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report shows that El Paso's annual number of reported violent crimes dropped from nearly 5,000 in 1995 to around 2,700 in 2016. But that corresponded with similar declines in violent crime nationwide and included periods when the city's crime rates increased year over year, despite new fencing and walls.


AP 2/11/19


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn’t trump declare an emergency 2 years ago? Was he derelict of duty?
> 
> 
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, unemployment was the lowest under Obama’s terms. And while trump likes to boast about record minority unemployment lows, the reality is those figures weren’t much higher than record lows when trump became president. GDP averaged 2.1% per year following Bush’s Great Recession, which is about the same for Trump’s first and only year on the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was the first president since WW2 that never achieved an annual GDP of 3% and he had two terms to do so.That's his economic legacy.
Click to expand...

Nope, Trump has also not achieved an annual GDP of 3% or more. And Bush had only two of his eight years breach 3% -- and that was due to the housing bubble. Thanks for attributing that to him.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really...So this became a national emergency under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...

Here ya go ... pony up!

Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> 
> 
> He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting.
> 
> So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
Click to expand...

Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump recognized what others ignored so in that sense yes it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here ya go ... pony up!
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
Click to expand...


I tried to contribute 100 pesos, but they replied, "Pesos? Pesos? We don't need no stinkin' Pesos!"


----------



## Fugazi

If it's a national emergency, declare a national emergency.  What does all this other bullshit have to do with it.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

rightwinger said:


> Smuggling drugs, weapons trafficking, prostitution of minors are all crimes of their own merit
> Crossing a border to save your family is the equivalent of trespassing



I guess no one told any of these folks (as much as you Dimocrats do) how dangerous America is.
Aren't you (and your fellow anti-Americans) the ones perpetually going on about all the gun violence and
all the fascists racist white people?

How is crossing a border into such a terrible and dangerous place relative to saving their family?
You encourage people to flock here saying it's for their "safety", simultaneously claiming America is one of the most dangerous places on earth due to gun ownership.

Which is bubba?  Can't be both.

HINT:  IT ISN'T and it just displays your hypocrisy and propensity to serve Bullshit relentlessly.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Faun said:


> Nope, Trump has also not achieved an annual GDP of 3% or more. And Bush had only two of his eight years breach 3% -- and that was due to the housing bubble. Thanks for attributing that to him.



Sorry Faux,
With all due respect.....(hmmmm)
But almost every post you make gives me a laugh......I think you really believe the crap you post


----------



## Faun

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Trump has also not achieved an annual GDP of 3% or more. And Bush had only two of his eight years breach 3% -- and that was due to the housing bubble. Thanks for attributing that to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Faux,
> With all due respect.....(hmmmm)
> But almost every post you make gives me a laugh......I think you really believe the crap you post
Click to expand...

And yet, you can't actually show where I lied about anything.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

K9Buck said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then it goes to the Supremes where Trump wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Chief Justice Roberts, I'm not so sure.  It seems that much of our nation's leadership, from the entire Democratic Party to much of the Republican Party, is unwilling to protect the American people.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a slam dunk but at this point may be irrelevant. Looks like dems are caving on this.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first emergency was the  economy. Now that is up and running and he can focus on the next emergency. Would have been nice if he could do everything at once but unfortunately in DC that's not realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was in good shape when Trump became president. So that’s not a legit excuse. Not to mention, it’s not like Trump could only focus on one or the other. He could have worked on both. And if this was truly an emergency, he should have formally declared it as such 2 years ago.
> 
> Derelict of duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economy was stagnant and was heading south as Obama economic policy took hold. Trump had to focus on that first and now he has the opportunity to get illegal immigration under control. He's a businessman and knows how to prioritize for optimum results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, unemployment was the lowest under Obama’s terms. And while trump likes to boast about record minority unemployment lows, the reality is those figures weren’t much higher than record lows when trump became president. GDP averaged 2.1% per year following Bush’s Great Recession, which is about the same for Trump’s first and only year on the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was the first president since WW2 that never achieved an annual GDP of 3% and he had two terms to do so.That's his economic legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Trump has also not achieved an annual GDP of 3% or more. And Bush had only two of his eight years breach 3% -- and that was due to the housing bubble. Thanks for attributing that to him.
Click to expand...

Obama had two terms and is the first post WW2 president to never achieve 3% annual GDP in a full term in office. Trump had two years left and was on the road to better than 3% GDP until the feds got spooked at how fast the economy was growing and started raising interest rates.
Obama's economic legacy is first president that failed to achieve 3% annual gdp.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's president not dictator and you do what you can when you can politically in a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting.
> 
> So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
Click to expand...

economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


He needs to shit or get off the terlit as far as I am concerned it is going on three years now and he has yet to do what is necessary.


----------



## Moonglow

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting.
> 
> So you’re saying he can’t declare an emergency?
> 
> 
> 
> He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
Click to expand...

So is Trump's last quarter and?


----------



## danielpalos

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.  Our welfare clause is general for the general welfare not the general warfare.


----------



## strollingbones

and there is still no reason that trump waited till he didnt have gop control of both house and senate...why is that?
if it was such an emergency why has he waited?


----------



## K9Buck

Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people.  Therefore, Trump must declare an emergency and build the all-important barriers.


----------



## rightwinger

BasicHumanUnit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smuggling drugs, weapons trafficking, prostitution of minors are all crimes of their own merit
> Crossing a border to save your family is the equivalent of trespassing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess no one told any of these folks (as much as you Dimocrats do) how dangerous America is.
> Aren't you (and your fellow anti-Americans) the ones perpetually going on about all the gun violence and
> all the fascists racist white people?
> 
> How is crossing a border into such a terrible and dangerous place relative to saving their family?
> You encourage people to flock here saying it's for their "safety", simultaneously claiming America is one of the most dangerous places on earth due to gun ownership.
> 
> Which is bubba?  Can't be both.
> 
> HINT:  IT ISN'T and it just displays your hypocrisy and propensity to serve Bullshit relentlessly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I tried
I really did

But your post was just too stupid to respond to


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Moonglow said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can but it's a last resort and it looks like he may have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
Click to expand...

*And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.


----------



## Moonglow

sawyerloggingon said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with a turndown in the economy last quarter?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Moonglow said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with a turndown in the economy last quarter?
Click to expand...

Feds were raising rates too often too fast and slowed the economy too much. Now they are backing off.


----------



## Moonglow

sawyerloggingon said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> 
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that have to do with a turndown in the economy last quarter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feds were raising rates too often too fast and slowed the economy too much. Now they are backing off.
Click to expand...

there has been no interest reductions.


----------



## rightwinger

sawyerloggingon said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my question….
> 
> If it was an “emergency”, he would have campaigned on it in 2015, 2016 and declared it on 1/20/2017.
> Emergencies are things that can’t wait.
> He’s waited 2+ years.
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
Click to expand...

But...but
Trump promised 4 percent GDP


----------



## danielpalos

K9Buck said:


> Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people.  Therefore, Trump must declare an emergency and build the all-important barriers.


Where in our federal Constitution is Congress delegated any power over immigration or wall building?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

rightwinger said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
Click to expand...

And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.


----------



## K9Buck

danielpalos said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people.  Therefore, Trump must declare an emergency and build the all-important barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in our federal Constitution is Congress delegated any power over immigration or wall building?
Click to expand...


I give up, where?


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger emergency was the economy. First things first. First you fix the leaking roof and then the rotting floor.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
Click to expand...

and a free wall...


----------



## danielpalos

K9Buck said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people.  Therefore, Trump must declare an emergency and build the all-important barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in our federal Constitution is Congress delegated any power over immigration or wall building?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give up, where?
Click to expand...

We have a general welfare clause and a commerce clause; why not come up with a fine and wonder and _capital_ solution instead of the national socialism of a static wall.


----------



## rightwinger

sawyerloggingon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> 
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
Click to expand...

Sadly, Trump will spend the next two years fighting off impeachment


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> 
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, Trump will spend the next two years fighting off impeachment
Click to expand...

and hair loss...


----------



## sawyerloggingon

rightwinger said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> 
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, Trump will spend the next two years fighting off impeachment
Click to expand...

Good. The more dems try to do that the higher trump goes up in polls.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?



You mean besides Watergate? Not even close. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

candycorn said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to obamacare? You know, lying and manipulating to control 20 of our eceonomy? You know, the bullshit that had to be ruled a TAX to be constitutional. Abuse like that? Or are you referring to an actual power of the federal govt like border protection?
> You disingenuous retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may be news to you but its too late to impeach Obama.  I know it bugs you that a black guy was your president but you missed your chance.
> 
> Declaring a national emergency, taking funds away from programs that were voted on by Congress, etc....  those are abuses of power.  When the impeachment train gets going (if the report of the OIC confirms what we all already know), Abuse of power is an impeachable offense.
> 
> Stay tuned.
Click to expand...


No collusion. He’ll get the money he needs, because it’s a drop of piss in a bucket compared to what is actually pissed away for foreign aid and illegals yearly. But Captain Cortez will assure you a bus pass for free. And unicorns and rainbows [emoji304]. Stay tuned. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

Likkmee said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point the right cannot accept.  Mexico and California say that improper entries are declining, not rising.  So, both states have ordered the withdrawal of troops.
> 
> When the wall worshipers begin to fail with their arguments, they start another thread.  I'm going to finish up on the thread Is building a wall wrong?  My posts will save those who are serious about this the trouble of reading 100 threads like this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can we electrify them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a point the right cannot accept.  Mexico and California say that improper entries are declining, not rising.  So, both states have ordered the withdrawal of troops.
> 
> When the wall worshipers begin to fail with their arguments, they start another thread.  I'm going to finish up on the thread Is building a wall wrong?  My posts will save those who are serious about this the trouble of reading 100 threads like this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we electrify them?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

a waste of money.  wingsuit textile manufacturing is cheaper in less developed economies.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the economy was fine. Besides, what law did Trump pass for the economy? And why couldn't Trump tackle a "national emergency" at the same time as keeping the economy trending upwards?
> 
> 
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> economy was "fine" if you think average 2%GDP  with mostly low wage part time jobs being created is fine. Trump dissolved Obama job killing executive orders, lowered corporate taxes, got us out of bad trade deals, said yes to coal and oil, got rid of Obama care mandate, took on China unfair trade polices got the oil pipeline built and in general created a business friendly  America from the ashes of Obama's socialism policies.
> By the way Obama's last full quarter GDP was trending down, way down.
> 
> 
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
Click to expand...

Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is Trump's last quarter and?
> 
> 
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
Click to expand...

So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
Click to expand...


Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately the Congress does.  Sorry.


----------



## rightwinger

National Emergencies

Healthcare
Global Warming
Education
Gun violence 


Democrats are going to have a ball if Trump declares a national emergency


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...

As soon as Mexico’s check clears


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
Click to expand...




YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.


Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And* Trump has two more years *and* feds stopped raising interest rates.
> 
> 
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
Click to expand...

a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.


----------



## Correll

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.
> 
> Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize democrats don't think it's an emergency but Trump does. Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...



And so do his supporters.


----------



## candycorn

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Interesting
> 
> So the fact of the matter is that the blob let this emergency fester for 2 years and one month before he did anything; right?
> 
> And he still has not done anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.
> 
> Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize democrats don't think it's an emergency but Trump does. Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...


If he does, why didn’t he declare one on 1/20/17?  Earlier you said he couldn’t because he’d be a dictator.  Why wouldn’t his declaration in 2019 not make him a dictator?


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...but
> Trump promised 4 percent GDP
> 
> 
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
Click to expand...

So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?

Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.

My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?


----------



## candycorn

Trump didn’t campaign on it being a national emergency and didn’t mention envoking the  national emergency powers until he lost the House.  Something doesn’t “become” an emergency...


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
Click to expand...


And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
Click to expand...

We already do. We just don't put Republican interests, which are not to be confused with American interests, first.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...

Fuck you. We're not rebuilding the wall.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.
> 
> Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize democrats don't think it's an emergency but Trump does. Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he does, why didn’t he declare one on 1/20/17?  Earlier you said he couldn’t because he’d be a dictator.  Why wouldn’t his declaration in 2019 not make him a dictator?
Click to expand...

Never said he couldnt declare an emergency in 2017. Your need to lie and distort is evidence of your defeat.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.
> 
> Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize democrats don't think it's an emergency but Trump does. Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he does, why didn’t he declare one on 1/20/17?  Earlier you said he couldn’t because he’d be a dictator.  Why wouldn’t his declaration in 2019 not make him a dictator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said he couldnt declare an emergency in 2017. Your need to lie and distort is evidence of your defeat.
Click to expand...

If it was an emergency then and he didn't declare it as such, he's derelict of duty.


----------



## Nosmo King

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


If Trump invoked his power to declare a National Emergency to alleviate the crisis he himself created, would anyone object when a Democrat president declared gun violence a National Emergency?  Climate change?  Income disparity?

Trump created the fear.  Trump traffics in division and suspicions.  And his supposed crisis is felt only by his fearful and suspicious supporters.  No crisis, no Emergency.

But if he wants to invoke this extraordinary action, the precedent he sets will open the door to following presidents for generations.


----------



## rightwinger

I would support building a wall

A big beautiful wall, the best wall that has ever been built

But we just can’t afford it. With $22 trillion in debt, it is too extravagant 
Maybe when Republicans pay off our debt, we can start talking about a wall


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
Click to expand...


Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:

pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he was on the road to precisely that which is what spooked the feds and made them start raising  rates fast and furious. Now they have backed off and things will get moving  again. Trump has two more years then four more.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
Click to expand...

Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.

*"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*

United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast


----------



## sawyerloggingon

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
Click to expand...

And my answer is dont hold your breath


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do. We just don't put Republican interests, which are not to be confused with American interests, first.
Click to expand...


Americans suffer a lower standard of living as a result of illegal immigration, not that you care.  Your loyalty is to your leftist masters in the Democratic Party.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do. We just don't put Republican interests, which are not to be confused with American interests, first.
Click to expand...

Many republicans dont want a wall either due to chamber of commerce money. This is for the people.


----------



## DGS49

Don't believe everything you read in the MSM. There are at least THIRTY MILLION people currently in this country illegally, and MOST of them came right across the border, in effect, "at night."  They didn't over-stay their visas or come in as students.  They snuck in.

In common usage, "emergency" refers to something that is urgent and acute Right Now, but the relevant statute does not read that way.  It is any situation or threat requiring timely action.

Our Exalted President would be well within his Constitutional and statutory powers to declare an "emergency" and proceed with reallocating funds from other worthless shit to this.


----------



## rightwinger

DGS49 said:


> Don't believe everything you read in the MSM. There are at least THIRTY MILLION people currently in this country illegally, and MOST of them came right across the border, in effect, "at night."  They didn't over-stay their visas or come in as students.  They snuck in.
> 
> In common usage, "emergency" refers to something that is urgent and acute Right Now, but the relevant statute does not read that way.  It is any situation or threat requiring timely action.
> 
> Our Exalted President would be well within his Constitutional and statutory powers to declare an "emergency" and proceed with reallocating funds from other worthless shit to this.


That is ten percent of the population


----------



## Vandalshandle

DGS49 said:


> Don't believe everything you read in the MSM. There are at least THIRTY MILLION people currently in this country illegally, and MOST of them came right across the border, in effect, "at night."  They didn't over-stay their visas or come in as students.  They snuck in.
> 
> In common usage, "emergency" refers to something that is urgent and acute Right Now, but the relevant statute does not read that way.  It is any situation or threat requiring timely action.
> 
> Our Exalted President would be well within his Constitutional and statutory powers to declare an "emergency" and proceed with reallocating funds from other worthless shit to this.



Oh, I know. They come up by my place in the Santa Cruz River valley all night long in single file. Can't even get to sleep at night because of the "Tramp, Tramp, tramp" of their boots all night long.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?


Obammy already abused his power with the IRS, FBI and the DOJ


----------



## rightwinger

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Obammy already abused his power with the IRS, FBI and the DOJ
Click to expand...

The Great Obama was scandal free


----------



## Faun

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
Click to expand...

Even Trump knows this...


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. By “fast and furious,” you really mean a 1.75 point increase over two years.... or one of the slowest increases in history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*
> 
> United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
Click to expand...

*”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*

No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.

*“Thats a huge increase.”*

No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And my answer is dont hold your breath
Click to expand...

Umm, it would have been in America’s best interesting lower the debt. When has either party done that? Don’t hold your breath for Republicans to put interests of Americans first either.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do. We just don't put Republican interests, which are not to be confused with American interests, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans suffer a lower standard of living as a result of illegal immigration, not that you care.  Your loyalty is to your leftist masters in the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Our standard of living is not hurt by illegal aliens. Did you clutch your pearl necklace as you fell back gently onto your fainting couch?


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do. We just don't put Republican interests, which are not to be confused with American interests, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many republicans dont want a wall either due to chamber of commerce money. This is for the people.
Click to expand...

Then let the people who want it, pay for it. Here ya go, pony up....

Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage


----------



## rightwinger

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> 
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my question is, when do Democrats put the interests of Americans first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do. We just don't put Republican interests, which are not to be confused with American interests, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many republicans dont want a wall either due to chamber of commerce money. This is for the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then let the people who want it, pay for it. Here ya go, pony up....
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
Click to expand...

Good point

Trump could put a box on all tax forms

“How much of your return do you want to go to build a wall between the US and Mexico?”

Bet it would be very popular


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twice as often in 2018 as in obamas eight years
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*
> 
> United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*
> 
> No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.
> 
> *“Thats a huge increase.”*
> 
> No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.
Click to expand...

After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.

"The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.

The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Still a historically slow increase. Do you have anything but whining for Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*
> 
> United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*
> 
> No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.
> 
> *“Thats a huge increase.”*
> 
> No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.
> 
> "The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.
> 
> The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*
Click to expand...

No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> a dramatic one year increase from eight years of near zero interest rates.
> 
> 
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*
> 
> United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*
> 
> No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.
> 
> *“Thats a huge increase.”*
> 
> No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.
> 
> "The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.
> 
> The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.
Click to expand...

Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.

"Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.

"I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "

Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? We suffered the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And in part, due to the federal fund rate. So what if they were gun shy about increasing the rate after the last debacle?
> 
> Still, it's gone up 1.75 points in 2 years under trump. A small increase. Especially by historical standards.
> 
> My question is ... when does the right stop whining every time something doesn't go trump's way?
> 
> 
> 
> Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*
> 
> United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*
> 
> No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.
> 
> *“Thats a huge increase.”*
> 
> No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.
> 
> "The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.
> 
> The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.
> 
> "Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.
> 
> "I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "
> 
> Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018
Click to expand...

Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”

They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”


----------



## rightwinger

33,000 gun deaths a year is a national emergency


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> 33,000 gun deaths a year is a national emergency


Muster the militia; we should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president. Thats a huge increase.
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve held the target range for the federal funds rate at 2.25-2.5 percent during its first policy meeting of 2019"*
> 
> United States Fed Funds Rate | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> 
> *”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*
> 
> No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.
> 
> *“Thats a huge increase.”*
> 
> No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.
> 
> "The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.
> 
> The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.
> 
> "Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.
> 
> "I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "
> 
> Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”
> 
> They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”
Click to expand...

People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *”Fed raised rates from 0.25 to 2.50 while trump was president.*
> 
> No, it didn’t. Your own link shows it was at 0.75 when he became president.
> 
> *“Thats a huge increase.”*
> 
> No, it’s not. It went up only 1.75 points in two years. I showed you the chart which indicated it went up 4 points in 2 years under Bush. It went up 3 points in 1 year under Clinton. It went up 12 points under Carter.
> 
> 
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.
> 
> "The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.
> 
> The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.
> 
> "Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.
> 
> "I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "
> 
> Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”
> 
> They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.
Click to expand...

 What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates the consistent raising of rates when Trump became president did exactly what the objective was and that was to slow an economy they thought was growing too fast.
> 
> "The Fed was forced to cut interest rates to historically low levels during the Great Recession in an effort to revive the U.S. economy and prevent more banks from bankruptcy. It was an unprecedented move, but now the Fed is facing an equally unprecedented task: getting America comfortable with more normal interest rates again after years of easy credit and fast money.
> 
> The debate is even more complicated after Trump's tax cuts and the roughly $500 billion Congress plans to spend. *All of this additional money is likely to cause faster growth in the coming months, potentially forcing the Fed to raise rates faster."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-hike-means-for-you/?utm_term=.ef58bec07fc1*
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.
> 
> "Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.
> 
> "I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "
> 
> Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”
> 
> They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.
Click to expand...

After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of spin is going to make a 1.75 point increase over 2 years, a “fast and furious” increase.
> 
> 
> 
> Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.
> 
> "Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.
> 
> "I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "
> 
> Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”
> 
> They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.
Click to expand...

Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four times in one year did exactly what the fed intended, it cooled a hot economy.
> 
> "Scott Anderson ,chief economist of Bank of the West, says Powell's bullish view of the economy raises the odds for four rate hikes this year. Seven Fed policymakers now expect that many, up from four in December, he notes.
> 
> "I think it's a more confident (Fed) about where the economy is going to be," Anderson says. "
> 
> Fed raises rates, keeps forecast for 3 hikes in 2018
> 
> 
> 
> Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”
> 
> They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....
Click to expand...

Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.


----------



## Vandalshandle

There are more Americans in arrears on their car payments right now than ever before. The country has been on a credit addiction spree, which is unsustainable. Add that to the fact that the deficit has just exceeded $22 trillion. Trump's tax cut, which was supposed to pay for itself has not, and we are headed toward a cliff, with Trump's trade war.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four times where they raised it 0.25 points, the smallest increment, each time — that’s still not “fast and furious.”
> 
> They raised it 3 points in 1 year alone under Clinton. Was that ”fast and furious?”
> 
> 
> 
> People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were used to near zero interest so in context it was both fast and furious. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that it wasn't intended to do what it did, slow economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.
Click to expand...

Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What people were used to is meaningless. At some point, the rate had to go up. Once the economy appeared strong, the Fed started raising the rate, as expected.
> 
> 
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me
Click to expand...

LOL 

Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.

You failed. Miserably.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> After nearly eight years of zero interest rates quick and consistent raising of rates had a profound psychological impact on 'borrowers especially in the housing market and automobile industry. Watch things go now that the fed has backed off.
> 
> 
> 
> Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.
> 
> You failed. Miserably.
Click to expand...

Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express wall building power in our federal Constitution.  too socialist.  only a Postal service is necessary and proper.


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the Congress does.  Sorry.
Click to expand...



Why are you against Americans having the same rights as every other citizen in the world?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
Click to expand...



Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point, but not a reason to not BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we could use the money Obama saved by closing GITMO. Oh wait, he never did that did he. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps he should have declared the GITMO crisis a national emergency!!!  It would have been ridiculous but it would have been effective.
> 
> Point being that “national emergencies” should be actual emergencies; not a way to fulfill campaign promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize democrats don't think it's an emergency but Trump does. Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he does, why didn’t he declare one on 1/20/17?  Earlier you said he couldn’t because he’d be a dictator.  Why wouldn’t his declaration in 2019 not make him a dictator?
Click to expand...



Why are you looking for excuses to not control who and what enters our community?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump is forced to declare a national emergency that may well happen and may be the only way for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. We're not rebuilding the wall.
Click to expand...



Why do you think that Americans do not deserve the same rights as everyone else? 


Or do you think they do, and you just are an asshole?


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses, BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
Click to expand...




It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.


Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.


Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?


----------



## rightwinger

danielpalos said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33,000 gun deaths a year is a national emergency
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia; we should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...

As long as it is well regulated


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
Click to expand...

I have read the Constitution

There is no right to a wall


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
Click to expand...



Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community. 


Except it seems, Americans.



Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?


----------



## edward37

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.


perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33,000 gun deaths a year is a national emergency
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia; we should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as it is well regulated
Click to expand...

the first clause must lead the second.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?


----------



## Correll

edward37 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
Click to expand...




Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
Click to expand...



Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
Click to expand...


People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses

I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
Click to expand...


Trump has surrounded himself with criminals

We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, let’s see your evidence the housing and auto markets have slowed down with any semblance of significance....
> 
> 
> 
> Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.
> 
> You failed. Miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

LOL

My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.

oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...

Housing markets are at an all-time high ...







and so are auto loans/leases...


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
Click to expand...

Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A national emergency? Has his favorite golf course flooded? There are plenty of illegal immigrants who can fix that for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. We're not rebuilding the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that Americans do not deserve the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> 
> Or do you think they do, and you just are an asshole?
Click to expand...

Oh? What rights are Americans lacking that everyone else on the planet enjoys?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Mexico says that the check is in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
Click to expand...

Very few countries in the world have enclosed their borders with walls. Most countries have open borders which anyone can sneak across.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
Click to expand...

Oh, for fuck's sake ...


Did you vote for Trump?


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Auto and home sales both slowed in 2018. If you dont know this then do your own research. Dont  display your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.
> 
> You failed. Miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
Click to expand...

Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.


US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low 
Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
Published on 2018-11-28 

US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016 
Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
Published on 2018-10-24 

United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast


"So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.

That is about to change.

*Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.

That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*

Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No excuses. We just don't want it for at least a dozen common sense reasons, For one thing, it has been reported that Mexicans ha discovered the ladder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
Click to expand...


The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do others’ homework. You made the claim; if you won’t support it, I won’t believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.
> 
> You failed. Miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
Click to expand...

LOL

What an idiot you are, huh? Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.

And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
Click to expand...

As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses
> 
> I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them
Click to expand...



I asked a serious question. You dodged. 


Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump has surrounded himself with criminals
> 
> We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family
Click to expand...



I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.


But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.
Click to expand...



It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.


Which is why you are against it. 

You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ...
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?
Click to expand...




Your idiocy is beyond words.


Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time for talk was done decades ago. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
Click to expand...




Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.


There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.


BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
Click to expand...



Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
Click to expand...


Why do you hate America?


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate America?
Click to expand...



Nothing in my posts or position could sanely be interpreted that way.


Your constant looking for excuse to not build a wall to protect the US border,  

Does justify the reasonable question, 


Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?


And you know it. So don't be a coward and answer the question.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...


Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.
Click to expand...



The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it. 


Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.



As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ...
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is beyond words.
> 
> 
> Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.
Click to expand...

Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.

Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.

And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the check junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
Click to expand...

How much have you given...?

Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplanes, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it.
> 
> 
> Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.
> 
> 
> 
> As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

We already have walls and fences.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur delaying tactics are noted and held against you.
> 
> 
> Why are you against allowing Americans to control who and what enters their community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much have you given...?
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
Click to expand...


Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted.



Hillary has avoided justice.  If you disagree, then answer these two questions.  

1) Is it _illegal _to transmit or receive classified materials on a private server?  

2) Did Hillary transmit or receive classified materials on a private server?  

The answer to both questions is - "yes".  Was Hillary prosecuted?  No, she was not prosecuted.  She committed crimes and she skated for her crimes.  

I don't know why Jeff Sessions didn't pursue the matter.  What is _undeniable_, however, is that Hillary most definitely committed numerous felonies and she skated.  Your blind loyalty to Hillary and to your Democratic masters prohibits you from being honestly and acknowledging this basic truth.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary has avoided justice.  If you disagree, then answer these two questions.
> 
> 1) Is it _illegal _to transmit or receive classified materials on a private server?
> 
> 2) Did Hillary transmit or receive classified materials on a private server?
> 
> The answer to both questions is - "yes".  Was Hillary prosecuted?  No, she was not prosecuted.  She committed crimes and she skated for her crimes.
> 
> I don't know why Jeff Sessions didn't pursue the matter.  What is _undeniable_, however, is that Hillary most definitely committed numerous felonies and she skated.  Your blind loyalty to Hillary and to your Democratic masters prohibits you from being honestly and acknowledging this basic truth.
Click to expand...

Post the law you think she violated...


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> Post the law you think she violated...



Oh, you think it's actually LEGAL for a government employee to scan classified documents and then send them in their Yahoo account?  LOL.  Ok, try this.  

46 CFR § 503.59 - Safeguarding classified information.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the law you think she violated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you think it's actually LEGAL for a government employee to scan classified documents and then send them in their Yahoo account?  LOL.  Ok, try this.
> 
> 46 CFR § 503.59 - Safeguarding classified information.
Click to expand...

I don’t see anything in there stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private email server. Thanks for posting the link though.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> I don’t see anything in there stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private email server. Thanks for posting the link though.



Well, you can take my word for it that it's _illegal_ to transmit classified documents through Facebook Messenger, Hotmail, Yahoo email, etc.  You're free to argue that it's legal.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t see anything in there stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private email server. Thanks for posting the link though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can take my word for it that it's _illegal_ to transmit classified documents through Facebook Messenger, Hotmail, Yahoo email, etc.  You're free to argue that it's legal.
Click to expand...

It was her own private server, not Facebook messenger, Hotmail or Yahoo.

You really suck at this. Try arguing with reality on your side next time.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> It was her own private server, not Facebook messenger, Hotmail or Yahoo.  You really suck at this. Try arguing with reality on your side next time.



I was mocking your ignorance that you apparently believe that it's legal to transmit top-secret information on a private fucking server.  Now, repeat after me, "Hillary committed serious crimes and skated".


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was her own private server, not Facebook messenger, Hotmail or Yahoo.  You really suck at this. Try arguing with reality on your side next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was mocking your ignorance that you apparently believe that it's legal to transmit top-secret information on a private fucking server.  Now, repeat after me, "Hillary committed serious crimes and skated".
Click to expand...

And yet, neither of us can quote from the law you posted stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private fucking server.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> And yet, neither of us can quote from the law you posted stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private fucking server.



You're too fucking stupid and dishonest to engage further.  If it wasn't illegal, then why did the FBI conduct a criminal investigation of the matter?  Cue the twat act.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, neither of us can quote from the law you posted stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private fucking server.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid and dishonest to engage further.  If it wasn't illegal, then why did the FBI conduct a criminal investigation of the matter?  Cue the twat act.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL 

Dumbfuck, do you realize you just convicted trump of all the crimes for which he’s being investigated?


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, neither of us can quote from the law you posted stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private fucking server.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid and dishonest to engage further.  If it wasn't illegal, then why did the FBI conduct a criminal investigation of the matter?  Cue the twat act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, do you realize you just convicted trump of all the crimes for which he’s being investigated?
Click to expand...



The Democrats love useful idiots like you.  They sell you and your family out, yet you're right there telling the rest of us that it's raining when it's actually the Democratic Party taking a giant piss on you - again.  It's because of morons like you that we have a monolithic amount of crime and corruption at the highest levels of government.  Thanks, dumbass.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, neither of us can quote from the law you posted stating it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private fucking server.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid and dishonest to engage further.  If it wasn't illegal, then why did the FBI conduct a criminal investigation of the matter?  Cue the twat act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, do you realize you just convicted trump of all the crimes for which he’s being investigated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats love useful idiots like you.  They sell you and your family out, yet you're right there telling the rest of us that it's raining when it's actually the Democratic Party taking a giant piss on you - again.  It's because of morons like you that we have a monolithic amount of crime and corruption at the highest levels of government.  Thanks, dumbass.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Spits the idiot who can’t show where the law, he posted himself, says it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server, like he claims.

Your projection is off the charts.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> Spits the idiot who can’t show where the law, he posted himself, says it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server, like he claims.  Your projection is off the charts.



People get prosecuted for this type of stuff regularly, you're just too ignorant to know it, apparently.  Either that or you're just a dishonest, political hack.  Which is it?


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who can’t show where the law, he posted himself, says it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server, like he claims.  Your projection is off the charts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People get prosecuted for this type of stuff regularly, you're just too ignorant to know it, apparently.  Either that or you're just a dishonest, political hack.  Which is it?
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

If you knew what you’re talking about, why can’t you quote the section of the law you posted that states it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server?


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> If you knew what you’re talking about, why can’t you quote the section of the law you posted that states it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server?



I did.  You ignored it.  

Besides, only a partisan hack that is in delusional denial would need a link to believe that it's illegal to transmit classified materials on a private server.  

Hillary appreciates your support but also knows you're a moron.  Congratulations.


----------



## Vandalshandle

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary has avoided justice.  If you disagree, then answer these two questions.
> 
> 1) Is it _illegal _to transmit or receive classified materials on a private server?
> 
> 2) Did Hillary transmit or receive classified materials on a private server?
> 
> The answer to both questions is - "yes".  Was Hillary prosecuted?  No, she was not prosecuted.  She committed crimes and she skated for her crimes.
> 
> I don't know why Jeff Sessions didn't pursue the matter.  What is _undeniable_, however, is that Hillary most definitely committed numerous felonies and she skated.  Your blind loyalty to Hillary and to your Democratic masters prohibits you from being honestly and acknowledging this basic truth.
Click to expand...


Golly! It looks like Trump lied again when he promised to "lock her up" during his campaign! But, he seemed SO sincere!


----------



## K9Buck

Vandalshandle said:


> Golly! It looks like Trump lied again when he promised to "lock her up" during his campaign! But, he seemed SO sincere!



You or I would have been prosecuted.  Hillary skated, and you were fine with it.  You don't have a problem with crime and corruption; you have a problem with _Republican_ crime and corruption.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew what you’re talking about, why can’t you quote the section of the law you posted that states it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.  You ignored it.
> 
> Besides, only a partisan hack that is in delusional denial would need a link to believe that it's illegal to transmit classified materials on a private server.
> 
> Hillary appreciates your support but also knows you're a moron.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL 

Now you’re flat out lying, a clear sign that even you know you lost this argument.

In reality, you posted nothing but a link and unrelated nonsense about yahoo and Facebook. And nowhere in the link you posted did it state it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly! It looks like Trump lied again when he promised to "lock her up" during his campaign! But, he seemed SO sincere!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You or I would have been prosecuted.  Hillary skated, and you were fine with it.  You don't have a problem with crime and corruption; you have a problem with _Republican_ crime and corruption.
Click to expand...

She “skated” because she didn’t break any laws. You know like the law you claim she broke but couldn’t actually find in the statute you linked.

Thanks for clearing that up for the forum.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> Now you’re flat out lying, a clear sign that even you know you lost this argument.



I posted a simple truth, that Hillary broke the law and skated.  You have gone into contortions and delusional denial to avoid admitting this basic fact.  That's because you're a partisan hack.  Your loyalty isn't to truth, justice and to your fellow Americans.  Your loyalty is to your Democratic masters.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> She “skated” because she didn’t break any laws.



Hilarious.  Next you'll claim that water isn't wet.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you’re flat out lying, a clear sign that even you know you lost this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a simple truth, that Hillary broke the law and skated.  You have gone into contortions and delusional denial to avoid admitting this basic fact.  That's because you're a partisan hack.  Your loyalty isn't to truth, justice and to your fellow Americans.  Your loyalty is to your Democratic masters.
Click to expand...

LOL 

It’s not a truth when you can’t prove it. And citing yourself because you can’t cite the law only makes you look like a bitter, angry partisan.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> She “skated” because she didn’t break any laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  Next you'll claim that water isn't wet.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, if she broke the law, don’t ya _think_ you’d be able to show the law she broke?


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, if she broke the law, don’t ya _think_ you’d be able to show the law she broke?



I did, but your fourth grade reading comprehension did not permit you to understand all of the big words in the citation that I provided.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, if she broke the law, don’t ya _think_ you’d be able to show the law she broke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but your fourth grade reading comprehension did not permit you to understand all of the big words in the citation that I provided.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Moron, you posted a link to a law that *didn’t* state it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server, as you falsely claimed. I wish I could say I’m shocked to see you claim the law says what you claim it does and that you posted the relevant portion even though you didn’t — but I’m not.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, if she broke the law, don’t ya _think_ you’d be able to show the law she broke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but your fourth grade reading comprehension did not permit you to understand all of the big words in the citation that I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, you posted a link to a law that *didn’t* state it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server, as you falsely claimed. I wish I could say I’m shocked to see you claim the law says what you claim it does and that you posted the relevant portion even though you didn’t — but I’m not.
Click to expand...


Murder is also illegal.  Do you need a link?  LOL.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, if she broke the law, don’t ya _think_ you’d be able to show the law she broke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, but your fourth grade reading comprehension did not permit you to understand all of the big words in the citation that I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, you posted a link to a law that *didn’t* state it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server, as you falsely claimed. I wish I could say I’m shocked to see you claim the law says what you claim it does and that you posted the relevant portion even though you didn’t — but I’m not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Murder is also illegal.  Do you need a link?  LOL.
Click to expand...

No, but I can quote the law that says murder is illegal. Unfortunately for you, you’re unable to do that to corroborate your claim that it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server.

But I like the part where you indicated “collusion” is a crime amid your failed attempt to prove Hillary committed a crime because you couldn’t prove it with an actual law.


----------



## Flopper

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can create an imaginary national emergency but his evidence will not hold up in court
> 
> Was healthcare a national emergency?
> Could have passed Obamacare that way
Click to expand...

*I suppose Donald Trump is using a different dictionary than the rest of us.  The definition of an emergency is an unexpected or unforeseen situation.  How could illegal immigration be either unexpected or unforeseen.  It's been an ongoing problem for over 70 years and has been far worse than it is now.  Furthermore you don't propose a response to an emergency that will take 5 to 10 years.   *


----------



## K9Buck

Flopper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can create an imaginary national emergency but his evidence will not hold up in court
> 
> Was healthcare a national emergency?
> Could have passed Obamacare that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I suppose Donald Trump is using a different dictionary than the rest of us.  The definition of an emergency is an unexpected or unforeseen situation.  How could illegal immigration be either unexpected or unforeseen.  It's been an ongoing problem for over 70 years and has been far worse than it is now.  Furthermore you don't propose a response to an emergency that will take 5 to 10 years.   *
Click to expand...


The American president has a responsibility to protect the American people and to uphold the law.  Clearly, Congress is unwilling to assist in this endeavor.  Therefore, and in the interests of protecting the American people as well as our nation's immigration laws, Trump must declare an emergency and take the appropriate steps needed.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can create an imaginary national emergency but his evidence will not hold up in court
> 
> Was healthcare a national emergency?
> Could have passed Obamacare that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I suppose Donald Trump is using a different dictionary than the rest of us.  The definition of an emergency is an unexpected or unforeseen situation.  How could illegal immigration be either unexpected or unforeseen.  It's been an ongoing problem for over 70 years and has been far worse than it is now.  Furthermore you don't propose a response to an emergency that will take 5 to 10 years.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American president has a responsibility to protect the American people and to uphold the law.  Clearly, Congress is unwilling to assist in this endeavor.  Therefore, and in the interests of protecting the American people as well as our nation's immigration laws, Trump must declare an emergency and take the appropriate steps needed.
Click to expand...

LOL

Spits an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal. 

Tell me again how *collusion* is a crime. Now THAT was funny.


----------



## Flopper

K9Buck said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can create an imaginary national emergency but his evidence will not hold up in court
> 
> Was healthcare a national emergency?
> Could have passed Obamacare that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I suppose Donald Trump is using a different dictionary than the rest of us.  The definition of an emergency is an unexpected or unforeseen situation.  How could illegal immigration be either unexpected or unforeseen.  It's been an ongoing problem for over 70 years and has been far worse than it is now.  Furthermore you don't propose a response to an emergency that will take 5 to 10 years.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American president has a responsibility to protect the American people and to uphold the law.  Clearly, Congress is unwilling to assist in this endeavor.  Therefore, and in the interests of protecting the American people as well as our nation's immigration laws, Trump must declare an emergency and take the appropriate steps needed.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is if congress won't give the president what he wants, he claims he needs it to protect America so then it's his responsibility to declare a national emergency and just take it. I'm sure the next democrat president is going just love this.


----------



## K9Buck

Flopper said:


> So what you're saying is if congress won't give the president what he wants, he claims he needs it to protect America so then it's his responsibility to declare a national emergency and just take it. I'm sure the next democrat president is going just love this.



Illegal immigration is a MASSIVE problem for the U.S.  American citizens are victimized in terms of crime and higher taxes and medical care as a direct result of many millions of illegals in America.  These are undeniable facts.  What's also clear is that he U.S. Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect Americans and to protect our nation's immigration laws.  Therefore, Trump is wholly within his right, and responsibility, to declare the emergency.  

By the way, Obama also avoided obtaining congressional approval for his horrific deal with Iran, the Paris Accord, etc.  Trump taking unilateral action is not unprecedented, as evidenced by the community organizer that preceded him.  At least in Trump's case, he is working for the interests of the American people, as opposed to the detriment of the American people, as Obama habitually did.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually its your homework. Educate yourself then get back to me
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.
> 
> You failed. Miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> *What an idiot you are, huh?* Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.
> 
> And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.
Click to expand...

 "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ...
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is beyond words.
> 
> 
> Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.
Click to expand...



So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?


Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.




> Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.
> 
> And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?






Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it.
> 
> 
> Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.
> 
> 
> 
> As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
Click to expand...



Which you are against maintaining. 


Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.



Because you hate America.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I live down here, and the wall is a sick joke that can be overcome by a ladder, a tunnel, and airplane, a boat, or even a hydraulic splitter. You can park an 18 wheeler next to it, put a ladder on top, and a knotted rope down the other side, charge $100 per person, and make a 23 billion dollar wall obsolete. Here are some photos of the over 130 tunnels that have so far been found under Nogales:
> 
> pictures of nogales tunnels - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much have you given...?
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
Click to expand...



That was the words of a very simple mind. 


Too simple to understand how walls work.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump can create an imaginary national emergency but his evidence will not hold up in court
> 
> Was healthcare a national emergency?
> Could have passed Obamacare that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I suppose Donald Trump is using a different dictionary than the rest of us.  The definition of an emergency is an unexpected or unforeseen situation.  How could illegal immigration be either unexpected or unforeseen.  It's been an ongoing problem for over 70 years and has been far worse than it is now.  Furthermore you don't propose a response to an emergency that will take 5 to 10 years.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American president has a responsibility to protect the American people and to uphold the law.  Clearly, Congress is unwilling to assist in this endeavor.  Therefore, and in the interests of protecting the American people as well as our nation's immigration laws, Trump must declare an emergency and take the appropriate steps needed.
Click to expand...


33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year
Why isn’t our President protecting us?


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if congress won't give the president what he wants, he claims he needs it to protect America so then it's his responsibility to declare a national emergency and just take it. I'm sure the next democrat president is going just love this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration is a MASSIVE problem for the U.S.  American citizens are victimized in terms of crime and higher taxes and medical care as a direct result of many millions of illegals in America.  These are undeniable facts.  What's also clear is that he U.S. Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect Americans and to protect our nation's immigration laws.  Therefore, Trump is wholly within his right, and responsibility, to declare the emergency.
> 
> By the way, Obama also avoided obtaining congressional approval for his horrific deal with Iran, the Paris Accord, etc.  Trump taking unilateral action is not unprecedented, as evidenced by the community organizer that preceded him.  At least in Trump's case, he is working for the interests of the American people, as opposed to the detriment of the American people, as Obama habitually did.
Click to expand...


Someone coming across the border to mow our lawns and make our beds is not a massive problem


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico’s check clears
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses
> 
> I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious question. You dodged.
> 
> 
> Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.
Click to expand...

Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses
> 
> I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious question. You dodged.
> 
> 
> Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.
Click to expand...



1. That is not a question.

2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.

3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump has surrounded himself with criminals
> 
> We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
Click to expand...

We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses
> 
> I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious question. You dodged.
> 
> 
> Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is not a question.
> 
> 2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.
> 
> 3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.
Click to expand...

which question is that, brave guy?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.  

We have a Commerce Clause.  Why does the Right Wing, 

Insist on Losing money on border policy yet allege to be Capitalists.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump has surrounded himself with criminals
> 
> We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
Click to expand...




It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.


It takes a dim mind to not see that.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses
> 
> I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious question. You dodged.
> 
> 
> Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is not a question.
> 
> 2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.
> 
> 3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
Click to expand...





Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.


Except it seems, Americans.



Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the Constitution
> 
> There is no right to a wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
Click to expand...

Capitalism: What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
Click to expand...




Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.


That is good for America and Americans.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism: What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.
Click to expand...



Why do you feel that you have a right to expect an answer to my question, when you did not give me the same respect?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump has surrounded himself with criminals
> 
> We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
Click to expand...

right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People come to mow lawns, make beds and build Trumps golf courses
> 
> I don’t need billions of dollars of fence to stop them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious question. You dodged.
> 
> 
> Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is not a question.
> 
> 2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.
> 
> 3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
Click to expand...

lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.

why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has surrounded himself with criminals
> 
> We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
Click to expand...



I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
Click to expand...

we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious question. You dodged.
> 
> 
> Why? Because you can't answer it truthfully without revealing what type of person you really are.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is not a question.
> 
> 2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.
> 
> 3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
Click to expand...



And still no answer to my question, coward.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
Click to expand...



Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.


Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has surrounded himself with criminals
> 
> We should be more concerned with millionaire criminals than some Mexican struggling to feed his family
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
Click to expand...

politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a more serious question.  There is no express immigration clause or wall building clause in the Republican Doctrine.  We should be Saving money not Spending more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is not a question.
> 
> 2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.
> 
> 3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no answer to my question, coward.
Click to expand...

taking us to War in the Middle East and taking a tax cut for it is worse.  The right wing is making a profit off of weapons of mass and micro destruction.  Nobody seems to be going to jail for that Right Wing public policy.



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare is what we want.  There is no wall building power or immigration clause.  See the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
Click to expand...

If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.

There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause. 

Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between legal and illegal.
> 
> Tell me again how *collusion* is a crime. Now THAT was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't a liar, you wouldn't be a liberal.
> 
> Tell us again why you support pedophilia rings.
Click to expand...

I told no lie and I don’t support pedophilia or pedophilia rings, ya sick fuck. You said Hillary being investigated is evidence that it’s illegal to transmit classified material from a private server. Well if that’s true, and it’s not, that’s the same as saying trump and his campaign, being investigated for collusion with Russia, means collusion is a crime.

See how stupid you are for trying to make a crime out of something the law does not say is criminal?


----------



## edward37

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.
> 
> There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?
Click to expand...

And now the Dump spends 2 trillion on a tax cut that has a 28% approval      Damn republican  fools


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Trump can now declare emergency with crazy low logic voters electing crooks to destroy the nation

Trump can bring a wisdom test for voters​


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Proving you right isn’t my job, it’s yours.
> 
> You failed. Miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> *What an idiot you are, huh?* Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.
> 
> And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".
Click to expand...

Nah, you lost the debate when I showed the housing markets and auto loans/leases are still strong.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps build a prison to house the whole trump scumbag family instead of a wall?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ...
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is beyond words.
> 
> 
> Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?
> 
> 
> Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.
> 
> And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it.
> 
> 
> Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.
> 
> 
> 
> As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
Click to expand...

Nope, you’re lying again.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes time and energy to dig a tunnel. That they had to dig a tunnel, shows progress.
> 
> 
> Squeeze down on cross border traffic enough, and we free up more and more agents to look for shit like tunnels.
> 
> 
> Why are you against Americans having the ability to control who and what enters our community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much have you given...?
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
Click to expand...

Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?


----------



## edward37

GreenAndBlue said:


> Trump can now declare emergency with crazy low logic voters electing crooks to destroy the nation
> 
> Trump can bring a wisdom test for voters​


Wisdom ??? Like the morons 2 trillion tax cut that has a 28% approval  ?   Worst retail sales number for Dec in 9 years takes markets down  DOW off 140  implied   We have an idiot elected by idiots in our WH


----------



## danielpalos

edward37 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.
> 
> There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now the Dump spends 2 trillion on a tax cut that has a 28% approval      Damn republican  fools
Click to expand...

Why are right wingers such lousy capitalists?  We should be generating revenue from foreign nationals not losing money with a non-existent from Inception, immigration clause.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> I told no lie and I don’t support pedophilia or pedophilia rings, ya sick fuck.



Nor did I make any claims about collusion, a lie that you fabricated.


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told no lie and I don’t support pedophilia or pedophilia rings, ya sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did I make any claims about collusion, a lie that you fabricated.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, you asserted just being investigated for something is evidence the matter of the investigation  is illegal. Now apply that moronic thought to the investigation into collusion with Russia.

Dayum, you’re slow. Even moreso than most conservatives.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told no lie and I don’t support pedophilia or pedophilia rings, ya sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did I make any claims about collusion, a lie that you fabricated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, you asserted just being investigated for something is evidence the matter of the investigation  is illegal. Now apply that moronic thought to the investigation into collusion with Russia.
> 
> Dayum, you’re slow. Even moreso than most conservatives.
Click to expand...


What crime did Trump commit?  Cue the twat act.


----------



## edward37

danielpalos said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.
> 
> There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now the Dump spends 2 trillion on a tax cut that has a 28% approval      Damn republican  fools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are right wingers such lousy capitalists?  We should be generating revenue from foreign nationals not losing money with a non-existent from Inception, immigration clause.
Click to expand...

You dare have something bad to say about our LOL fiscal conservative republican friends?


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told no lie and I don’t support pedophilia or pedophilia rings, ya sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did I make any claims about collusion, a lie that you fabricated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, you asserted just being investigated for something is evidence the matter of the investigation  is illegal. Now apply that moronic thought to the investigation into collusion with Russia.
> 
> Dayum, you’re slow. Even moreso than most conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What crime did Trump commit?  Cue the twat act.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, what crime did Hillary commit?

Meanwhile, it was you who asserted the bullshit that transmitting classified material from a private server is a crime *because* the FBI investigated Hillary for that. I’m merely applying *your [il]logic* to trump and his campaign which like Hillary, was investigated by the FBI — for colluding with Russians.

So according to you, that means collusion is s crime.


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already provided an express solution.  The right wing has no better solutions at lower cost.  See the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism: What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that you have a right to expect an answer to my question, when you did not give me the same respect?
Click to expand...


Why do you hate America?


----------



## Flopper

K9Buck said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is if congress won't give the president what he wants, he claims he needs it to protect America so then it's his responsibility to declare a national emergency and just take it. I'm sure the next democrat president is going just love this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration is a MASSIVE problem for the U.S.  American citizens are victimized in terms of crime and higher taxes and medical care as a direct result of many millions of illegals in America.  These are undeniable facts.  What's also clear is that he U.S. Congress has abdicated its responsibility to protect Americans and to protect our nation's immigration laws.  Therefore, Trump is wholly within his right, and responsibility, to declare the emergency.
> 
> By the way, Obama also avoided obtaining congressional approval for his horrific deal with Iran, the Paris Accord, etc.  Trump taking unilateral action is not unprecedented, as evidenced by the community organizer that preceded him.  At least in Trump's case, he is working for the interests of the American people, as opposed to the detriment of the American people, as Obama habitually did.
Click to expand...

*I never claimed illegal immigration was not a problem but it's not an emergency.  There is certainly nothing unforeseen, sudden, nor urgent about it. Just because you and Mr. Trump are sick and tired on it, doesn't make it an emergency. It has been going on for over 70 years. Border crossings under Trump are significant lower than in the past.  

In 2000, there was estimated 1.6 million border crosser and 1.3 million in 2003. by the end of the decade the number had feel to 554,000.  By 2011, crossers had fallen to 340,000 in 2011.  By 2017 we had reached a record low of 311,000.  According to the CBP in 2018, there 396,000 apprehension but that included 124,000 presenting themselves at the border to ask for asylum.  The number actually caught illegal entering the US was at an astounding low figure of only 278,000, the lowest number ever recorded and you say that's an emergency.  I say, BULL SHIT!     
Is the US in an 'illegal' immigration crisis? Border patrol data suggests otherwise*


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
Click to expand...

One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.


----------



## edward37

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
Click to expand...

He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS


----------



## Flopper

edward37 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> 
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
Click to expand...

He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree

After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.


----------



## danielpalos

edward37 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.
> 
> There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now the Dump spends 2 trillion on a tax cut that has a 28% approval      Damn republican  fools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are right wingers such lousy capitalists?  We should be generating revenue from foreign nationals not losing money with a non-existent from Inception, immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dare have something bad to say about our LOL fiscal conservative republican friends?
Click to expand...

the right wing alleges to subscribe to Capitalism in public venues.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> ...what crime did Hillary commit?



LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.


----------



## K9Buck

Flopper said:


> ...it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.



Much of the Republican congress consists of a bunch of feckless cucks.  Screw them.  Secure the border.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am most concerned with "Americans" like yourself, that want to imprison your political enemies on trumped up bullshit.
> 
> 
> But the fact that you see yourself as allied with the Mexican instead of your fellow Americans, is noted and not surprising at all.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment; your moral bigotry is worthless.   Besides, it takes morals to have moral forms of indignation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
Click to expand...



A simple yes would have sufficed.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is not a question.
> 
> 2. The government is spending over four trillion dollars this budget year, with no complaint from you. YOur pretense that you are concerned about money is dismissed.
> 
> 3. And you still have not answered my question, coward.
> 
> 
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no answer to my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> taking us to War in the Middle East and taking a tax cut for it is worse.  The right wing is making a profit off of weapons of mass and micro destruction.  Nobody seems to be going to jail for that Right Wing public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I can understand why you would want to change the subject.



You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.



The reason is simple. YOu are a loyal Mexican who is loyal to your fellow Mexicans, and at best, you don't give a damn about your supposedly fellow Americans.


YOu lied when you swore loyalty to this nation.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will promote the general welfare of AMERICANS, to build the Wall, and keep out Mexicans like you.
> 
> 
> Which is why you are against it.
> 
> You are loyal to your fellow Mexicans, not your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.
> 
> There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?
Click to expand...





That is insanely stupid.


If it is not about money, it could be about the best interests of our citizens as a whole. 


I clearly pointed out, that in my opinion at least, it is about the best interests of Americans.


We both know why you choose to spout idiocy instead of addressing what I actually said.


Because you are too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you are actively hostile to the interests of your supposedly fellow Americans.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to jail people, for political reasons, shows that the Left is fascist.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ...
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is beyond words.
> 
> 
> Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?
> 
> 
> Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.
> 
> And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?
Click to expand...




Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it.
> 
> 
> Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.
> 
> 
> 
> As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
Click to expand...





The issue is whether to build a Wall or not. 


I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.


In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.


That is fairly insane of you, but ok.



So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall. A simple solution to simple minded people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much have you given...?
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
Click to expand...




Depends on how you define "defeat".


No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.



But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half, 


that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.


And I hope for better. 

AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing. 


You know that right?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no answer to my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> taking us to War in the Middle East and taking a tax cut for it is worse.  The right wing is making a profit off of weapons of mass and micro destruction.  Nobody seems to be going to jail for that Right Wing public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you would want to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple. YOu are a loyal Mexican who is loyal to your fellow Mexicans, and at best, you don't give a damn about your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> YOu lied when you swore loyalty to this nation.
Click to expand...

Americans have a right to vote. Republicans ran in 2018 on a scary caravan that was filled with terrorists who were going to kill us all. 

Republicans lost badly

That is democracy in action. Americans don’t want a wall


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speed is not what we want. We want a good solution. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL, you mexican.
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism: What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that you have a right to expect an answer to my question, when you did not give me the same respect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate America?
Click to expand...



THe people who hate America are those that do not want to let America control who or what enters it.



Obviously.


SO, stop being a shitty liar.


----------



## Correll

edward37 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not moral bigotry to distinguish between wanting to imprison people for political reasons, and wanting to see them imprisoned for criminal reasons.
> 
> 
> It takes a dim mind to not see that.
> 
> 
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
Click to expand...



Brilliant ? Honest? Great?


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> right wing kettles calling less fortunate pots, black; gibberish, like usual for the Right Wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
Click to expand...



A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.



It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.


----------



## candycorn

Correll said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as Mexico sends the pesos.  Oy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism: What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that you have a right to expect an answer to my question, when you did not give me the same respect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe people who hate America are those that do not want to let America control who or what enters it.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> SO, stop being a shitty liar.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate America?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you ask nicely, Mexico will buy more wall

Or maybe, those who want a wall can pay for it out of that big tax cut


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no answer to my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> taking us to War in the Middle East and taking a tax cut for it is worse.  The right wing is making a profit off of weapons of mass and micro destruction.  Nobody seems to be going to jail for that Right Wing public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you would want to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple. YOu are a loyal Mexican who is loyal to your fellow Mexicans, and at best, you don't give a damn about your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> YOu lied when you swore loyalty to this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans have a right to vote. Republicans ran in 2018 on a scary caravan that was filled with terrorists who were going to kill us all.
> 
> Republicans lost badly
> 
> That is democracy in action. Americans don’t want a wall
Click to expand...




The impact of the propaganda your vile allies in the media and pop culture is impressive.


That said, my point is still true. Which is why you avoided addressing it.





Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.


Except it seems, Americans.


Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?[


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the world to have unfettered access to our community and citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism: What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel that you have a right to expect an answer to my question, when you did not give me the same respect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe people who hate America are those that do not want to let America control who or what enters it.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> SO, stop being a shitty liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate America?
Click to expand...



I don't, fucktard. You do.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe if you ask nicely, Mexico will buy more wall
> 
> Or maybe, those who want a wall can pay for it out of that big tax cut
Click to expand...





My point, which you avoided, as normal for you, stands.



It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which question is that, brave guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no answer to my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> taking us to War in the Middle East and taking a tax cut for it is worse.  The right wing is making a profit off of weapons of mass and micro destruction.  Nobody seems to be going to jail for that Right Wing public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you would want to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple. YOu are a loyal Mexican who is loyal to your fellow Mexicans, and at best, you don't give a damn about your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> YOu lied when you swore loyalty to this nation.
Click to expand...

the right wing is too ignorant to know better.  

There is no immigration clause or wall building clause in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall does Nothing for the general welfare.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. It keeps out Third World immigrants of which we already have* WAY* too many.
> 
> 
> That is good for America and Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why not make money with a commercial way instead of lose money like Bad capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money is not everything. Because although we are a capitalistic nation, we are not solely a nation of capitalists, and everyone has a right to have their interests considered in national policy.
> 
> 
> Much like you are loyal to ALL Mexicans, and not just the rich ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is not about money, it must be about our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.
> 
> There is no express immigration clause or express wall building clause.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a commerce clause.   Why are we losing money on border policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is insanely stupid.
> 
> 
> If it is not about money, it could be about the best interests of our citizens as a whole.
> 
> 
> I clearly pointed out, that in my opinion at least, it is about the best interests of Americans.
> 
> 
> We both know why you choose to spout idiocy instead of addressing what I actually said.
> 
> 
> Because you are too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you are actively hostile to the interests of your supposedly fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

It is about being legal to our Constitution, right wingers.  Only the illegals on the right wing, never get it.  

why is nobody going to jail for that.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Our Founding Fathers already Told us how it needs to be done.  There is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is general and our commerce clause can cover this issue.
> 
> why be a lousy capitalist and lose money on border policy, but blame the Poor for not working hard enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still no answer to my question, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> taking us to War in the Middle East and taking a tax cut for it is worse.  The right wing is making a profit off of weapons of mass and micro destruction.  Nobody seems to be going to jail for that Right Wing public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you would want to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple. YOu are a loyal Mexican who is loyal to your fellow Mexicans, and at best, you don't give a damn about your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> YOu lied when you swore loyalty to this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans have a right to vote. Republicans ran in 2018 on a scary caravan that was filled with terrorists who were going to kill us all.
> 
> Republicans lost badly
> 
> That is democracy in action. Americans don’t want a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of the propaganda your vile allies in the media and pop culture is impressive.
> 
> 
> That said, my point is still true. Which is why you avoided addressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sovereign people in the world, has the right to determine who enters and joins their community.
> 
> 
> Except it seems, Americans.
> 
> 
> Why is that? Why are we second class citizens in the eyes of the Left?[
Click to expand...

Republicans lost the House

When they lost the House, they lost their wall

Democracy in action.....why do you hate America?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe if you ask nicely, Mexico will buy more wall
> 
> Or maybe, those who want a wall can pay for it out of that big tax cut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point, which you avoided, as normal for you, stands.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I am not afraid of brown people

I have better things to spend billions of dollars on


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
Click to expand...

You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ...
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is beyond words.
> 
> 
> Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?
> 
> 
> Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.
> 
> And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.
Click to expand...

The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like throwing money down a well in order to fill it up so that nobody will drown in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it.
> 
> 
> Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.
> 
> 
> 
> As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
Click to expand...

By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice play on words. To an actual "simple mind" that word play, might look like a point.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with simple solutions. Sometimes that is what is called for.
> 
> 
> BUILD THE FUCKING WALL.
> 
> 
> 
> How much have you given...?
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
Click to expand...

*”But if...”*

When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.

So.... fuck off.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...

His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.


----------



## LilOlLady

There is a national emergency on the border so declare it. Because the caravans that have arrived and caravans that are on their way is creating a national emergency and we have to meet it head on because the Democrats refuse to see the problem that they dumped into Trump's lap that they had not dealt with for many years. It was a national emergency when Trump separated the caravan families and Illegal immigration still remains a national and border security crisis. Have to be a donkey to not understand this. Only reason there have been less entering is because the military and more border agents and Trump is not catching and releasing but making them wait in Mexico. But remove the military and build more chicken wire fences and see how many will be crossing the border. Nothing is more important then a secure America.


----------



## LilOlLady

*Yes, There Is A Crisis At The Border — The Numbers Show It*
What they aren't telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than *100,000 peopl*e trying to enter the country illegally _i*n just October and November of last year*_. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.
Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended* more than half a million people* trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before. Trump's critics certainly don't bother to mention that those figures only count illegals the border patrol caught. It does not count *the ones who eluded border patrol agents and got into the country.*
Even at the lower percentage, that means that *104,000 illegals made it into the country in 2018* alone.
Is that not a crisis at the border? 

*Texas also has been monitoring crimes committed by illegals. It reports that from 2011 to 2018, it booked 186,000 illegal aliens. Police charged them with a total of 292,000 crimes. Those included 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults, and almost 3,000 weapons charges.*
A Crisis At The Border? The Numbers Say Yes | Investor's Business Daily

*Illegal immigration has created a national emergency inside the country as well as at the border.*


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.
Click to expand...


If transmitting classified documents through a private server wasn't a crime, there wouldn't have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.  You arguing that it's LEGAL is the epitome of stupidity.


----------



## sawyerloggingon

Faun said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually i succeeded admirably in exposing you as being too uninformed to bother with. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> *What an idiot you are, huh?* Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.
> 
> And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, you lost the debate when I showed the housing markets and auto loans/leases are still strong.
Click to expand...

This is just too funny not to respond to. You now try to prove your initial point that the feds raising interest rates is not the reason for the softening economy by claiming the economy is not softening and in fact housing starts and auto sales  which are the leading economic indicators are strong and in fact increasing. You have tied yourself into a pretzel here.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Trump is trying to appropriate the powers that the constitution has granted to congress. He will be blocked by the courts. He knows this, but does not care, because he can blame his failure to build a wall on Congress and he courts. His own party is urging him not to try it. The precedent would open the door to the democrats to do the same thing. Congress would become impotent, and the president would become one step closer to having dictatorial authority. The exact same strategy worked for Hitler when the Reichstag burned. This is not NAZI Germany.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> There is a national emergency on the border so declare it. Because the caravans that have arrived and caravans that are on their way is creating a national emergency and we have to meet it head on because the Democrats refuse to see the problem that they dumped into Trump's lap that they had not dealt with for many years. It was a national emergency when Trump separated the caravan families and Illegal immigration still remains a national and border security crisis. Have to be a donkey to not understand this. Only reason there have been less entering is because the military and more border agents and Trump is not catching and releasing but making them wait in Mexico. But remove the military and build more chicken wire fences and see how many will be crossing the border. Nothing is more important then a secure America.


a refugee problem is not a national emergency.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If transmitting classified documents through a private server wasn't a crime, there wouldn't have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.  You arguing that it's LEGAL is the epitome of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Transmitting classified documents through s private server is a security violation

If those documents are intercepted, it is a crime


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If transmitting classified documents through a private server wasn't a crime, there wouldn't have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.  You arguing that it's LEGAL is the epitome of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Again, using your own moronic logic... if *collusion* wasn’t a crime, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.

And again, I note, the reason you’re using examples like that to show it is a crime *is because the law doesn’t say it is*, so you’re looking for alternate methods to prove criminality where there is none.


----------



## Faun

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> *What an idiot you are, huh?* Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.
> 
> And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, you lost the debate when I showed the housing markets and auto loans/leases are still strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just too funny not to respond to. You now try to prove your initial point that the feds raising interest rates is not the reason for the softening economy by claiming the economy is not softening and in fact housing starts and auto sales  which are the leading economic indicators are strong and in fact increasing. You have tied yourself into a pretzel here.
Click to expand...

Proving my point is a pretzel to the brain-dead right.


----------



## K9Buck

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If transmitting classified documents through a private server wasn't a crime, there wouldn't have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.  You arguing that it's LEGAL is the epitome of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, using your own moronic logic... if *collusion* wasn’t a crime, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.
> 
> And again, I note, the reason you’re using examples like that to show it is a crime *is because the law doesn’t say it is*, so you’re looking for alternate methods to prove criminality where there is none.
Click to expand...


Collusion isn't a crime.


----------



## LilOlLady

danielpalos said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a national emergency on the border so declare it. Because the caravans that have arrived and caravans that are on their way is creating a national emergency and we have to meet it head on because the Democrats refuse to see the problem that they dumped into Trump's lap that they had not dealt with for many years. It was a national emergency when Trump separated the caravan families and Illegal immigration still remains a national and border security crisis. Have to be a donkey to not understand this. Only reason there have been less entering is because the military and more border agents and Trump is not catching and releasing but making them wait in Mexico. But remove the military and build more chicken wire fences and see how many will be crossing the border. Nothing is more important then a secure America.
> 
> 
> 
> a refugee problem is not a national emergency.
Click to expand...


Being beating by your husband or victim of gang violence or crime are not a statue for refugees or reason for asylum either. We have the same problem here. Open the border as the Democrats want and we will have a national disaster. “an *ounce of prevention is worth* a pound of cure”  Build the fucking wall and secure the border. ASAP More secure than ever is not enough.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a national emergency on the border so declare it. Because the caravans that have arrived and caravans that are on their way is creating a national emergency and we have to meet it head on because the Democrats refuse to see the problem that they dumped into Trump's lap that they had not dealt with for many years. It was a national emergency when Trump separated the caravan families and Illegal immigration still remains a national and border security crisis. Have to be a donkey to not understand this. Only reason there have been less entering is because the military and more border agents and Trump is not catching and releasing but making them wait in Mexico. But remove the military and build more chicken wire fences and see how many will be crossing the border. Nothing is more important then a secure America.
> 
> 
> 
> a refugee problem is not a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being beating by your husband or victim of gang violence or crime are not a statue for refugees or reason for asylum either. We have the same problem here. Open the border as the Democrats want and we will have a national disaster. “an *ounce of prevention is worth* a pound of cure”  Build the fucking wall and secure the border. ASAP More secure than ever is not enough.
Click to expand...

i believe you more when it is about abortion prevention.


----------



## edward37

sawyerloggingon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> My day is just fine. Meanwhile, all you did was make baseless claims about the housing and auto industry which you then flat out refused to demonstrate was true.
> 
> oh, and now I see why you flat out refused to back your claims ... because they're bullshit...
> 
> Housing markets are at an all-time high ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and so are auto loans/leases...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> *What an idiot you are, huh?* Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.
> 
> And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, you lost the debate when I showed the housing markets and auto loans/leases are still strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just too funny not to respond to. You now try to prove your initial point that the feds raising interest rates is not the reason for the softening economy by claiming the economy is not softening and in fact housing starts and auto sales  which are the leading economic indicators are strong and in fact increasing. You have tied yourself into a pretzel here.
Click to expand...

Guess you didn't hear the news that Dec retail sales were the LOWEST in NINE years


----------



## sawyerloggingon

edward37 said:


> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawyerloggingon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you tried. Leftist love charts and graphs because they tell an incomplete story.
> 
> 
> US New Home Sales Unexpectedly Drop to 2-1/2-Year Low
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States slumped 8.9 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544 thousand in October 2018, following an upwardly revised 1 percent growth in September and missing market expectations of a 3.7 percent jump. New home sales were at the lowest level since March 2016.
> Published on 2018-11-28
> 
> US New Home Sales Lowest Since 2016
> Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 5.5 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 553 thousand in September of 2018, following a downwardly revised 3.0 percent decline in August. It is the lowest rate since December 2016, worse than market expectations of 625 thousand. Sales in the Northeast went down to its lowest level since April 2015. Also, sales decreased in the West and in the South.
> Published on 2018-10-24
> 
> United States New Home Sales | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
> 
> 
> "So far, the slowdown in new vehicle sales is slow and gradual. Through the first two months of 2018 they have slipped a barely noticeable 0.8%.
> 
> That is about to change.
> 
> *Auto loan interest rates are now at levels not seen since 2010 – an average of 5.2% in February, compared with 4.4% in February 2013, according to Edmunds.com.
> 
> That means higher monthly payments regardless of whether one is buying or leasing."*
> 
> Auto Sales Are Down. Here's Why They'll Continue To Fall.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> *What an idiot you are, huh?* Your links are about new single-family homes only. The graph I posted was for ALL home sales.
> 
> And your link about auto loans is from March 12, 2018, at which point, the Federal fund rate had increased on a whopping 0.75 points under trump. Still doesn't refute the chart I posted showing auto loans and leases are at an all time high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, you lost the debate when I showed the housing markets and auto loans/leases are still strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just too funny not to respond to. You now try to prove your initial point that the feds raising interest rates is not the reason for the softening economy by claiming the economy is not softening and in fact housing starts and auto sales  which are the leading economic indicators are strong and in fact increasing. You have tied yourself into a pretzel here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you didn't hear the news that Dec retail sales were the LOWEST in NINE years
Click to expand...

 I've been saying all along the  economy has softened.


----------



## rightwinger

Faun said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If transmitting classified documents through a private server wasn't a crime, there wouldn't have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.  You arguing that it's LEGAL is the epitome of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, using your own moronic logic... if *collusion* wasn’t a crime, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.
> 
> And again, I note, the reason you’re using examples like that to show it is a crime *is because the law doesn’t say it is*, so you’re looking for alternate methods to prove criminality where there is none.
Click to expand...

Collusion means participation. 
You can collude in an act of charity and it is not a crime

However, if you collude in a criminal act, it is criminal


----------



## Faun

K9Buck said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what crime did Hillary commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What crime _hasn't_ she committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t even show she committed any crimes. When challenged to post the law you think she broke by sending classified material through her personal private email server, you posted a law that *didn’t* say that was a crime. After that embarrassment, you posted nonsense about Yahoo and Hotmail and then claimed it was a crime because the FBI investigated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If transmitting classified documents through a private server wasn't a crime, there wouldn't have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.  You arguing that it's LEGAL is the epitome of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, using your own moronic logic... if *collusion* wasn’t a crime, there wouldn’t have been a need for an investigation, dumbass.
> 
> And again, I note, the reason you’re using examples like that to show it is a crime *is because the law doesn’t say it is*, so you’re looking for alternate methods to prove criminality where there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collusion isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

According to you, it is.


----------



## Flopper

Correll said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are completely ignorant of how Hillary was given a pass for a crime that less powerful people have done time for.
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...

And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.


----------



## edward37

Flopper said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
Click to expand...

  Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners


----------



## Flopper

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is trying to appropriate the powers that the constitution has granted to congress. He will be blocked by the courts. He knows this, but does not care, because he can blame his failure to build a wall on Congress and he courts. His own party is urging him not to try it. The precedent would open the door to the democrats to do the same thing. Congress would become impotent, and the president would become one step closer to having dictatorial authority. The exact same strategy worked for Hitler when the Reichstag burned. This is not NAZI Germany.


What few people seem to realize is the powers of the president is almost unlimited once he declares a national emergency.  There are 100 special provisions that go into effect that allow him to bypass most of our laws.  He can declare marshal law, seize property, shutdown are take control of communications in the country, freeze bank accounts, seal the borders, suspend immigration, and deploy combat troops in the US.  He also has almost unlimited powers in areas of trade, public health, criminal law, agriculture, and even federal employment pay.

President Trump has often complained of the limited power of the president.  Trump will certainly utilize these new powers to the fullest only limited by what he thinks he can do without congress revoking his declaration.  The next six months could well be a wild ride and a forecast of what we can expect from future presidents.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is beyond words.
> 
> 
> Hillary was guilty of actual crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?
> 
> 
> Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.
> 
> And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.
Click to expand...




We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question. 

NEXT!


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is simple enough that we don't need analogies to explain it.
> 
> 
> Build a wall to keep out people and things that we don't want to enter our community.
> 
> 
> 
> As is our right. As is the right of EVERY sovereign nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
Click to expand...




Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.


Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.


That is not a lie I am telling.


My question stands.


what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much have you given...?
> 
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
Click to expand...



Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,


in hardly bullshit.



YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
Click to expand...



My point stands. 


A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.



It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.


----------



## Erinwltr

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...


Sure, as soon as Mexico pays for it.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
Click to expand...

our welfare clause is general and we have a commerce clause not an immigration clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause.  We should have no illegal problem.  Why does the right wing create problems, refuse to pay for them, and blame the Poor?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...

wasting money on a wall is the "insane" part.  a wall does nothing for infrastructure or gdp.

Why are we even losing money on border policy?  I thought the right wing was for Capitalism not socialism on a national basis.


----------



## Correll

Flopper said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> politics must not be as easy as it seems.   usually, career politicians take care of the political stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
Click to expand...




Dude. On one hand you argue that the wall proposed does not go far enough, and on the other you make the point before it is completed that the dems will be in charge and thus presumably stop it.


All can you argue that the dems are NOT against controlling the border?


----------



## Correll

edward37 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
> trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners
Click to expand...



Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.



Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back. 


Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.


----------



## edward37

Correll said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> 
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
> trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back.
> 
> 
> Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.
Click to expand...

Only an uneducated dufoos can believe we can stand alone


----------



## Correll

Erinwltr said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> 
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, as soon as Mexico pays for it.
Click to expand...



Are you man enough to admit that you are against controlling the border?


----------



## Correll

edward37 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
> trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back.
> 
> 
> Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an uneducated dufoos can believe we can stand alone
Click to expand...



Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.


So, are you ignorant, or lying?


----------



## edward37

Correll said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> 
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
> trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back.
> 
> 
> Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an uneducated dufoos can believe we can stand alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.
> 
> 
> So, are you ignorant, or lying?
Click to expand...

I'm smart  Smarter than generals ,smarter than lawyers ,smarter than CIA and FBI  AND I know big words


----------



## Correll

edward37 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a 250 mile slatted metal fence will?  Controlling the border is not controversial.  Spending 20 to 30 billion on a project that will take at least ten years that provides very little security beyond that of a reinforced fence is certainly controversial.  Just knowing the opposition to the wall, the time it will take to build it, and the fact that democrats will be controlling at least the presidency or one if not both houses congress during this period should be enough to stop it.  From either a security or a political standpoint, it's a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
> trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back.
> 
> 
> Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an uneducated dufoos can believe we can stand alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.
> 
> 
> So, are you ignorant, or lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm smart  Smarter than generals ,smarter than lawyers ,smarter than CIA and FBI  AND I know big words
Click to expand...



Nice dodge. Cowardly. And did not trick anyone. So, really, a failed dodge.



Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.


So, are you ignorant, or lying?


----------



## edward37

Correll said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe doesn't trust us China and NK laugh at him and Russia our enemy has something on him
> trump is a loser ,,,if not for his daddy he'd be a street cleaner ,,,,with no disrespect to street cleaners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back.
> 
> 
> Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an uneducated dufoos can believe we can stand alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.
> 
> 
> So, are you ignorant, or lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm smart  Smarter than generals ,smarter than lawyers ,smarter than CIA and FBI  AND I know big words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Cowardly. And did not trick anyone. So, really, a failed dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.
> 
> 
> So, are you ignorant, or lying?
Click to expand...

Am I ignorant to suggest that the 2 trillion tax cut that went mainly to those not needing help  could have somewhat be used for the morons wall?  And where is the infrastructure???  Bottom line is Trump is FOS


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, as soon as Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you man enough to admit that you are against controlling the border?
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is General, we have a Commerce Clause; customs is at the border.


----------



## Correll

edward37 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe and China both have a vested interest in America being the world's bitch on Trade and Defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is America possibly waking up to that. Of course they push back.
> 
> 
> Only a pussy can't see it is a good sign.
> 
> 
> 
> Only an uneducated dufoos can believe we can stand alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.
> 
> 
> So, are you ignorant, or lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm smart  Smarter than generals ,smarter than lawyers ,smarter than CIA and FBI  AND I know big words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Cowardly. And did not trick anyone. So, really, a failed dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that the choice is an either or, between, being their bitch, and being alone, is the type of thing that only an uneducated dufoos would believe.
> 
> 
> So, are you ignorant, or lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I ignorant to suggest that the 2 trillion tax cut that went mainly to those not needing help  could have somewhat be used for the morons wall?  And where is the infrastructure???  Bottom line is Trump is FOS
Click to expand...



Not ignorant, but cowardly to avoid my point, with an attempt at changing the subject.


And yes, still ignorant, because your position is still that there is an either or choice between "Europe and China's bitch" and "Alone".



Until you change that, you are indeed, either ignorant or lying. IN addition to now being cowardly.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> 
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, as soon as Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you man enough to admit that you are against controlling the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a Commerce Clause; customs is at the border.
Click to expand...



Are YOU man enough to admit that you are against controlling the border, or are you just going to spew more shit?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, as soon as Mexico pays for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you man enough to admit that you are against controlling the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our welfare clause is General, we have a Commerce Clause; customs is at the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU man enough to admit that you are against controlling the border, or are you just going to spew more shit?
Click to expand...

You mean using national socialism instead of national capitalism.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. If she was guilty of actual crimes, Trump would make sure she was prosecuted. He even said so when was running for president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?
> 
> 
> Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, while you’re calling folks on the left, “fascists,” for looking to lock up political opponents, you forgive folks on the right for doing the same.
> 
> And you cowardly avoid answering... did you vote for trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you're position is the anything and everything Trump says, should be regarded as the absolute Truth and nothing but the TRuth?
> 
> 
> Interesting. YOu libs really will spew whatever shit you need to make your latest shit sort of hold together enough to give yourself a rationalization to be a shitty asshole, regardless of how much shit you have to spew from your face anus.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you ignored the "for political reasons" which is obvious your motivation for EVERYONE, you fascist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
Click to expand...

Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll doesn't get out much. He is not aware that Mexicans have ladders, shovels, airplanes, boats, rafts, and visas. Where the wall doesn't work, he is in favor of printing signs reading "no trespassing" to hang on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
Click to expand...

Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of hardest things to get done in politics is getting a bill passed through the US congress which has any significant impact on the American people.  There is nothing easy about being successful in national political office.  I think even Donald Trump would agree with this.  It's all about relationships, trust, and honesty with your peers.  That takes years to develop and most congressmen are never able to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
Click to expand...

Fucking lunatic rightie... that’s 55 miles *in addition to the roughly 700 miles of existing walls and fences*.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You freaks have been calling for her incarceration for decades now. Oh, that’s not political, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
Click to expand...

You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.


----------



## danielpalos

We can't have a problem on the border; the Russians would have told us already.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
Click to expand...



Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the words of a very simple mind.
> 
> 
> Too simple to understand how walls work.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.
Click to expand...



What do you think that I need to prove?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He IS going to sign the bill AND declare a national emergency  I'm at a loss for words bad enough to call this POS
> 
> 
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking lunatic rightie... that’s 55 miles *in addition to the roughly 700 miles of existing walls and fences*.
Click to expand...



So, is your position that an additional 55 miles of Wall will be enough to secure the border?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the sense that we republicans support the rule of law, and you liberals don't, yes it is political.
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
Click to expand...



Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass, 


yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
Click to expand...

show me the immigration clause.  our Founding Fathers did a better job that the right can ever do.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> 
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  our Founding Fathers did a better job that the right can ever do.
Click to expand...




Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
Click to expand...

I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.

You’re an imbecile AND a liar.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, which of those tools can be defeated by a wall...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
Click to expand...

You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.


----------



## deanrd

How did the biggest drug kingpin defeat the wall?

He didn't.  The wall never bothered him because he never went near it.

How would the wall have stopped those drugs?  It didn't and it never will.

I would feel sorry for Republicans if they weren't so dangerous.  The ineptness is what makes them dangerous.  That and their hate.  Their hate makes them very dangerous.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will declare a national emergency if thinks it will play well with his base and he can get it thru the courts, however it will cost him among republicans in congress and it may cost him the election.  64% of the people say he shouldn't call a national emergency and a surprisingly  number of republicans agree
> 
> After his campaign promise of a big beautiful wall across our southern border paid for by Mexicans, a 55 mile slatted fence paid for by the US taxpayer is not going look very impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking lunatic rightie... that’s 55 miles *in addition to the roughly 700 miles of existing walls and fences*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is your position that an additional 55 miles of Wall will be enough to secure the border?
Click to expand...

Well that’s not what I said. What I actually said in response to your nuttiness that a 55 mile barrier is insufficient to control the border, was it’s actually about 755 miles of barriers, not 55 miles, as you ridiculously portrayed.

As far as whether or not 755 miles is sufficient to control the border, that’s substantially more than trump wants....


_“That's a big stretch, because we're talking about *500 to 550 miles* [Inaudible]. It's a 2,000 mile border, but much of it has mountains, and region where you can't get across. *So we're. Looking at between 500 and 550.* So we gave out 115 yesterday, and we gave it out at a great price. So, we're gonna have a great wall there, and we have other sections to give out.”_​
You may not believe me, but you b’lieve trump, don’tcha?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law includes a presumption of innocence. Chanting, “lock her up,” when she’s not been convicted of any crimes reveals the right doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law when it involves their political opponents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
Click to expand...

Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?


----------



## deanrd

I guess he had to use all those other methods because the wall stopped him.

Or maybe he didn't care about the wall?  After all, no wall affected his drug business.  He just flew over it.


----------



## deanrd

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
Click to expand...

Or classified material was sent to her.

I never heard she sent out classified material.  Only that some was on her computer.

I don't know why Republicans care.  Trump gives it away.  I wonder if the Russians even bothered to ask?  Maybe Trump just said here take this.  Give it to Vladimir.  Ask him if there is anything else he might want.  Just ask.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> 
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.
> 
> You’re an imbecile AND a liar.
Click to expand...




When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation. 



We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.


Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define "defeat".
> 
> 
> No one claims that the Wall will stop all invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the need for a ladder or a tunnel, reduces border crossings by half,
> 
> 
> that would be a huge "defeat" for the illegals, and a HUGE win for America.
> 
> 
> And I hope for better.
> 
> AND, of course the Wall is only PART Of what we are doing.
> 
> 
> You know that right?
> 
> 
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.
Click to expand...



I made a point, your attack on it was that I had not proved something. 


I asked you what do you think I have to prove, from my point, and your response is that 



"you don't have to prove anything" 


BUT, then you also claim that something I said was bullshit.



WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> 
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking lunatic rightie... that’s 55 miles *in addition to the roughly 700 miles of existing walls and fences*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is your position that an additional 55 miles of Wall will be enough to secure the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that’s not what I said. What I actually said in response to your nuttiness that a 55 mile barrier is insufficient to control the border, was it’s actually about 755 miles of barriers, not 55 miles, as you ridiculously portrayed.
> 
> As far as whether or not 755 miles is sufficient to control the border, that’s substantially more than trump wants....
> 
> 
> _“That's a big stretch, because we're talking about *500 to 550 miles* [Inaudible]. It's a 2,000 mile border, but much of it has mountains, and region where you can't get across. *So we're. Looking at between 500 and 550.* So we gave out 115 yesterday, and we gave it out at a great price. So, we're gonna have a great wall there, and we have other sections to give out.”_​
> You may not believe me, but you b’lieve trump, don’tcha?
Click to expand...




So, Mr. "I do support the wall", what are you even bitching about?


Do you think that the border is effectively controlled right now?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that she is a criminal. So, the Rule of Law is not in question.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
Click to expand...



Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?


Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.

And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it, 


got a pass.



It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?



*The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition. 
The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*


----------



## candycorn

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
Click to expand...


As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

candycorn said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland
Click to expand...


*Yea, there is a yoog problem with Left Wingers calling people racist just for wanting to control our border crossings and immigration just like the other 195 countries on are planet are allowed to do.
The real racist are the Aztlan Nationalist who do not accept that America is a sovereign country. *


----------



## LilOlLady

*Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities*
Last week, a caravan of *1,800 Central American migrants* arrived in this isolated Mexican border city, where police ushered them into a makeshift government shelter at a shuttered factory surrounded by chain-link fence.

As conditions at the shelter deteriorated, *riots erupted *last Wednesday. Migrants broke through security barriers and struggled with guards. Some *threw pipes, tables, chairs* and parts of a tent at Mexican officers. Migrant advocates and reporters were barred from the facility, which was surrounded by dozens of* federal police in riot gear.
It would cost the city $260,000 to operate the shelter for a month, including food, staff and utilities, he said. He’s been working 12-hour days.*
Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities

Even it is a *national emergency f*or Mexico. WTF is needed for the DumbCrats to see that there is a national emergency at the border. These people are not anyone I would want for a neighbor. YES, MAGA and don't let them in and deport those who are here committing crimes. I have been a diehard liberal but *NEVER* will I vote democratic again. I am not a racist or a bigot and I have family and friends from south of the border. I am just understanding what MAGA really means and it is often used to be racist but it is not racist to me.


----------



## LilOlLady

candycorn said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland
Click to expand...

People will use any excuse to spew their hate against others. They use the Bible, the flag and MAGA which mean* make American safe again *by securing the border.


----------



## LilOlLady

"I write to invite all Members of Congress to cosponsor Congressman Joaquin Castro's privileged resolution ... to *terminate this emergency declaration* using the termination mechanism within the National Emergencies Act," the California Democrat wrote in a letter to her colleagues."All Members take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution," *Pelosi *added. "The President's decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated. We have a solemn responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and defend our system of checks and balances against the President's assault."
---------------------------------------------------------
Trump would not be doing his job if he did not do everything possible to secure the border to M*ake America Safe Again*. Even *gun violence* is connected to Mexico. 1800 more migrant caravan has just arrived at the border rioting.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  our Founding Fathers did a better job that the right can ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
Click to expand...

We have a naturalization clause, a commerce clause, and welfare clause general.  

Entry into the Union is a federal not State obligation.  

And, we have no express immigration clause.  

We should have no costly illegal problem.  We should be generating revenue. 

We control citizenship.  Not tourism.


----------



## danielpalos

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
Click to expand...

The right wing needs to learn how to read; there is no express Immigration clause in our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> *Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities*
> Last week, a caravan of *1,800 Central American migrants* arrived in this isolated Mexican border city, where police ushered them into a makeshift government shelter at a shuttered factory surrounded by chain-link fence.
> 
> As conditions at the shelter deteriorated, *riots erupted *last Wednesday. Migrants broke through security barriers and struggled with guards. Some *threw pipes, tables, chairs* and parts of a tent at Mexican officers. Migrant advocates and reporters were barred from the facility, which was surrounded by dozens of* federal police in riot gear.
> It would cost the city $260,000 to operate the shelter for a month, including food, staff and utilities, he said. He’s been working 12-hour days.*
> Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities
> 
> Even it is a *national emergency f*or Mexico. WTF is needed for the DumbCrats to see that there is a national emergency at the border. These people are not anyone I would want for a neighbor. YES, MAGA and don't let them in and deport those who are here committing crimes. I have been a diehard liberal but *NEVER* will I vote democratic again. I am not a racist or a bigot and I have family and friends from south of the border. I am just understanding what MAGA really means and it is often used to be racist but it is not racist to me.


Our drug war is worthless, costly, and only creates our refugee problem.  The right wing is the actual problem.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will use any excuse to spew their hate against others. They use the Bible, the flag and MAGA which mean* make American safe again *by securing the border.
Click to expand...

we have a refugee problem on the border not a common defense problem.


----------



## LilOlLady

danielpalos said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will use any excuse to spew their hate against others. They use the Bible, the flag and MAGA which mean* make American safe again *by securing the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem on the border not a common defense problem.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you do not know what the legal definition of a refugee is. Many in the caravan left homes and jobs and not living in poverty but want a better life of freebies we offer. Left domestic and gang violence which does not meet the criteria for a refugee. A *refugee is* someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of *persecution, war or violence.* A *refugee* has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of *race, religion, nationality, political opinion *or membership in a particular social group. We have enough gangs, drugs, poverty, and crime in this country and we do not need or neither can afford the domestics problems of other countries. Build the damn wall and Make America Safe Again.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Having lived in New Orleans, which is equivalent to living in a caravel shooting gallery, where there are major parts of the city that one does not even drive through in broad daylight, I feel incredibly safe down here in S. AZ, 35 miles from the border.  I have not locked my door in 9 years. As a matter of fact, maybe Trump's casinos went bankrupt in Atlantic City because it was unsafe to leave the casino and walk on the street at night. That certainly had nothing to do with illegal aliens.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will use any excuse to spew their hate against others. They use the Bible, the flag and MAGA which mean* make American safe again *by securing the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a refugee problem on the border not a common defense problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you do not know what the legal definition of a refugee is. Many in the caravan left homes and jobs and not living in poverty but want a better life of freebies we offer. Left domestic and gang violence which does not meet the criteria for a refugee. A *refugee is* someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of *persecution, war or violence.* A *refugee* has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of *race, religion, nationality, political opinion *or membership in a particular social group. We have enough gangs, drugs, poverty, and crime in this country and we do not need or neither can afford the domestics problems of other countries. Build the damn wall and Make America Safe Again.
Click to expand...

Our drug war qualifies because it destabilizes that region.


----------



## K9Buck

Vandalshandle said:


> I feel incredibly safe down here in S. AZ, 35 miles from the border.  I have not locked my door in 9 years.



Illegals that cross the border know it is unwise to remain near the border and head inland.


----------



## LilOlLady

*No Asylum. Period.*
The vast majority are coming for *economic reasons. *That doesn’t fit within the statutory requirement for asylum.

Passing through another country without seeking asylum undercuts any claim made upon arrival at the U.S. border.

Mexico is not only shifting this problem to the U.S., it is encouraging illegal immigration by accommodating these caravans.
*No Asylum. Period.*

Mexico has offered *temporary work permits* to migrants who register for asylum, ... Many of the migrants say they plan to seek asylum in the US.
The plan also envisages* temporary ID cards, medical care and schooling.*
But to qualify, migrants must remain in Mexico's southern Chiapas and Oaxaca states.

The US has warned that about 800 troops may be sent to the US-Mexico border to stop the migrant caravan.
Mexico makes offer to caravan migrants


----------



## LilOlLady

Vandalshandle said:


> Having lived in New Orleans, which is equivalent to living in a caravel shooting gallery, where there are major parts of the city that one does not even drive through in broad daylight, I feel incredibly safe down here in S. AZ, 35 miles from the border.  I have not locked my door in 9 years. As a matter of fact, maybe Trump's casinos went bankrupt in Atlantic City because it was unsafe to leave the casino and walk on the street at night. That certainly had nothing to do with illegal aliens.


I beg you differ. According to a 2011 government report, the arrests attached to the criminal alien population included an estimated *25,000 people for homicide, 42,000 for robbery, nearly 70,000 for sex offenses, and nearly 15,000 for kidnapping.* In Texas alone, within the last seven years, more than *a quarter million criminal aliens have been arreste*d and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses. You don’t hear that. The most recent report found that *20 percent of all inmates in federal prison are foreign-born* and about* 93 percent of them are likely illega*l ...


----------



## Vandalshandle

LilOlLady said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in New Orleans, which is equivalent to living in a caravel shooting gallery, where there are major parts of the city that one does not even drive through in broad daylight, I feel incredibly safe down here in S. AZ, 35 miles from the border.  I have not locked my door in 9 years. As a matter of fact, maybe Trump's casinos went bankrupt in Atlantic City because it was unsafe to leave the casino and walk on the street at night. That certainly had nothing to do with illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> I beg you differ. According to a 2011 government report, the arrests attached to the criminal alien population included an estimated *25,000 people for homicide, 42,000 for robbery, nearly 70,000 for sex offenses, and nearly 15,000 for kidnapping.* In Texas alone, within the last seven years, more than *a quarter million criminal aliens have been arreste*d and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses. You don’t hear that. The most recent report found that *20 percent of all inmates in federal prison are foreign-born* and about* 93 percent of them are likely illega*l ...
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Vandalshandle

K9Buck said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel incredibly safe down here in S. AZ, 35 miles from the border.  I have not locked my door in 9 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals that cross the border know it is unwise to remain near the border and head inland.
Click to expand...


So, Illegal aliens feel less conspicuous in places where few people speak Spanish?


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> *No Asylum. Period.*
> The vast majority are coming for *economic reasons. *That doesn’t fit within the statutory requirement for asylum.
> 
> Passing through another country without seeking asylum undercuts any claim made upon arrival at the U.S. border.
> 
> Mexico is not only shifting this problem to the U.S., it is encouraging illegal immigration by accommodating these caravans.
> *No Asylum. Period.*
> 
> Mexico has offered *temporary work permits* to migrants who register for asylum, ... Many of the migrants say they plan to seek asylum in the US.
> The plan also envisages* temporary ID cards, medical care and schooling.*
> But to qualify, migrants must remain in Mexico's southern Chiapas and Oaxaca states.
> 
> The US has warned that about 800 troops may be sent to the US-Mexico border to stop the migrant caravan.
> Mexico makes offer to caravan migrants


Venezuela qualifies.


----------



## Correll

candycorn said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The real reason why the Democratic Party refuses to protect our border crossings is because they regard Anglo Voters to be their opposition.
> The Democratic Party is filled with racist cretins.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the white nationalists continue to target democrats as we saw yesterday in Maryland
Click to expand...



Are you conflating all "anglo voters" with "white nationalists, and violent ones at that?


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.



The World Health Organization estimates that *4.6 million* people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution.

National emergency

Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide. Approximately 1.4 million people have died from firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011. This number includes all deaths resulting from a firearm, including suicides, homicides, and accidents.

National emergency


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.
> 
> You’re an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.
> 
> 
> Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.
Click to expand...

Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.

No one said anything like that at all except for you.

You are an imbecile AND a liar.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *”But if...”*
> 
> When I see a rightard say that, that’s when I cut you off and say, “fuck off,” because I have learned from experience, everything that follows is made up rightarded bullshit.
> 
> So.... fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point, your attack on it was that I had not proved something.
> 
> 
> I asked you what do you think I have to prove, from my point, and your response is that
> 
> 
> 
> "you don't have to prove anything"
> 
> 
> BUT, then you also claim that something I said was bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
Click to expand...

Your point was built on the foundation of made up bullshit. That’s what I’m talking about, ya raving lunatic.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> His “emergency” is rebuilding the existing walls and fences. Fuck that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking lunatic rightie... that’s 55 miles *in addition to the roughly 700 miles of existing walls and fences*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is your position that an additional 55 miles of Wall will be enough to secure the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that’s not what I said. What I actually said in response to your nuttiness that a 55 mile barrier is insufficient to control the border, was it’s actually about 755 miles of barriers, not 55 miles, as you ridiculously portrayed.
> 
> As far as whether or not 755 miles is sufficient to control the border, that’s substantially more than trump wants....
> 
> 
> _“That's a big stretch, because we're talking about *500 to 550 miles* [Inaudible]. It's a 2,000 mile border, but much of it has mountains, and region where you can't get across. *So we're. Looking at between 500 and 550.* So we gave out 115 yesterday, and we gave it out at a great price. So, we're gonna have a great wall there, and we have other sections to give out.”_​
> You may not believe me, but you b’lieve trump, don’tcha?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Mr. "I do support the wall", what are you even bitching about?
> 
> 
> Do you think that the border is effectively controlled right now?
Click to expand...

Sadly, it seems I have to repeat myself so hopefully saying this again will sink in for you.... I don’t support rebuilding existing barriers.

Capiche?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Nah, you’re just another rightwing but who can’t quit Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
Click to expand...

I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.
> 
> You’re an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.
> 
> 
> Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.
> 
> No one said anything like that at all except for you.
> 
> You are an imbecile AND a liar.
Click to expand...


I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.

And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.


You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.

Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.


But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong. 


If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.


Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically, 


the actions of an imbecile and a liar.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a wall that significantly reduces illegal border crossings by half, would be a huge win for America,
> 
> 
> in hardly bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> YOur cowardly excuse for not responding seriously, is noted, and laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point, your attack on it was that I had not proved something.
> 
> 
> I asked you what do you think I have to prove, from my point, and your response is that
> 
> 
> 
> "you don't have to prove anything"
> 
> 
> BUT, then you also claim that something I said was bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point was built on the foundation of made up bullshit. That’s what I’m talking about, ya raving lunatic.
Click to expand...





Well, that was a waste of time. Got it. YOu were just spewing shit, that you can't back up.


The millions and millions of illegals we have living here, shows that the border is a fucking disaster and needs to be controlled.


Whatever has to be done to do that, FUCKING DO IT AND FAST.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> A 55 mile wall, won't be enough to control the border, which is why he SHOULD declare an emergency and build the fuckin g wall.
> 
> 
> 
> It is insane the controlling the border is a controversial idea. INSANE.
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking lunatic rightie... that’s 55 miles *in addition to the roughly 700 miles of existing walls and fences*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is your position that an additional 55 miles of Wall will be enough to secure the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that’s not what I said. What I actually said in response to your nuttiness that a 55 mile barrier is insufficient to control the border, was it’s actually about 755 miles of barriers, not 55 miles, as you ridiculously portrayed.
> 
> As far as whether or not 755 miles is sufficient to control the border, that’s substantially more than trump wants....
> 
> 
> _“That's a big stretch, because we're talking about *500 to 550 miles* [Inaudible]. It's a 2,000 mile border, but much of it has mountains, and region where you can't get across. *So we're. Looking at between 500 and 550.* So we gave out 115 yesterday, and we gave it out at a great price. So, we're gonna have a great wall there, and we have other sections to give out.”_​
> You may not believe me, but you b’lieve trump, don’tcha?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Mr. "I do support the wall", what are you even bitching about?
> 
> 
> Do you think that the border is effectively controlled right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, it seems I have to repeat myself so hopefully saying this again will sink in for you.... I don’t support rebuilding existing barriers.
> 
> Capiche?
Click to expand...



Nope. You seem to be all over the place, just spewing out shit. 


Do you think that the border is effectively controlled right now?


----------



## danielpalos

the right wing must be wrong; wikileaks did not publish any issues on this.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought her up. So, try to be less bat shit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
Click to expand...




Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.


Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.


----------



## depotoo

Just today, 3 differ.ent sectors on the border-

CBP El Centro Retweeted





·
38m

This morning, another truck concealing 22 illegal aliens breached the aging border barrier in east #SanDiego. When #USBP agents responded, the driver rammed a USBP vehicle in attempt to flee. The driver then exited on foot and escaped south. All 22 passengers were arrested. #CBP















·
7h

(1/2) This morning a #CBPElCentro agent from the #Indio #USBP Station was attempting to take a subject into custody for suspected alien smuggling @ Hwy. 111 immigration checkpoint near #Niland CA. The suspect resisted arrest attempting to abscond via vehicle dragging our agent a
https://mobile.twitter.com/CBPElCentro
·
7h

(2/2) short distance, putting the agent’s life in grave danger. The agent fortunately became free of the vehicle & sustained no major injuries. Agents ultimately arrested the fleeing subject. Further investigation is underway. Updates to follow as more info becomes available.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBPArizona
...............·
7h

#YumaSector SOD agents arrest three suspected human smugglers with loaded firearm while other agents were busy with a group of 25 Central Americans. #SouthwestBorder #NationalSecurity: (link: https://bit.ly/2Vb8iGs) bit.ly/2Vb8iGs


----------



## LilOlLady

danielpalos said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No Asylum. Period.*
> The vast majority are coming for *economic reasons. *That doesn’t fit within the statutory requirement for asylum.
> 
> Passing through another country without seeking asylum undercuts any claim made upon arrival at the U.S. border.
> 
> Mexico is not only shifting this problem to the U.S., it is encouraging illegal immigration by accommodating these caravans.
> *No Asylum. Period.*
> 
> Mexico has offered *temporary work permits* to migrants who register for asylum, ... Many of the migrants say they plan to seek asylum in the US.
> The plan also envisages* temporary ID cards, medical care and schooling.*
> But to qualify, migrants must remain in Mexico's southern Chiapas and Oaxaca states.
> 
> The US has warned that about 800 troops may be sent to the US-Mexico border to stop the migrant caravan.
> Mexico makes offer to caravan migrants
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela qualifies.
Click to expand...

Venezuelans do not want to come here. Plus the president has closed the border and no one can get out or in if they wanted to. Venezuelans unlike most of south and central America are not wimpy. They love their country as I love mine and willing to fight for change. Those who want to come have to apply for asylum in Venezuela.


----------



## depotoo

Cont-

CBP Retweeted





·
16m

#USBP agents in Tucson arrest a previously deported, admitted MS-13 gang member who had at least 10 previous illegal entries into the U.S.
@CBP
is protecting America #SouthwestBorder. Details: (link: https://bit.ly/2BMgwNL) bit.ly/2BMgwNL

[URL='https://mobile.twitter.com/CBPArizona']



·
1h

Tucson Sector #USBP works with
@PinalCounty
on #OperationStonegarden to arrest illegal aliens from Guatemala who entered the country illegally
@CBP
is #BorderSecurity Details: (link: https://bit.ly/2VfbD7p) bit.ly/2VfbD7p








#YumaSector agents recover 2nd firearm amongst human smugglers in less than 48 hours. #NationalSecurity #SouthwestBorder ; (link: https://bit.ly/2Sh90jp) bit.ly/2Sh90jp



[/URL]


[URL='https://mobile.twitter.com/CBPRGV']



·
2h

#BorderPatrol agents in #RGV continue to sieze narcotics at immigration checkpoints and between ports of entry. Yesterday, agents seized $1.4M worth of methamphetamine and nearly $600K in marijuana.
@CBP
#BorderSecurity #USBP #SouthwestBorder #HonorFirst (link: http://bit.ly/2SUdG3S) bit.ly/2SUdG3S











4

37

50







·
Feb 20

#RGV Rio Grande Valley #BorderPatrol agents seize over 1,000 pounds of marijuana in a 24 hour period.
@CBP
#BorderSecurity #SouthwestBorder #AlwaysVigilant #HonorFirst #USBP (link: http://bit.ly/2TZhM7v) bit.ly/2TZhM7v











5

59

84







·
Feb 20

#RGV Rio Grande Valley #BorderPatrol agents rescue abandoned group abandoned by their smugglers in the vast and unforving ranchlands near Falfurrias, Texas.
@CBP
#SavingLives #SouthwestBorder #BorderSecurity #HonorFirst #USBP #AlwaysVigilant (link: http://bit.ly/2GANZyP) bit.ly/2GANZyP















19

24







·
Feb 20

#BorderPatrol agents in #RGV Rio Grande Valley disrupted six narcotic smuggling attempts resulting in seizure of over 1,200 pounds of marijuana in separate incidents over several days.
@CBP
#BorderSecurity #SouthwestBorder #AlwaysVigilant #USBP #HonorFirst (link: http://bit.ly/2TYatgj) bit.ly/2TYatgj[/URL]


----------



## Vandalshandle

I will bet that the hombre who was carrying the 1,200 pounds of marijuana across the unfenced border on his back was pretty damned tired walking it across 120 miles of desert!


----------



## depotoo

Thousands flee violence and hunger in Venezuela, seeking asylum in the United States
2018



LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No Asylum. Period.*
> The vast majority are coming for *economic reasons. *That doesn’t fit within the statutory requirement for asylum.
> 
> Passing through another country without seeking asylum undercuts any claim made upon arrival at the U.S. border.
> 
> Mexico is not only shifting this problem to the U.S., it is encouraging illegal immigration by accommodating these caravans.
> *No Asylum. Period.*
> 
> Mexico has offered *temporary work permits* to migrants who register for asylum, ... Many of the migrants say they plan to seek asylum in the US.
> The plan also envisages* temporary ID cards, medical care and schooling.*
> But to qualify, migrants must remain in Mexico's southern Chiapas and Oaxaca states.
> 
> The US has warned that about 800 troops may be sent to the US-Mexico border to stop the migrant caravan.
> Mexico makes offer to caravan migrants
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela qualifies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Venezuelans do not want to come here. Plus the president has closed the border and no one can get out or in if they wanted to. Venezuelans unlike most of south and central America are not wimpy. They love their country as I love mine and willing to fight for change. Those who want to come have to apply for asylum in Venezuela.
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

Vandalshandle said:


> I will bet that the hombre who was carrying the 1,200 pounds of marijuana across the unfenced border on his back was pretty damned tired walking it across 120 miles of desert!


From the story link-

On Thursday, Rio Grande City agents working near Los Barreras, Texas, observed multiple subjects load bundles of marijuana into a vehicle just north of the Rio Grande. As agents responded, the driver abandoned the vehicle and fled the area. A search of the vehicle revealed 12 bundles of marijuana weighing nearly 560 pounds worth an estimated $448K.


----------



## Vandalshandle

depotoo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet that the hombre who was carrying the 1,200 pounds of marijuana across the unfenced border on his back was pretty damned tired walking it across 120 miles of desert!
> 
> 
> 
> From the story link-
> 
> On Thursday, Rio Grande City agents working near Los Barreras, Texas, observed multiple subjects load bundles of marijuana into a vehicle just north of the Rio Grande. As agents responded, the driver abandoned the vehicle and fled the area. A search of the vehicle revealed 12 bundles of marijuana weighing nearly 560 pounds worth an estimated $448K.
Click to expand...


Wow~! That would NEVER have happened if they had been required to pass it between steel bars of a wall!


----------



## depotoo

It would have been a deterrent.  They can’t run thru it like they do the billion dollar fences put in previously.





Vandalshandle said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet that the hombre who was carrying the 1,200 pounds of marijuana across the unfenced border on his back was pretty damned tired walking it across 120 miles of desert!
> 
> 
> 
> From the story link-
> 
> On Thursday, Rio Grande City agents working near Los Barreras, Texas, observed multiple subjects load bundles of marijuana into a vehicle just north of the Rio Grande. As agents responded, the driver abandoned the vehicle and fled the area. A search of the vehicle revealed 12 bundles of marijuana weighing nearly 560 pounds worth an estimated $448K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow~! That would NEVER have happened if they had been required to pass it between steel bars of a wall!
Click to expand...


----------



## Flopper

LilOlLady said:


> *Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities*
> Last week, a caravan of *1,800 Central American migrants* arrived in this isolated Mexican border city, where police ushered them into a makeshift government shelter at a shuttered factory surrounded by chain-link fence.
> 
> As conditions at the shelter deteriorated, *riots erupted *last Wednesday. Migrants broke through security barriers and struggled with guards. Some *threw pipes, tables, chairs* and parts of a tent at Mexican officers. Migrant advocates and reporters were barred from the facility, which was surrounded by dozens of* federal police in riot gear.
> It would cost the city $260,000 to operate the shelter for a month, including food, staff and utilities, he said. He’s been working 12-hour days.*
> Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities
> 
> Even it is a *national emergency f*or Mexico. WTF is needed for the DumbCrats to see that there is a national emergency at the border. These people are not anyone I would want for a neighbor. YES, MAGA and don't let them in and deport those who are here committing crimes. I have been a diehard liberal but *NEVER* will I vote democratic again. I am not a racist or a bigot and I have family and friends from south of the border. I am just understanding what MAGA really means and it is often used to be racist but it is not racist to me.


Mexico doesn't have sufficient facilities for them.  It has nothing to do with Trump.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.
> 
> You’re an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.
> 
> 
> Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.
> 
> No one said anything like that at all except for you.
> 
> You are an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.
> 
> And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.
> 
> 
> But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.
> 
> 
> If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.
> 
> 
> Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,
> 
> 
> the actions of an imbecile and a liar.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

These two statements...

_*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_

... and ... 

_*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_

... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you can’t prove that; which is why you employed, _”but if”_. Which is why I pointed out everting after that is you, making shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point, your attack on it was that I had not proved something.
> 
> 
> I asked you what do you think I have to prove, from my point, and your response is that
> 
> 
> 
> "you don't have to prove anything"
> 
> 
> BUT, then you also claim that something I said was bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point was built on the foundation of made up bullshit. That’s what I’m talking about, ya raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a waste of time. Got it. YOu were just spewing shit, that you can't back up.
> 
> 
> The millions and millions of illegals we have living here, shows that the border is a fucking disaster and needs to be controlled.
> 
> 
> Whatever has to be done to do that, FUCKING DO IT AND FAST.
Click to expand...

Fucking moron, millions of them have been living here from before we had walls up. We have walls. Add new ones, fine. Fix broken ones, fine. But we’re not replacing 500-700 miles of existing barriers.


----------



## LilOlLady

Flopper said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities*
> Last week, a caravan of *1,800 Central American migrants* arrived in this isolated Mexican border city, where police ushered them into a makeshift government shelter at a shuttered factory surrounded by chain-link fence.
> 
> As conditions at the shelter deteriorated, *riots erupted *last Wednesday. Migrants broke through security barriers and struggled with guards. Some *threw pipes, tables, chairs* and parts of a tent at Mexican officers. Migrant advocates and reporters were barred from the facility, which was surrounded by dozens of* federal police in riot gear.
> It would cost the city $260,000 to operate the shelter for a month, including food, staff and utilities, he said. He’s been working 12-hour days.*
> Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities
> 
> Even it is a *national emergency f*or Mexico. WTF is needed for the DumbCrats to see that there is a national emergency at the border. These people are not anyone I would want for a neighbor. YES, MAGA and don't let them in and deport those who are here committing crimes. I have been a diehard liberal but *NEVER* will I vote democratic again. I am not a racist or a bigot and I have family and friends from south of the border. I am just understanding what MAGA really means and it is often used to be racist but it is not racist to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico doesn't have sufficient facilities for them.  It has nothing to do with Trump.
Click to expand...

I did not say Trump had anything to do with Mexico's decisions to house them or not. We do not have facilities to hold them until a decision is made concerning the asylum. Trump is making them stay in Mexico until their asylum is processed and no more catch and release date.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one who can’t accept she didn’t commit a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
Click to expand...

LOL

Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub. 

And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that ever other nation has the right to decide who and what enters it's community, and becomes a part of it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.
> 
> You’re an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.
> 
> 
> Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.
> 
> No one said anything like that at all except for you.
> 
> You are an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.
> 
> And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.
> 
> 
> But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.
> 
> 
> If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.
> 
> 
> Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,
> 
> 
> the actions of an imbecile and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These two statements...
> 
> _*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> _*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_
> 
> ... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.
Click to expand...




So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that, 


you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?



Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point, your attack on it was that I had not proved something.
> 
> 
> I asked you what do you think I have to prove, from my point, and your response is that
> 
> 
> 
> "you don't have to prove anything"
> 
> 
> BUT, then you also claim that something I said was bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point was built on the foundation of made up bullshit. That’s what I’m talking about, ya raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a waste of time. Got it. YOu were just spewing shit, that you can't back up.
> 
> 
> The millions and millions of illegals we have living here, shows that the border is a fucking disaster and needs to be controlled.
> 
> 
> Whatever has to be done to do that, FUCKING DO IT AND FAST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, millions of them have been living here from before we had walls up. We have walls. Add new ones, fine. Fix broken ones, fine. But we’re not replacing 500-700 miles of existing barriers.
Click to expand...



CBP San Diego on Twitter



CBP San Diego on Twitter


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
Click to expand...




THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.


----------



## depotoo

Remember David Patraeus?  He was found guilty, given. 2 years probation, and fined $100,000

Marine Sgt. Rickie L. Roller went to jail for 10 months, forfeited $14,400 in pay, was reduced in rank and was dishonorably discharged after he tossed classified documents into a gym bag when he cleaned out his office at Marine Corps headquarters in Washington to prepare for relocation to a new post in 1989. Roller was prosecuted in a military court for gross negligence in handling classified information, and his conviction was upheld on appeal even though the documents never fell into the hands of a third party.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Arthur E. Gonzalez was charged with gross negligence in handling classified information after he inadvertently took two top-secret messages on a military trip to Alaska in 1979. He testified that he realized his error and put the documents in a drawer for safekeeping, then forgot about them when he returned to Elmendorf Air Force Base. He was sentenced by a military court to a bad-conduct discharge and five months in prison.

Navy Chief Petty Officer James F. McGuiness was found in 1989 to have accumulated more than 300 classified documents at his home during his 16 years as an intelligence operations specialist. At his trial, he said he had used the documents as reference material when he worked at night. Although there was no evidence that any secrets had been lost or stolen, McGuiness was sentenced to two years in prison.

And this guy-
On appeal, the issue was whether that statute, which reads the same as it does today, requires that a third-party get a hold of the classified material in order for there to be criminal liability. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps court of Military Review answered that question in the negative, but of interest is the fact that it called Roller’s inadvertent taking of the classified information “his own gross negligence.” Roller, 37 M.J. at 1096. There was no dispute that his mistake of scooping up the classified material with his personal belongings qualified as gross negligence.

As the Court of Military Appeals (the predecessor to the modern-day Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) later explained in its decision affirming Roller’s conviction, “[t]he purpose of the federal espionage statute is to protect classified documents from any unauthorized procedures such as ‘removal from its proper place of custody’ . . .”  United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1995). In other words, the crime—as the name suggests—occurs when classified information is “mishandled.”

For this reason, a subjective belief that the lost information will be of actual harm to the United States—and indeed any intent to cause actual harm—is irrelevant to the commission of this crime.

Just ask Sergeant Roller. His mishandling of classified information landed him in the brig for 2 years.

https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...s in the 1995 case of United States v. Roller
Military Appellate Courts address “gross negligence” in the handling of classified materials in the 1995 case of United States v. Roller | Law Office of Samuel C. Moore, PLLC
2 years


Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the way the FBI found that she had committed a crime,and then gave her a pass,
> 
> 
> yes, I cannot accept that. It is a massive injustice that she walks, when average citizens have done time for what she did.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know the laws of every single country on Earth and I suspect you don’t either. Regardless, the US also has the right to decide who can and cannot enter. Even if we didn’t, that would be just one right. That still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. And again, no one here suggested that we do.
> 
> You’re an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.
> 
> 
> Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.
> 
> No one said anything like that at all except for you.
> 
> You are an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.
> 
> And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.
> 
> 
> But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.
> 
> 
> If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.
> 
> 
> Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,
> 
> 
> the actions of an imbecile and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These two statements...
> 
> _*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> _*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_
> 
> ... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.
Click to expand...

You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.


----------



## Wyatt earp

candycorn said:


> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?




So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good

A conservative abuses his powers = bad?


.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.


----------



## Correll

depotoo said:


> Remember David Patraeus?  He was found guilty, given. 2 years probation, and fined $100,000
> 
> Marine Sgt. Rickie L. Roller went to jail for 10 months, forfeited $14,400 in pay, was reduced in rank and was dishonorably discharged after he tossed classified documents into a gym bag when he cleaned out his office at Marine Corps headquarters in Washington to prepare for relocation to a new post in 1989. Roller was prosecuted in a military court for gross negligence in handling classified information, and his conviction was upheld on appeal even though the documents never fell into the hands of a third party.
> 
> Air Force Staff Sgt. Arthur E. Gonzalez was charged with gross negligence in handling classified information after he inadvertently took two top-secret messages on a military trip to Alaska in 1979. He testified that he realized his error and put the documents in a drawer for safekeeping, then forgot about them when he returned to Elmendorf Air Force Base. He was sentenced by a military court to a bad-conduct discharge and five months in prison.
> 
> Navy Chief Petty Officer James F. McGuiness was found in 1989 to have accumulated more than 300 classified documents at his home during his 16 years as an intelligence operations specialist. At his trial, he said he had used the documents as reference material when he worked at night. Although there was no evidence that any secrets had been lost or stolen, McGuiness was sentenced to two years in prison.
> 
> And this guy-
> On appeal, the issue was whether that statute, which reads the same as it does today, requires that a third-party get a hold of the classified material in order for there to be criminal liability. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps court of Military Review answered that question in the negative, but of interest is the fact that it called Roller’s inadvertent taking of the classified information “his own gross negligence.” Roller, 37 M.J. at 1096. There was no dispute that his mistake of scooping up the classified material with his personal belongings qualified as gross negligence.
> 
> As the Court of Military Appeals (the predecessor to the modern-day Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) later explained in its decision affirming Roller’s conviction, “[t]he purpose of the federal espionage statute is to protect classified documents from any unauthorized procedures such as ‘removal from its proper place of custody’ . . .”  United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1995). In other words, the crime—as the name suggests—occurs when classified information is “mishandled.”
> 
> For this reason, a subjective belief that the lost information will be of actual harm to the United States—and indeed any intent to cause actual harm—is irrelevant to the commission of this crime.
> 
> Just ask Sergeant Roller. His mishandling of classified information landed him in the brig for 2 years.
> 
> Military Appellate Courts address “gross negligence” in the handling of classified materials in the 1995 case of United States v. Roller | Law Office of Samuel C. Moore, PLLC
> 2 years
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What citizen went to jail for sending classified material from their own private email server?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



THe rules are different if you are a liberal.


----------



## depotoo

She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc  .

https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/



Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

Of course they are.  That is obvious.  Look at what happened with Sandy Berger for just one example.


*Chinese nuclear espionageEdit*



Sandy Berger with President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
In 1999, Berger was criticized for failing to promptly inform President Clinton of his knowledge that the People's Republic of China had managed to acquire the designs of a number of U.S. nuclear warheads. Berger was originally briefed of the espionage by the Department of Energy (DOE) in April 1996, but did not inform the president until July 1997.[15][16]

And a slap on the wrist-

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justicewas investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants.[20][21] Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.[22]

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.[23]

Berger was fined $50,000,[24] sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for three years.[22][25] The Justice Department initially said Berger only stole copies of classified documents and not originals,[26] but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. During the House Government Reform Committee hearings, Nancy Kegan Smith — who was the director of the presidential documents staff at the National Archives and Records Administration — acknowledged that she had granted Berger access to original materials in her office.[27]

On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)". Berger acknowledged having later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[28][29]


He only had to give up his security clearance for 3 years, no time served, etc, etc.


Another one which happened under the Clinton administration-

A Defense Department contractor was investigated by the FBI for keeping classified papers at his home in the mid-1990s. After the contractor voluntarily handed over some of the material, a search discovered that he still had classified documents dating back almost 30 years, including notes of White House meetings on classified subjects, according to an official familiar with the case. Despite pressure from the FBI, the Justice Department decided not to prosecute and supported reinstating the contractor's security clearance.




Correll said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember David Patraeus?  He was found guilty, given. 2 years probation, and fined $100,000
> 
> Marine Sgt. Rickie L. Roller went to jail for 10 months, forfeited $14,400 in pay, was reduced in rank and was dishonorably discharged after he tossed classified documents into a gym bag when he cleaned out his office at Marine Corps headquarters in Washington to prepare for relocation to a new post in 1989. Roller was prosecuted in a military court for gross negligence in handling classified information, and his conviction was upheld on appeal even though the documents never fell into the hands of a third party.
> 
> Air Force Staff Sgt. Arthur E. Gonzalez was charged with gross negligence in handling classified information after he inadvertently took two top-secret messages on a military trip to Alaska in 1979. He testified that he realized his error and put the documents in a drawer for safekeeping, then forgot about them when he returned to Elmendorf Air Force Base. He was sentenced by a military court to a bad-conduct discharge and five months in prison.
> 
> Navy Chief Petty Officer James F. McGuiness was found in 1989 to have accumulated more than 300 classified documents at his home during his 16 years as an intelligence operations specialist. At his trial, he said he had used the documents as reference material when he worked at night. Although there was no evidence that any secrets had been lost or stolen, McGuiness was sentenced to two years in prison.
> 
> And this guy-
> On appeal, the issue was whether that statute, which reads the same as it does today, requires that a third-party get a hold of the classified material in order for there to be criminal liability. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps court of Military Review answered that question in the negative, but of interest is the fact that it called Roller’s inadvertent taking of the classified information “his own gross negligence.” Roller, 37 M.J. at 1096. There was no dispute that his mistake of scooping up the classified material with his personal belongings qualified as gross negligence.
> 
> As the Court of Military Appeals (the predecessor to the modern-day Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) later explained in its decision affirming Roller’s conviction, “[t]he purpose of the federal espionage statute is to protect classified documents from any unauthorized procedures such as ‘removal from its proper place of custody’ . . .”  United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1995). In other words, the crime—as the name suggests—occurs when classified information is “mishandled.”
> 
> For this reason, a subjective belief that the lost information will be of actual harm to the United States—and indeed any intent to cause actual harm—is irrelevant to the commission of this crime.
> 
> Just ask Sergeant Roller. His mishandling of classified information landed him in the brig for 2 years.
> 
> Military Appellate Courts address “gross negligence” in the handling of classified materials in the 1995 case of United States v. Roller | Law Office of Samuel C. Moore, PLLC
> 2 years
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe rules are different if you are a liberal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the laws of those other nations, you are stating that they DO have the right to control who enters their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> We have those kind of laws too. But the Left in this country has decided that it is morally "wrong" to try to enforce them.
> 
> 
> Everyone who is pushing the idea that it is wrong to try to enforce those laws, is thus arguing that the US, for some reason, does not have the same rights as ever other nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.
> 
> No one said anything like that at all except for you.
> 
> You are an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.
> 
> And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.
> 
> 
> But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.
> 
> 
> If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.
> 
> 
> Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,
> 
> 
> the actions of an imbecile and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These two statements...
> 
> _*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> _*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_
> 
> ... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.
Click to expand...



I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
Click to expand...



Your desperate nitpicking is funny.


----------



## depotoo

Another reason for it to be an emergency-
Napa County Sheriff's Office - Sheriff John Robertson
According to police, Morales had a history of criminal activity, including weapons violations, a DUI, and an assault. He had been booked into Napa County jail five times since 2015.
Police release bodycam footage from fatal shooting between sheriff deputy and armed suspect
Illegal immigrant who fired on deputy had four different ICE detainers, criminal history (graphic video)
ABC 7 reports that Morales, a Mexican national, had a criminal history including weapons violations, a DUI, and an assault on a peace officer. He was also wanted by ICE.

ICE issued #Napa County 4 different detainers for Napa shooting suspect Javier Hernandez-Morales in 2014, 2015 & 2016. Says none were honored. Suspect released. Morales fired on a Napa deputy Sunday night. She killed suspect as seen in video released yesterday . #abc7now#ICE

— Wayne Freedman (@WayneFreedman) February 21, 2019


Correll said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember David Patraeus?  He was found guilty, given. 2 years probation, and fined $100,000
> 
> Marine Sgt. Rickie L. Roller went to jail for 10 months, forfeited $14,400 in pay, was reduced in rank and was dishonorably discharged after he tossed classified documents into a gym bag when he cleaned out his office at Marine Corps headquarters in Washington to prepare for relocation to a new post in 1989. Roller was prosecuted in a military court for gross negligence in handling classified information, and his conviction was upheld on appeal even though the documents never fell into the hands of a third party.
> 
> Air Force Staff Sgt. Arthur E. Gonzalez was charged with gross negligence in handling classified information after he inadvertently took two top-secret messages on a military trip to Alaska in 1979. He testified that he realized his error and put the documents in a drawer for safekeeping, then forgot about them when he returned to Elmendorf Air Force Base. He was sentenced by a military court to a bad-conduct discharge and five months in prison.
> 
> Navy Chief Petty Officer James F. McGuiness was found in 1989 to have accumulated more than 300 classified documents at his home during his 16 years as an intelligence operations specialist. At his trial, he said he had used the documents as reference material when he worked at night. Although there was no evidence that any secrets had been lost or stolen, McGuiness was sentenced to two years in prison.
> 
> And this guy-
> On appeal, the issue was whether that statute, which reads the same as it does today, requires that a third-party get a hold of the classified material in order for there to be criminal liability. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps court of Military Review answered that question in the negative, but of interest is the fact that it called Roller’s inadvertent taking of the classified information “his own gross negligence.” Roller, 37 M.J. at 1096. There was no dispute that his mistake of scooping up the classified material with his personal belongings qualified as gross negligence.
> 
> As the Court of Military Appeals (the predecessor to the modern-day Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) later explained in its decision affirming Roller’s conviction, “[t]he purpose of the federal espionage statute is to protect classified documents from any unauthorized procedures such as ‘removal from its proper place of custody’ . . .”  United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1995). In other words, the crime—as the name suggests—occurs when classified information is “mishandled.”
> 
> For this reason, a subjective belief that the lost information will be of actual harm to the United States—and indeed any intent to cause actual harm—is irrelevant to the commission of this crime.
> 
> Just ask Sergeant Roller. His mishandling of classified information landed him in the brig for 2 years.
> 
> Military Appellate Courts address “gross negligence” in the handling of classified materials in the 1995 case of United States v. Roller | Law Office of Samuel C. Moore, PLLC
> 2 years
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you know about that average citizen who was jailed for the crime of being ""grossly negligent" with classified material?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he took photos of his work place on a sub, because he was so proud of his service to his country.
> 
> And he did time for that, while HIllary who was just as ""grossly negligent", as stated in the FBI report before Peter Strzok changed it,
> 
> 
> got a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to be elite, in a Liberal's America.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe rules are different if you are a liberal.
Click to expand...


----------



## LilOlLady

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that I need to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have to prove anything. Everyone here saw you make that bullshit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point, your attack on it was that I had not proved something.
> 
> 
> I asked you what do you think I have to prove, from my point, and your response is that
> 
> 
> 
> "you don't have to prove anything"
> 
> 
> BUT, then you also claim that something I said was bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point was built on the foundation of made up bullshit. That’s what I’m talking about, ya raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was a waste of time. Got it. YOu were just spewing shit, that you can't back up.
> 
> 
> The millions and millions of illegals we have living here, shows that the border is a fucking disaster and needs to be controlled.
> 
> 
> Whatever has to be done to do that, FUCKING DO IT AND FAST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking moron, millions of them have been living here from before we had walls up. We have walls. Add new ones, fine. Fix broken ones, fine. But we’re not replacing 500-700 miles of existing barriers.
Click to expand...


THE FACTS: Tremendous portions of the wall have not been built. Yes, some* barrier renovation has happened*, but little wall construction has been completed under Trump.

Congress allocated roughly *$1.4 billion in the sprin*g — a bit more than 5 percent of what Trump wanted — for border security and specified that the money was not to be used for construction of the prototype wall sections that stand near San Diego. Instead, the money is to *strengthen or replace existing fencing with more secure fencing.*


----------



## LilOlLady

*Is there really a border emergency?*

More than *2,000 people *were turned away or arrested at the border each day during *November 2018*. Supporters of Mr. Trump's plans for a wall have said* the numbers constitute an emergency.*
 Asylum seekers are having to wait in Mexico for the asylum claim to be processed and that could take many months or years. That is a national emergency. WE do not have enough detentions centers to hold them and neither the money.


----------



## Flopper

LilOlLady said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities*
> Last week, a caravan of *1,800 Central American migrants* arrived in this isolated Mexican border city, where police ushered them into a makeshift government shelter at a shuttered factory surrounded by chain-link fence.
> 
> As conditions at the shelter deteriorated, *riots erupted *last Wednesday. Migrants broke through security barriers and struggled with guards. Some *threw pipes, tables, chairs* and parts of a tent at Mexican officers. Migrant advocates and reporters were barred from the facility, which was surrounded by dozens of* federal police in riot gear.
> It would cost the city $260,000 to operate the shelter for a month, including food, staff and utilities, he said. He’s been working 12-hour days.*
> Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities
> 
> Even it is a *national emergency f*or Mexico. WTF is needed for the DumbCrats to see that there is a national emergency at the border. These people are not anyone I would want for a neighbor. YES, MAGA and don't let them in and deport those who are here committing crimes. I have been a diehard liberal but *NEVER* will I vote democratic again. I am not a racist or a bigot and I have family and friends from south of the border. I am just understanding what MAGA really means and it is often used to be racist but it is not racist to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico doesn't have sufficient facilities for them.  It has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not say Trump had anything to do with Mexico's decisions to house them or not. We do not have facilities to hold them until a decision is made concerning the asylum. Trump is making them stay in Mexico until their asylum is processed and no more catch and release date.
Click to expand...

What decision on asylum?  Now that Trump has emergency powers is he abolishing asylum?


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Flopper said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
Click to expand...



say what...

so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????

how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.




*1. The Chrysler Bailout*

Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.

This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.

*2. Obamacare Implementation*

One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:


The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
*3. Political Profiling by the IRS*

After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.

*4. Recess Appointments*

In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.

*5. DACA and DAPA*

Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.

Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.

*6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*

In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

*7. The Clean Power Plan*

In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.

The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).

*8. The WOTUS Rule*

In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.

*9. Net Neutrality*

In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.

The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.

That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.

*10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*

In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Obama declared a national emergency and took the money that congress refused to give him?


----------



## rightwinger

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate America.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
Click to expand...

Somehow he thinks that elected officials deciding against wasting money in s wall is denying people of their rights


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> *Is there really a border emergency?*
> 
> More than *2,000 people *were turned away or arrested at the border each day during *November 2018*. Supporters of Mr. Trump's plans for a wall have said* the numbers constitute an emergency.*
> Asylum seekers are having to wait in Mexico for the asylum claim to be processed and that could take many months or years. That is a national emergency. WE do not have enough detentions centers to hold them and neither the money.


We have a Commerce Clause; only Lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## deanrd

bear513 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
Click to expand...

 As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

deanrd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.
Click to expand...


Clemson University, GE Power push advanced manufacturing forward at GE Power’s Additive Manufacturing Lab in Greenville




*Clemson University, GE Power push advanced manufacturing forward at GE Power’s Additive Manufacturing Lab in Greenville*



Tara Romanella, Clemson University Relations
February 20, 2019

0

Share
*GE Power dedicates three advanced machines, 1,000 square feet inside company’s Greenville-based Advanced Manufacturing Works for use by Clemson students, faculty and staff.  *

*Lab will create new educational opportunities, talent pipeline in additive manufacturing across South Carolina.*






GE Power’s Advanced Manufacturing Works facility in Greenville.
_Image Credit: GE_

GREENVILLE — Clemson University students, faculty and staff can now learn and innovate using state-of-the-art 3D printing technology alongside General Electric (GE) engineers in the new Additive Manufacturing Lab at GE Power’s Advanced Manufacturing Works facility. Unveiled at a ceremony with leaders and constituents from GE and Clemson Wednesday, the 1,000-square-foot space is Clemson’s first additive manufacturing lab housed at a corporate partner’s site.

The lab is part of a strategic partnership between Clemson and GE that will accelerate innovations in additive manufacturing, provide expanded educational opportunities for Clemson undergraduate and graduate students and create a robust engineering talent pipeline for industry across the state.

“Our state is a leader in advanced manufacturing and Clemson will continue to be a valuable resource for our industry partners,” said Clemson President James P. Clements. “This state-of-the-art lab will provide our students with a unique, hands-on learning experience and better prepare them for the work force. I am grateful to GE for providing our students with this opportunity.”

The Clemson-run lab will be managed by the university’s Center for Advanced Manufacturing. It will feature three machines that print in both metal and industrial plastic, including a new GE Additive Concept Laser M2 Cusing direct metal laser melting (DMLM) machine. GE professionals will train students this spring on specific uses of additive manufacturing as well as optimized machine operations and post-processing techniques.This will provide them with skills and experience on cutting-edge technology used by industry leaders today.

“We know advanced manufacturing will continue transforming business around the globe and we’re leaders in the field,” said John Lammas, chief engineer and chief technology officer of GE Power. “By partnering with Clemson, a South Carolina top public institution, we will be able to train students from one of the country’s leading institutions to be the next generation of engineers, furthering their education and preparing them to move additive manufacturing forward.





Deep Orange 9, a next-generation Rallycross race car, was on display in the Additive Manufacturing Lab Wednesday. Students will be able to use the machines in the new lab to build prototypes for future Deep Orange projects.
_Image Credit: GE Power_

Graduate students in the automotive engineering department will be the first to take advantage of this new lab. Through the Deep Orange program, Clemson students work with automotive manufacturers to engineer and build a car from concept to reality within two years. The Additive Manufacturing Lab will make it possible for students to design and create parts needed for the project more efficiently than before, producing breakthrough results not possible with traditional manufacturing.

This partnership was developed through Clemson’s Office of Corporate Partnerships and Strategic Initiatives. Other departments at Clemson are


----------



## Faun

depotoo said:


> She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc  .
> 
> https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what you actually asserted is that posters here believe we have fewer rights than every other country in the world. That’s not merely limited to border security; that statement includes all rights and all countries.
> 
> No one said anything like that at all except for you.
> 
> You are an imbecile AND a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.
> 
> And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.
> 
> 
> But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.
> 
> 
> If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.
> 
> 
> Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,
> 
> 
> the actions of an imbecile and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These two statements...
> 
> _*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> _*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_
> 
> ... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.
> 
> Because you know that you cannot.
> 
> 
> My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so you lied when you said others have gone to jail for doing what Hillary did since Hillary wasn’t taking pictures on a sub.
> 
> Like I always say, if conservatives didn’t lie, they’d have absolutely nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your desperate nitpicking is funny.
Click to expand...

LOL 

And by “nitpicking,” you mean pointing out he was convicted of something of which Hillary was not accused.


----------



## depotoo

From the oig report-
According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)

..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.

..
In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

..
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the 
confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the 
Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s





Faun said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc  .
> 
> https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

depotoo said:


> From the oig report-
> According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)
> 
> ..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
> The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
> This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.
> 
> ..
> In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
> Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
> The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
> 
> ..
> Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
> The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
> 
> Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
> In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
> Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
> confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
> Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
> Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
> The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
> Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
> In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
> The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
> One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
> As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc  .
> 
> https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I asked for a law, not a department rule. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Violating a department rule is not a criminal offense.


----------



## danielpalos

deanrd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.
Click to expand...

not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right wing?


----------



## LilOlLady

deanrd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that maybe you should live in a cave.


----------



## LilOlLady

danielpalos said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no emergency on the border.  Hence there is no need to declare a national emergency.
> 
> Although, one of the charges that were going to be brought against Nixon in his impeachment hearings was abuse of power.  History repeating itself perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right wing?
Click to expand...

The Right is not pushovers and believes in teaching one how to fish instead of giving them fish and the Left don't know their you know what from a hole in the ground. There is goodwill, and there are *users and abusers* who are illegals who will take advantage of you and the Left are enablers. And illegals know it. And that is what the Left is all about. Kind of like Christians teaching hellfire and brimstone and tell you if you give them your money they will keep you out of hell. Like whats his name running for president again want to GIVE everyone free college education.


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world a liberal abuses his powers = good
> 
> A conservative abuses his powers = bad?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> On the abuse of powers scale, Trump is at a solid 8, maybe a 9. Now that we have a national emergency, declaring Marshal Law,  and closing congress down would get him a 10. Then, he doesn't have to worry about impeachment or any other congressional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> say what...
> 
> so Obama's abuse of power was now less then Trumps?????
> 
> how do you figure, all Obama did was go around congress from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The Chrysler Bailout*
> 
> Building on the Bush administration’s illegal use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, the Obama administration in 2009 bullied Chrysler’s secured creditors—who were entitled to “absolute priority”—into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This subversion of creditor rights violates not just bankruptcy law, but also the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses.
> 
> This blatant crony capitalism—government-directed industrial policy to help political insiders—discourages investors and generally undermines confidence in American rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Second Circuit ruling that allowed this farce to proceed; Chrysler’s creditors are still out of luck, but there’s no legal precedent.
> 
> *2. Obamacare Implementation*
> 
> One can, and many have, written whole articles about how the Affordable Care Act is such an affront to the rule of law that its individual mandate and Medicaid coercion—both of which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote—are just the tip of the lawless iceberg. On implementation, we can’t blame Congress or courts. Here’s a sample:
> 
> 
> The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation.
> Later that year, the administration announced _via blogpost on the eve of the July 4holiday_ that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
> The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
> A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits.
> Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the _federal _government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule allowing subsidies (and fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.” Yes, we can also blame the Supreme Court for upholding this.
> The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies.
> HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, _House v. Burwell_ is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. (Full disclosure: My wife joined the House general counsel’s office last month and is litigating the appeal.)
> *3. Political Profiling by the IRS*
> 
> After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May 2013, with no consequences other than Lois Lerner, the chief of the exempt-organizations unit, being held in contempt of Congress—and then being allowed to peacefully retire despite erased records and other cover-ups. Okay, this one qualifies as Nixonian.
> 
> *4. Recess Appointments*
> 
> In January 2012, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In 2014, Supreme Court _unanimously_ ruled that the NLRB appointments were illegal, while last year the D.C. Circuit found the CFPB’s structure to be unconstitutional.
> 
> *5. DACA and DAPA*
> 
> Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, during his 2012 reelection campaign, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits (Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals) to the so-called Dreamers.
> 
> Then, after the 2014 midterms, the president decided that he had been wrong 22 times in saying he couldn’t give temporary legal status to illegal immigrants. The administration engineered this Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in the wake of Congress’s rejection of the same policies, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, and the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. A district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015, which action the Fifth Circuit twice affirmed, as did the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote.
> 
> *6. Assault On Free Speech and Due Process On College Campuses*
> 
> In 2013 the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the University of Montana a letter that became a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urged a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
> 
> As noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate explained this week, the administration construed Title IX—the federal law barring sex discrimination by federally funded schools—as a mandate to punish students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct using procedures that make it extraordinarily difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.
> 
> *7. The Clean Power Plan*
> 
> In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule for regulating power-plant emissions. Despite significant criticism, it finalized the rule in August 2015, giving states until 2018 to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, with mandatory compliance beginning in 2022.
> 
> The EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as justification for this Clean Power Plan, but that section can’t give the agency such authority. Section 111 doesn’t permit the government to require states to regulate pollutants from existing sources when those pollutants are already being regulated under Section 112, like those deriving from coal-fired plants. The late Justice Scalia’s last public act was to join an order staying the rule pending further litigation (or, as is likely, a rescinding of the rule).
> 
> *8. The WOTUS Rule*
> 
> In May 2015, the EPA announced its new Clean Water Rule, which aims to protect streams and wetlands from pollution. The agency insists that the rule doesn’t affect bodies of water not previously regulated, but several groups have sued on the basis that the rule’s definitions of regulated waters greatly exceed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).
> 
> The Supreme Court has thrice addressed the meaning of that phrase, making clear that, for the EPA to have regulatory authority, a sufficient nexus must exist between the location regulated and “navigable waters.” The Clean Water Rule, however, purports to give EPA power far beyond waters that are “navigable” by any stretch of the word’s definition. Litigation is ongoing.
> 
> *9. Net Neutrality*
> 
> In the works throughout the Obama presidency, the Open Internet Rule was adopted in February 2015 and went into effect that June, forbidding internet-service providers (ISPs) from prioritizing different kinds of internet traffic.
> 
> The real issue, beyond this “net neutrality,” is the Federal Communications Commission’s manufacture of authority to regulate the internet despite clear congressional instruction that the internet remain unregulated. In 2014, courts struck down the FCC’s 2010 self-aggrandizement under the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act, so the agency doubled down by writing a new rule that equated the internet with telephony.
> 
> That creative interpretation allowed the FCC to claim the sweeping discretion it had used to manage the AT&T phone monopoly throughout the 20th century. Moreover, while the FCC touts the regulation as ensuring that the internet remains free of censorship, the rule impinges on the First Amendment rights of internet-service providers.
> 
> *10. EPA’s Cap-And-Trade*
> 
> In October 2015, the EPA issued a carbon-emissions cap-and-trade regulation, establishing for each state limits on carbon dioxide emission, with four interim steps on the way to the final goal. EPA says that this rule, too, is authorized by Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but Congress considered and rejected such a cap-and-trade program in 2009. Far from being authorized by the Clean Air Act or lying in some zone of statutory ambiguity, this massive new regulatory scheme contradicts the express will of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the rest of the world moves ahead with science and technology, Republicans want us to live in caves. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not enough moral of "goodwill toward men" on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Right is not pushovers and believes in teaching one how to fish instead of giving them fish and the Left don't know their you know what from a hole in the ground. There is goodwill, and there are *users and abusers* who are illegals who will take advantage of you and the Left are enablers. And illegals know it. And that is what the Left is all about. Kind of like Christians teaching hellfire and brimstone and tell you if you give them your money they will keep you out of hell. Like whats his name running for president again want to GIVE everyone free college education.
Click to expand...

the right wing is all Talk.  they allege a work ethic from the Age of Iron and learning how to fish; but red herrings is all they have.


----------



## LilOlLady

But when the country set boundaries it offends other countries? A left-wing analogy.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you’re lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether to build a Wall or not.
> 
> 
> I interpreted your constant attacks on me for wanting a Wall, as opposition to the Wall.
> 
> 
> In another post, you have finally revealed that you are for a Wall.
> 
> 
> That is fairly insane of you, but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By attacks on you, you mean calling you a liar when you lie. Like your lie that other posters think America has fewer rights than every other country when no one else but you has said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every nation in the world has the right to decide who enters and becomes a part of them.
> 
> 
> Yet, these anti-American assholes are outraged that America would try to control who enters and becomes part of US.
> 
> 
> That is not a lie I am telling.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> what do you think of the asshole fucktards who think that America has fewer rights than ever other nation in the World?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you’re still a hyperventilating liar. No one is suggesting America has fewer rights thab every other nation in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somehow he thinks that elected officials deciding against wasting money in s wall is denying people of their rights
Click to expand...



Said the man purposefully misrepresenting what I said, 

because he knows that what I ACTUALLY said, was completely right, yet he is too much of a pussy to admit it.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made an analysis of what the actions of the anti-wall people reveals about their thinking.
> 
> And I explained how I reached that conclusion. Repeatedly.
> 
> 
> You have asserted that you disagree with my conclusion, but without any explanation as to how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.
> 
> 
> But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.
> 
> 
> If you think it is wrong, this is where you point out what you think is wrong about it.
> 
> 
> Just stating that it is wrong, because no one clearly and openly stated it, is, ironically,
> 
> 
> the actions of an imbecile and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These two statements...
> 
> _*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> _*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_
> 
> ... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.
> 
> Because you know that you cannot.
> 
> 
> My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.
Click to expand...



That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you, 


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was grossly negligent with classified information. That is what that poor sailor, who is not a member of the Liberal Elite, went to jail for.
> 
> 
> Different rules for different folks. That is the way of America, thanks to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, it's not different rules for different folks. You said others have been jailed for doing what she did.  You lied and got caught. The guy you referenced didn't go to jail for sending classified material from a private server. Hillary didn't avoid prison for taking photos of a sub.
> 
> And for your edification ... a sub is not an email server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your desperate nitpicking is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And by “nitpicking,” you mean pointing out he was convicted of something of which Hillary was not accused.
Click to expand...





Do you think of yourself as a literal serf?


----------



## danielpalos

LilOlLady said:


> View attachment 247463 But when the country set boundaries it offends other countries? A left-wing analogy.


yes, our drug war is not kept to ourselves.


----------



## depotoo

It’s is not department rule.  Ever heard an Act is law?





Faun said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the oig report-
> According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)
> 
> ..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
> The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
> This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.
> 
> ..
> In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
> Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
> The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
> 
> ..
> Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
> The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
> 
> Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
> In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
> Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
> confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
> Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
> Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
> The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
> Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
> In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
> The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
> One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
> As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc  .
> 
> https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.
> 
> 
> Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for a law, not a department rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violating a department rule is not a criminal offense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These two statements...
> 
> _*”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”*_
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> _*”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”*_
> 
> ... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.
> 
> Because you know that you cannot.
> 
> 
> My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
Click to expand...

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.


----------



## Faun

depotoo said:


> It’s is not department rule.  Ever heard an Act is law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the oig report-
> According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)
> 
> ..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
> The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
> This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.
> 
> ..
> In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
> Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
> The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
> 
> ..
> Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
> The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
> 
> Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
> In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
> Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
> confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
> Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
> Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
> The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
> Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
> In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
> The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
> One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
> As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc  .
> 
> https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for a law, not a department rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violating a department rule is not a criminal offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What a pity you can’t understand what you post. Utter nonsense. Those are department rules and policies....

The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.​
Those are not laws. Some are based on laws. Some are not. You posted no law and failed miserably to show there’s a law against using a private email server.

Furthermore, a *policy* you posted...

_This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email._​
... not only is that not a law... not only does that rule state such use is “discouraged.,” not illegal... not only is that not relevant to Hillary since she did not use a public service like gmail, AOL or Hotmail... *but that provision didn’t even apply to Hillary. *

But even funnier.... you actually _thought_ posting that section was a winning argument.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.
> 
> Because you know that you cannot.
> 
> 
> My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.
Click to expand...




That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.
> 
> Because you know that you cannot.
> 
> 
> My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
Click to expand...

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe or what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.
> 
> Because you know that you cannot.
> 
> 
> My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.
Click to expand...






Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that. 


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning. 


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.
> 
> 
> YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> 
> INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.
Click to expand...

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

_*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.
> 
> 
> YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> 
> INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.
> 
> _*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
> That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.
> 
> G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.
Click to expand...





1. One right less is still less rights. 

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.
> 
> 
> YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> 
> INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.
> 
> _*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
> That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.
> 
> G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One right less is still less rights.
> 
> 2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.
> 
> 3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.
Click to expand...


*”One right less is still less rights.”*

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

*Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

*”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,
> 
> 
> is literally unimaginable to you,
> 
> 
> shows that something is seriously wrong with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.
> 
> 
> YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> 
> INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.
> 
> _*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
> That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.
> 
> G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One right less is still less rights.
> 
> 2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.
> 
> 3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
Click to expand...




1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd. 

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you _think_ they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that *no one but you* said any such nonsense or even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.
> 
> 
> YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> 
> INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.
> 
> _*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
> That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.
> 
> G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One right less is still less rights.
> 
> 2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.
> 
> 3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.
> 
> 
> YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.
> 
> 
> INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.
> 
> _*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
> That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.
> 
> G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One right less is still less rights.
> 
> 2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.
> 
> 3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
Click to expand...




One less is less, you moron.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.
> 
> _*”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”*_​
> That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but *one right only* out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, *that’s your deranged translation* from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to _think _that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.
> 
> G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One right less is still less rights.
> 
> 2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.
> 
> 3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One right less is still less rights.
> 
> 2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.
> 
> 3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
Click to expand...




What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
Click to expand...

our welfare clause is General.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *”One right less is still less rights.”*
> 
> Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.
> 
> *Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.*
> 
> Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.
> 
> *”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”*
> 
> This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*

That you don’t get that only serves to demonstrate what an imbecile you are.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
Click to expand...



YOur gibberish is not an answer.


I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
Click to expand...

it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it. 

Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And  you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.
> 
> 2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.
> 
> 3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
Click to expand...



Yes, it does. 

They have one more, (at least) right than we do.


You are the one that is being retarded.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
Click to expand...




It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.


My question stands.


What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?



All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".


Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...



Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.


We both know why that is, Mexican.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.
> 
> And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

*“What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?”*

This is where your dementia wrecks your argument.

We have that right. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have border security, immigration services, and immigration enforcement tasked with removing illegal immigrants.

You’re truly fucking nuts, conservative.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.
> 
> 
> We both know why that is, Mexican.
Click to expand...

we have a Constitution?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> One less is less, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
Click to expand...



oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.


You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?


Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards, 


BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.


Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.



Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?


I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.


Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *“What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?”*
> 
> This is where your dementia wrecks your argument.
> 
> We have that right. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have border security, immigration services, and immigration enforcement tasked with removing illegal immigrants.
> 
> You’re truly fucking nuts, conservative.
Click to expand...



Our border security sucks, as demonstrated by the tens of fucking millions of illegals living in this country.


And you people are fighting any and all attempts to improve that. 


AND your side's arguments are generally open ended, ie, if taken to their logical conclusions, we would either not do ANYTHING to even try to control the border, or it is morally wrong to do ANYTHING to try to control the border.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.
> 
> 
> We both know why that is, Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Constitution?
Click to expand...



Coward.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.
> 
> Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.
> 
> Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:
> 
> a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or
> 
> b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or
> 
> c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.
> 
> ... which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
Click to expand...

I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo. 

You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our welfare clause is General.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *“What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?”*
> 
> This is where your dementia wrecks your argument.
> 
> We have that right. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have border security, immigration services, and immigration enforcement tasked with removing illegal immigrants.
> 
> You’re truly fucking nuts, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our border security sucks, as demonstrated by the tens of fucking millions of illegals living in this country.
> 
> 
> And you people are fighting any and all attempts to improve that.
> 
> 
> AND your side's arguments are generally open ended, ie, if taken to their logical conclusions, we would either not do ANYTHING to even try to control the border, or it is morally wrong to do ANYTHING to try to control the border.
Click to expand...

Imbecile, illegal border crossings have diminished year after year to where we now have decades low crossings. And many, if not most, of the illegal aliens in the U.S. now did not illegally cross the border. You’re a fucking nut. Virtually everything you post emanates from that.


----------



## pismoe

one illegal crossing the border is one too many Faun .


----------



## Faun

pismoe said:


> one illegal crossing the border is one too many Faun .


There’s no utopia where no crime exists.


----------



## pismoe

Faun said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> one illegal crossing the border is one too many Faun .
> 
> 
> 
> There’s no utopia where no crime exists.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------   not looking for 'utopia' , just looking to exclude as many third worlders from the USA as possible Faun .


----------



## Faun

pismoe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> one illegal crossing the border is one too many Faun .
> 
> 
> 
> There’s no utopia where no crime exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------   not looking for 'utopia' , just looking to exclude as many third worlders from the USA as possible Faun .
Click to expand...

Stop running from your own posts. You just said 1 is too many. That means you want there to be none and none is not possible.


----------



## pismoe

ONE illegal third world crossing the border is one too many  Faun [repeat] .    Course the [so called] legal third worlders are also a problem as i comment  Faun .


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.
> 
> 
> We both know why that is, Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Coward.
Click to expand...

infidel.


----------



## danielpalos

pismoe said:


> one illegal crossing the border is one too many Faun .


lol.  we have no express immigration clause.  

and,

seeking asylum is a natural right.


----------



## danielpalos

pismoe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> one illegal crossing the border is one too many Faun .
> 
> 
> 
> There’s no utopia where no crime exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------   not looking for 'utopia' , just looking to exclude as many third worlders from the USA as possible Faun .
Click to expand...

what happened to Capitalism?


----------



## danielpalos

pismoe said:


> ONE illegal third world crossing the border is one too many  Faun [repeat] .    Course the [so called] legal third worlders are also a problem as i comment  Faun .


you have nothing but problems?  

there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  every federalist knows this.


----------



## Faun

pismoe said:


> ONE illegal third world crossing the border is one too many  Faun [repeat] .    Course the [so called] legal third worlders are also a problem as i comment  Faun .


You can want Santa Claus to be real too, but that also isn’t happening.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
Click to expand...



4 is one less than 5.



Is 4 less than 5?



That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
Click to expand...

we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur gibberish is not an answer.
> 
> 
> I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *“What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?”*
> 
> This is where your dementia wrecks your argument.
> 
> We have that right. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have border security, immigration services, and immigration enforcement tasked with removing illegal immigrants.
> 
> You’re truly fucking nuts, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our border security sucks, as demonstrated by the tens of fucking millions of illegals living in this country.
> 
> 
> And you people are fighting any and all attempts to improve that.
> 
> 
> AND your side's arguments are generally open ended, ie, if taken to their logical conclusions, we would either not do ANYTHING to even try to control the border, or it is morally wrong to do ANYTHING to try to control the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, illegal border crossings have diminished year after year to where we now have decades low crossings. And many, if not most, of the illegal aliens in the U.S. now did not illegally cross the border. You’re a fucking nut. Virtually everything you post emanates from that.
Click to expand...



That over 40,000 people being CAUGHT, a month is considered a huge success, 


shows what an utter failure our border security is.


The percentages of border crossing to over staying visas, is pretty similar, last I checked.


Your desire to just let anyone in, without vetting is obvious. And obviously bad for America and Americans.




You are the fucking nut.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is gibberish because you purposefully work to hide any actual meaning when you post.
> 
> 
> My question stands.
> 
> 
> What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community?
> 
> 
> 
> All the answer you need, is a list of nation nations, or the word "none".
> 
> 
> Anything else, is just you being too much of a coward to actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.
> 
> 
> We both know why that is, Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> infidel.
Click to expand...



I said nothing that would justify such an insult.


You however are cowardly dodging a simple and honest question.


That is the difference between when I insult lefties, and they insult me.


My insults are true, and they are liars.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
Click to expand...





Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.


----------



## pismoe

Faun said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONE illegal third world crossing the border is one too many  Faun [repeat] .    Course the [so called] legal third worlders are also a problem as i comment  Faun .
> 
> 
> 
> You can want Santa Claus to be real too, but that also isn’t happening.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------   TRUMP just does the best he can and we Deplorables support him .   About 6 years to go in TRUMP's time and then a possible Pence    Faun .


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am hiding Nothing.  Our Constitution is express and limits our use of Socialism.  It is not unlimited, unlike in right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.
> 
> 
> We both know why that is, Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> infidel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing that would justify such an insult.
> 
> 
> You however are cowardly dodging a simple and honest question.
> 
> 
> That is the difference between when I insult lefties, and they insult me.
> 
> 
> My insults are true, and they are liars.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy, You are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

We have a supreme law of the land with specific terms.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
Click to expand...

i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.


----------



## danielpalos

pismoe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONE illegal third world crossing the border is one too many  Faun [repeat] .    Course the [so called] legal third worlders are also a problem as i comment  Faun .
> 
> 
> 
> You can want Santa Claus to be real too, but that also isn’t happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> --------------------------------   TRUMP just does the best he can and we Deplorables support him .   About 6 years to go in TRUMP's time and then a possible Pence    Faun .
Click to expand...

with tax cut economics?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who insists on replying to a question, but never answering it.
> 
> 
> We both know why that is, Mexican.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> infidel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing that would justify such an insult.
> 
> 
> You however are cowardly dodging a simple and honest question.
> 
> 
> That is the difference between when I insult lefties, and they insult me.
> 
> 
> My insults are true, and they are liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy, You are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> We have a supreme law of the land with specific terms.
Click to expand...



Says that man that can't actually answer the question.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> 
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
Click to expand...




x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> 
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.
Click to expand...



We know that you are being unclear on purpose, because if you are too clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.


----------



## g5000

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
Click to expand...

False analogy.

America supports more rights than any other country.  Even if we defended one less right, we still have more rights than any other country.

All caught up now, retard?


----------



## Correll

g5000 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False analogy.
> 
> America supports more rights than any other country.  Even if we defended one less right, we still have more rights than any other country.
> 
> All caught up now, retard?
Click to expand...




Give me an example of one of these "rights" that we have "supported" that makes up for, if you libs have your way, we decided to not "defend" the right to control who and what enters your nation?


And btw, considering that your position is still that 4 is not less than 5,  you should not be calling ANYONE'S intelligence into question.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, *that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.*
> ...e.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You're such a fucking rube. 

Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.


Correll said:


> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.


... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing.


----------



## Faun

g5000 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False analogy.
> 
> America supports more rights than any other country.  Even if we defended one less right, we still have more rights than any other country.
> 
> All caught up now, retard?
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe the rube is caught up. I don't believe he'll ever be caught up. Hell, he thinks rebuilding the 700 miles of existing walls and fences is a good idea.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
Click to expand...

Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> They have one more, (at least) right than we do.
> 
> 
> You are the one that is being retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
Click to expand...




Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights, 


I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.



I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.


You've utterly lost.



My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has. 


Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.


You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.


When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.


Dude. You lose.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> 
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
Click to expand...




I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.


I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.

All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell, 


to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you’re fucking deranged. You say that as though every country on the planet allows the same rights to its people as ours does but that because you [falsely] assert we don’t have the right to determine who can legally enter, we have one less than every other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
Click to expand...

Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:

Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.

G’head.... demonstrate that....

There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
Click to expand...

Sorry, fuckface, that’s not what you “clearly stated.” I quoted what you “clearly stated.” What you “clearly stated” was you thought the poster you were engaging believes we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet. THAT’S what you clearly stated.

_*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know that you are being unclear on purpose, because if you are too clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
Click to expand...

in other words, you got nothing and have to make stuff up.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no immigration clause; a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause. just one word can make All of the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
Click to expand...


Correll:

I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.

The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.

The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)

In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.

Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."

In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> oooooooh, nice moving of the goal posts there, very subtle.
> 
> 
> You must have finally got on to how stupid you were being. Did you see it yourself, or did a fellow lefty pm you?
> 
> 
> Anywhooo, like I was saying the fucktards that fight against our attempts to control the border, ie you leftards,
> 
> 
> BELIEVE that America have less rights than every other nation on the planet.
> 
> 
> Now that you have seen what you were actually typing all of yesterday, we can move on to the next point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fucktards believe that America should have less rights than the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I know the answer(s). Many fucktards have said them before. Hell, you've probably regurgitated them at some point yourself, being a liberal.
> 
> 
> Do you want to list them first? For discussion purposes, or are you going to pretend to not know them?
> 
> 
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
Click to expand...




Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.



My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation. 


Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> 
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, you got nothing and have to make stuff up.
Click to expand...



We know that you are being unclear on purpose, because if you are too clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your support of the idea that 4 is not less than 5 is noted and held as evidence that you are insane.
> 
> 
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.
> 
> The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.
> 
> The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)
> 
> In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.
> 
> Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."
> 
> In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.
Click to expand...



I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".


1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.


2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.

3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.
> 
> The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.
> 
> The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)
> 
> In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.
> 
> Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."
> 
> In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".
> 
> 
> 1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.
> 
> 
> 2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.
> 
> 3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.
Click to expand...



Correll:

You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.

The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.

In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!
*
The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.

If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country.  So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?  If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:

"_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."

Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency

When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.

The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.  All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.

Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.

"_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_

President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?

"_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."

Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup

What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?

Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
Click to expand...

Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I moved nothing, ya flaming yahoo.
> 
> You’re the one who tried shifting his lunacy from “we have less rights than every other country” to “one less right is one less right,” after being called out on your original nuttiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
Click to expand...

We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.  

Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i support the idea that words mean specific things and cannot be Implied if they are Expressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, you got nothing and have to make stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know that you are being unclear on purpose, because if you are too clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
Click to expand...

I actually understand our federal Constitution; unlike the right wing who have to make stuff up.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> 
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.
> 
> The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.
> 
> The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)
> 
> In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.
> 
> Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."
> 
> In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".
> 
> 
> 1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.
> 
> 
> 2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.
> 
> 3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.
Click to expand...





All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.





> The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.




1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.

2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument. 

3. The cultural issue is valid. 

4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat. 







> In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!*




Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.


Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
*

*


> The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.




Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.


Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.


You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.





> If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country....



That is silliness. 





> So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?
> If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:




Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.





> "_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."
> 
> Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency
> 
> When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.




Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall. 

This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite. 


That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.




> The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.



Meaningless partisan swill.




> All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.
> 
> Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.
> 
> "_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_


_

_
Meaningless attempt at deflection.
_
_


> President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?
> 
> "_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."





Sounds like a good start.



> Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?
> 
> Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry




Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...




Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible. 


YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.


My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.


D'uh.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is one less than 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Is 4 less than 5?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the idiocy of your position, denying that one less, is less.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.
Click to expand...




An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.


With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> x-1 is less than x, you mexican lunatic.
> 
> 
> 
> in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, you got nothing and have to make stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know that you are being unclear on purpose, because if you are too clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually understand our federal Constitution; unlike the right wing who have to make stuff up.
Click to expand...



I ridiculed you for not being clear.


If you would have clarified, by that simply act, you would have won this debate.

But you CAN'T. 


So you lose. Big time.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> ​... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.
> 
> 
> With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?
Click to expand...

what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in right wing fantasy you can make up anything you want, and Always be right.
> 
> 
> 
> clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, you got nothing and have to make stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We know that you are being unclear on purpose, because if you are too clear, it will be obvious to everyone that your position is moronic beyond belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually understand our federal Constitution; unlike the right wing who have to make stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I ridiculed you for not being clear.
> 
> 
> If you would have clarified, by that simply act, you would have won this debate.
> 
> But you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> So you lose. Big time.
Click to expand...

i know how to use dictionaries, too.  you need to ask specific question not merely claim you are too dumb to understand what you allege to argue.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.
> 
> 
> With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...



There was nothing unclear about my statement. 


Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.


So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> ​... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...

_*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac. 

There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
Click to expand...



As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes, 


that this is an alien concept to you, 


is something wrong with YOU, not me.




To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid, 


I never said that they SAID that, you moron.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.
> 
> 
> With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
Click to expand...

Show me the immigration clause, illegal.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.
> 
> 
> With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the immigration clause, illegal.
Click to expand...




There was nothing unclear about my statement.


Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.


So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an ally and third largest trading partner on our southern border.  We have border security.
> 
> Our welfare clause is General and we should solve our refugee issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.
> 
> 
> With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the immigration clause, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
Click to expand...

there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
Click to expand...

And you’re brain-dead to “deduce” he said we have fewer rights than ever other country.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
Click to expand...

*”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*

I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rube, in your retarded equation, 'X' equals the country on the planet with the fewest rights. How can you be such an imbecile as to assert Syria has more rights than us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.
> 
> The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.
> 
> The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)
> 
> In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.
> 
> Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."
> 
> In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".
> 
> 
> 1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.
> 
> 
> 2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.
> 
> 3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.
> 
> 2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument.
> 
> 3. The cultural issue is valid.
> 
> 4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.
> 
> 
> Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.
> 
> 
> You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?
> If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."
> 
> Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency
> 
> When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall.
> 
> This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite.
> 
> 
> That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless partisan swill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.
> 
> Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.
> 
> "_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> _
> Meaningless attempt at deflection.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?
> 
> "_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?
> 
> Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.
Click to expand...


What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.

I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're such a fucking rube.
> 
> Rube, using your numbers, *according to what you said*, the U.S. has 4 rights while every other nation on Earth has at least 5.
> ​... see now why folks here laugh at you? You didn't posit anyone said we have one less right ... you idiotically framed it that gave us fewer rights than every other country. Which of course, is insane enough on its own -- but then you doubled down on insanity, and bizarrely attributed that to someone who said no such thing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
Click to expand...


What a pantload!

While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.

Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance. 

As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)

When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An "ally" who's people have violated our national sovereignty, at least 10s of millions of times over the last couple of decades.
> 
> 
> With "allies", like that, who needs enemies?
> 
> 
> 
> what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the immigration clause, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.
Click to expand...



Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you’re brain-dead to “deduce” he said we have fewer rights than ever other country.
Click to expand...





Why else would he, and all you other libs, want the US to not have the right to secure our border and control who and what enters our community, while ever other nation has that same right?


It is brain dead to ignore the obvious meaning of his position.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
Click to expand...




And I have explained why I think that. 


If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, 


you moron.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was clearly not talking about either the rights that the nations support internally for their citizens, nor even what is actually the status quo.
> 
> 
> I clearly stated that you liberals want the US to have fewer rights than other nations do, ie the right to control who and what enters their nation and becomes part of their community.
> 
> All you are doing now, is trying to confuse the issue, which was fucking clear as a bell,
> 
> 
> to hide the fact that you argued yourself into the most idiotic position I have ever seen a man take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.
> 
> The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.
> 
> The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)
> 
> In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.
> 
> Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."
> 
> In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".
> 
> 
> 1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.
> 
> 
> 2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.
> 
> 3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.
> 
> 2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument.
> 
> 3. The cultural issue is valid.
> 
> 4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.
> 
> 
> Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.
> 
> 
> You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?
> If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."
> 
> Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency
> 
> When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall.
> 
> This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite.
> 
> 
> That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless partisan swill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.
> 
> Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.
> 
> "_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> _
> Meaningless attempt at deflection.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?
> 
> "_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?
> 
> Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.
> 
> I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.
Click to expand...



A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.


Obviously. 


It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you’re brain-dead to “deduce” he said we have fewer rights than ever other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would he, and all you other libs, want the US to not have the right to secure our border and control who and what enters our community, while ever other nation has that same right?
> 
> 
> It is brain dead to ignore the obvious meaning of his position.
Click to expand...

Calling not wanting to rebuild the wall, not wanting the right to secure the border is a fallacious argument.

And again, even if that were the argument, and it’s not, not having that one right doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
Click to expand...

You lied. Deal with it.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was not saying that the US has FIVE rights and the rest of the world has FOUR rights,
> 
> 
> I was trying to rub in your face the point about x-1 being less than x.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to support your claim that the US has other rights that somehow balance out the one that your side wants US to cede, and you were not able to give me one.
> 
> 
> You've utterly lost.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands, moron. YOu people want to deny the US a right that ever other nation on the planet has.
> 
> 
> Which means that for some reason that you won't be honest about, you want the US to have less rights than ever other nation.
> 
> 
> You've doubled down on this idea by claiming that the US makes up for that one right, because we have other rights that other nations don't have.
> 
> 
> When asked to list them, you were unable to do that.
> 
> 
> Dude. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
Click to expand...




Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you’re brain-dead to “deduce” he said we have fewer rights than ever other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would he, and all you other libs, want the US to not have the right to secure our border and control who and what enters our community, while ever other nation has that same right?
> 
> 
> It is brain dead to ignore the obvious meaning of his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling not wanting to rebuild the wall, not wanting the right to secure the border is a fallacious argument.
> 
> And again, even if that were the argument, and it’s not, not having that one right doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country.
Click to expand...




1. It's not just not building the Wall. It's on every facet of this issue, the Left falls on one side, ie of NOT securing the border.


2. x-1 is less than x. Your denial of this is the type of thing that only a brain damaged toddler would do. One that started out as a slow learner before the major brain injury.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
Click to expand...


There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.

In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*. 

You bounce from securing the border to wanting to know who is crossing the border.  Come on.  Do you think that a country that has published comic books on how to evade immigration authorities is going to level with you about who is crossing the border?

Furthermore, if you suspect all Hispanics of being criminals absent Due Process, then by virtue of the 14th Amendment, *ALL* persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.  So, a guy from Georgia should have to be scrutinized carefully before being allowed into South Carolina.  AND being that Georgia is being overwhelmed by people moving here, maybe it's time to put up a wall around Georgia and deny access to all that may come here to do business.

Additionally, since you don't give a rip about the presumption of innocence, maybe you support Nancy Pelosi's ideas on gun control?  Make people wait to exercise a constitutional Right?  Delve into their background and then deny their Rights because they have a "_mental health record_" after they saw a mental health official for impotence or breaking their cigarette smoking addiction?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
Click to expand...

Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> I want you to know that I'm the most conservative person on this site.  But, over the last 25 years the whole idea of conservatism changed.  The movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't.
> 
> The immigration issue is one of the most glaring examples.  Here we have a majority of the people in the United States saying we do not need a border wall; the states bordering the wall do not want it; both Houses of Congress rejected it.  Adding insult to injury, when private funds were solicited with a GoFundMe page, it folded up due to the lack of donations toward the goal.
> 
> The Republicans are wasting their time and screwing us out of our Rights on the pretexts of making safe from those from south of the border.  Meanwhile, most of the morons chanting their little anti-immigrant mantra are involved in the very activities they wail about on this discussion board (i.e. they hire undocumented foreigners.)
> 
> In order to add teeth and move us toward a Hispanic free America, the Republicans have pushed the creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security, passage of the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, and the passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  They have attacked the Fourth Amendment until it's not worth the paper it's printed on and done away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers (that is why they want to chant "illegals" instead of the more accurate undocumented foreigner.)  The idiocy of the right has allowed tyrants to expand the ability to enforce the Constitution Free Zone; it has promoted warrant less searches; it has increased the used of information databases so that you can't take a dump without Uncle Scam "documenting" it.
> 
> Trillions of dollars later and the right being the most likely victim of their own idiotic legislation they still cannot tell you the difference between an *unalienable Right* and the benefits and the privilege of citizenship.  You might have a RINO bully in the White House who is thinking he's stacking the deck in the United States Supreme Court, but one day the bill is going to come due for the unethical and dishonest tactics along with the unconstitutional measures the right is taking in vain for the illusion of a "win."
> 
> In the end, you cannot lower your standards - be they legal, political or moral, and think you can win against the Democrats when you're setting the bar below what you accuse them of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".
> 
> 
> 1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.
> 
> 
> 2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.
> 
> 3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.
> 
> 2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument.
> 
> 3. The cultural issue is valid.
> 
> 4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.
> 
> 
> Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.
> 
> 
> You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?
> If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."
> 
> Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency
> 
> When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall.
> 
> This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite.
> 
> 
> That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless partisan swill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.
> 
> Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.
> 
> "_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> _
> Meaningless attempt at deflection.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?
> 
> "_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?
> 
> Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.
> 
> I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
Click to expand...




Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that. 


To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.


Also, he almost certainly started with insults.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you’re brain-dead to “deduce” he said we have fewer rights than ever other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would he, and all you other libs, want the US to not have the right to secure our border and control who and what enters our community, while ever other nation has that same right?
> 
> 
> It is brain dead to ignore the obvious meaning of his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling not wanting to rebuild the wall, not wanting the right to secure the border is a fallacious argument.
> 
> And again, even if that were the argument, and it’s not, not having that one right doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It's not just not building the Wall. It's on every facet of this issue, the Left falls on one side, ie of NOT securing the border.
Click to expand...

That’s utter bullshit. That you have to rely on lies to prop up your nonsense exposes its fallacies. In reality, the left has been a strong proponent of border security. They voted with Republicans to establish the securities we have now, which includes about 700 miles of walls and fences. Border agents and equipment to aid them against illegal crossings. Even when Democrats were defiant about giving trump funds to build his wall, they still offered him funds for other border security, just not for the wall.



Correll said:


> 2. x-1 is less than x. Your denial of this is the type of thing that only a brain damaged toddler would do. One that started out as a slow learner before the major brain injury.


Sadly for you, the point you’re trying desperately to salvage now isn’t the point you started with.

You didn’t say we’d have one less right than before. You said we’d have fewer rights than every other country. You can keep pretending as though that wasn’t what you said, but everyone here saw you say that. I made sure they see it...

_*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
Click to expand...


In the United States, who enters is left up to the states under our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic as envisioned by the founding fathers in a document called the Constitution of the United States.  

In that document, the federal government has a very limited role.  It is found in Article I  Section 8 of the Constitution and reads as follows:

"_Congress shall have the power... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"

*Immigration* is the process whereby people enter a nation for the purpose of *permanent residence*.  (Google Black's Law Dictionary if you want to verify the definition)

*Naturalization* is the process whereby someone becomes a *citizen*.

When someone enters a state and has no intention of becoming a permanent resident and / or seeking citizenship, it is up to the state to regulate who they want to allow within their border.  See the *Tenth Amendment*.  At best, you might argue regulating the flow by way of the *Interstate Commerce Clause*, but even that cannot be used as a tool to deny entry just because you don't like a certain segment of society.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
Click to expand...

You’re lying again. Yet another sign of a lost argument. I am not arguing you are wrong for deducing what someone else says — I said your deduction was amiss. No one suggested we have fewer rights than every other country. You hallucinated that; and now you’re argument is reduced to defending your hallucination.

_*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
Click to expand...


Correll:

Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.

I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:

The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.


Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what you said. You said you thought danielpalos position was that we have fewer rights than every other nation. And like it or not, that is what you said...
> 
> _*“You can't justify your position of America and Americans having fewer rights than EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE FUCKING WORLD.” ~ a rube*_​
> He never said that. No one did but you. You’re a friggin’ maniac.
> 
> There absolutely are countries with fewer rights than in the U.S..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
Click to expand...

*”Also, he almost certainly started with insults.”*

Nope, you’re wrong about that too...


Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> *Because you hate America*.
Click to expand...

Your invective is highlighted for emphasis.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you talking about?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the immigration clause, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?
> 
> 
> Go bother someone, else, coward.
Click to expand...

stop whining about illegals, hypocrite.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, you’re severely mentally retarded. I didn’t mean we have only 4 rights. I even said I was using your numbers to illustrate what an abject imbecile you are; and now you step forward to highlight you’re even dumber than I said:
> 
> Moron, you didn’t say we have one less right than before ... you said we have less rights than every other country on Earth.
> 
> G’head.... demonstrate that....
> 
> There are 194 countries on Earth. We’re #53 on that list I posted. Show the forum how we lose *one right* and drop from #53 to #194......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
Click to expand...

We have a Constitution.


----------



## OldLady

K9Buck said:


> Liberals don't consider 23 million illegals (and counting) to be any problem whatsoever.   The wall needs to be built.


The point isn't whether the Wall should be built, but how it will be funded.  Even the Senate is within a hair of terminating Trump's national emergency declaration.  This is NOT how it should be done.  Do NOT allow Trump to commit more sleazy dealings now that he is in office.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

OldLady said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't consider 23 million illegals (and counting) to be any problem whatsoever.   The wall needs to be built.
> 
> 
> 
> The point isn't whether the Wall should be built, but how it will be funded.  Even the Senate is within a hair of terminating Trump's national emergency declaration.  This is NOT how it should be done.  Do NOT allow Trump to commit more sleazy dealings now that he is in office.
Click to expand...


This is what Trump supporters don't understand.  The separation of powers exists for a reason.  Whether you believe in the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution; you believe in "democracy;" or you buy into the bastardized democratic republic, Trump is making a mockery out of the Rule of Law, the system, and the Constitution itself.

Trump is setting precedents that, from here on out, will make the Constitution a worthless document by any standard.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to confuse this issue, to hide your idiocy is denied.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. YOu fucktards, whom fight against any and every type of border security, believe that the nation AMERICA should have less rights than every other nation.
> 
> 
> Every way you have addressed this so far, has been pure idiocy and increasingly dishonest idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
Click to expand...



Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.



1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.


2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.


3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals, 


and this is the crux of the matter....


please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking you seriously until you dropped that bs, "hispanic free America".
> 
> 
> 1. National Sovereignty is a serious issue, not one to be decided by polls. If so many people support an open border, than change the laws to reflect that. Until then, the law calls for controlling the border.
> 
> 
> 2. No reasonable person would dismiss those who want border security as "idiots". I can't take you seriously if you pretend that there is not legitimacy when there obviously is.
> 
> 3. I note that you did not even mention any of the many legitimate issues that are related to illegal immigration. You insulted pro-border people several times, but never addressed any of the ACTUAL reasons that people support the wall.  That does not help your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.
> 
> 2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument.
> 
> 3. The cultural issue is valid.
> 
> 4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.
> 
> 
> Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.
> 
> 
> You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?
> If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."
> 
> Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency
> 
> When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall.
> 
> This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite.
> 
> 
> That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless partisan swill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.
> 
> Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.
> 
> "_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> _
> Meaningless attempt at deflection.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?
> 
> "_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?
> 
> Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.
> 
> I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.
Click to expand...



Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.
> 
> I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:
> 
> The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.
> 
> 
> Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...




I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan, 


but no real point that can really be challenged by me.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i have pointed out before, that the idea of looking at a man's actions and, deducing what this means about their internal thought processes,
> 
> 
> that this is an alien concept to you,
> 
> 
> is something wrong with YOU, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be very clear, so that you can't pretend to not understand, without looking grotesquely stupid,
> 
> 
> I never said that they SAID that, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *”Also, he almost certainly started with insults.”*
> 
> Nope, you’re wrong about that too...
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already have walls and fences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are against maintaining.
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe that America has the same rights as other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> *Because you hate America*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your invective is highlighted for emphasis.
Click to expand...



Cut down to nothing to hide the previous posts. Not very convincing.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the immigration clause, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?
> 
> 
> Go bother someone, else, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop whining about illegals, hypocrite.
Click to expand...



Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
Click to expand...


Are you always jockeying to be recognized as the most dishonest poster on USM?

I don't agree with you on anything. * YOUR* position, if you accessed the links I posted, demonstrates irrefutably, undeniably and without question that you bring nothing but LIES to the table with* socialist solutions*.  Your post has NO merit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> You cannot fool all the people all the time.  The pretexts for all the anti-immigrant hysteria over the past few years has run the gamut.  Each time those who obsess over the border think they've found their magic elixir - the silver bullet that justifies their absolute stupidity, racism, or whatever in the Hell motivates them to keep beating a dead horse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who obsess over a wall have tried the "they're illegal" mantra; they falsely accused undocumented foreigners of not paying taxes; accused them of "stealing jobs" (which was proven to be a textbook socialist accusation); the right has accused the Hispanics of destroying our culture (then saying it's all good provided they do it all "legally.")  and now this totally bogus argument that they a threat to national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.
> 
> 2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument.
> 
> 3. The cultural issue is valid.
> 
> 4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In *1986*, the civilians who were manning the border were accusing the Soviets of befriending Mexico and testing us by sending helicopters over the border.  One place they made the accusation was Brownsville, Texas.  Supposedly, the Mexican government was training hordes of guerrilla fighters to invade the U.S. at the most opportune moment.  I believed all that B.S. back then and was as committed to my stupidity as you are to yours.  I researched it, wrote about it, and ghost wrote for prominent expositors of that ideology.  I had even manned the border in *1977!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that in 1953, the United States announced plans to send all the undocumented Hispanics back across the border.  And so they started "Operation Wetback."  *In less than five years our unemployment rate doubled!!!!  *Americans did not understand the economics of their own country and way beyond half a century of arguing about it, you STILL don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.
> 
> 
> Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.
> 
> 
> You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those who obsess over a wall are correct, then the absence of a wall means we *never were* a sovereign country....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how in the Hell did we build the greatest nation in recorded history?  OR did historians lie about our achievements?
> If we needed a wall in order to be a sovereign nation, then the Right of conquest means we never became a nation and the Hispanics have as much a right to be here as you do since your laws would be ultra vires - null and void.  It is an idiotic argument.  Only two days ago a news story had this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_A bipartisan group of* 58 former senior national security officials issued* a statement Monday saying that *“there is no factual basis” for President Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border*_."
> 
> Former senior national security officials issue declaration on national emergency
> 
> When you have governors of border states, both Houses of Congress in bipartisan language, a majority of the American people, and a bipartisan group of national security officials telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should apprise yourself of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall.
> 
> This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite.
> 
> 
> That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing that puts me on the opposite side of the fence is the right's inability to use their damn brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless partisan swill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over the United States the state governments are cracking down on your Second Amendment Rights.  The feds are following suit.  Donald Trump is anti - gun having supported an "assault weapons ban," waiting periods to purchase firearms, the bump stock ban, and now Red Flag Laws.  A lot of those gun toting idiots from the right haven't the sense God gave a goat.
> 
> Trump nominated William Barr as his Attorney General.  That POS is anti - gun and is in favor of *ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS*.  So, while all of this gun stuff is being enacted, the list of who's next grows longer and longer.  So, you think you won't give up your guns?  What a bunch of non-thinking dolts!  When Uncle Scam nails you on firearm violations, they will take your weapons, seize the balance of your assets and turn them into wall money.
> 
> "_Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> _
> Meaningless attempt at deflection.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?
> 
> "_The Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency takes around $3.6 billion in funds earmarked for military construction—as well as $600 million in *asset forfeiture funds* and around $2.5 billion drawn from Department of Defense funds aimed at drug interdiction—and adds it to the $1.375 billion Congress had included in the actual spending bill to build a wall along the US southern border wall almost all experts agree won't actually work_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Border Wall Lawsuit Tops This Week’s Internet News Roundup
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with those who worship a freaking wall at the expense of their Liberties?????  Can't you understand the real objective?
> 
> Is Life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?"  Patrick Henry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.
> 
> I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.
Click to expand...


The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the immigration clause, illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing unclear about my statement.
> 
> 
> Only a complete moron could read that and not understand what my point was.
> 
> 
> So, don't pretend that the reason you did not address what I actually said, was because of anything wrong with me, or what I said, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?
> 
> 
> Go bother someone, else, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop whining about illegals, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?
> 
> 
> Go bother someone, else, coward.
Click to expand...

You have no point to make.  Our Constitution is Express not Implied.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *”I never said that they SAID that, you moron.”*
> 
> I didn’t say you claimed he “SAID that.” This would be you lying again. I said you claimed you thought that was he position, which you just confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.
> 
> I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:
> 
> The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.
> 
> 
> Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan,
> 
> 
> but no real point that can really be challenged by me.
Click to expand...


Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

See especially posts #3475, 3476, 3613, 3669, 3731, 3875, 3934, 4462, 4490, 4491, 4509, 4532, 4536, 4544, 4551, 4556, 4560, 4572, 4579, 4580, 4581, 4583, 4585, 4597, 4603, 4605, 4609, 4612, 4616, 4631, 4633 and 4644

*EVERY* conceivable pretext was taken on* numerous times* in that thread. If you read the listed posts, it's like reading a book with over 500 links to other sites and videos; over 200 legal cases cited; more than 100 conservatives disagreeing with the build the wall people - including men like George Bush and Ronald Reagan. 

Just for chits and giggles, the peripheral issues include, but are not limited to:

* The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security

* The passage of the so - called "Patriot Act"

* National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify

* The assaults on the Fourth Amendment

* Draconian enforcement of the *Constitution Free Zone*

* Warrant less search and seizure

* Heavy handed over-reach on *asset forfeiture laws

* *The end of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers

* Assaults against private property Rights

* Socialism being forced on private employers

That's my top ten. Many more in the link and posts referenced above. You can read the posts OR we can rehash the same crap again for fun.


----------



## Flopper

LilOlLady said:


> *Is there really a border emergency?*
> 
> More than *2,000 people *were turned away or arrested at the border each day during *November 2018*. Supporters of Mr. Trump's plans for a wall have said* the numbers constitute an emergency.*
> Asylum seekers are having to wait in Mexico for the asylum claim to be processed and that could take many months or years. That is a national emergency. WE do not have enough detentions centers to hold them and neither the money.


In the 1980s, migrants overran the San Diego border crossing  Some dashed across Interstate 5. Thousands gathered nightly on a small slice of the border that Americans called “the soccer field” and Mexicans referred to as “La Canela.”  There, men, women and children waited for nightfall before making their passage into El Norte.

The breaking point came in 1986, when Border Patrol agents in the San Diego district apprehended 629,656 people, slightly more than the population of Las Vegas.   Now that's a national emergency.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always jockeying to be recognized as the most dishonest poster on USM?
> 
> I don't agree with you on anything. * Y...*
Click to expand...

*
*

DUde. That was addressed to Faun, who finally decided to address at least part of my point. 


That bit where you make a mistake and then accuse me of being dishonest, based on your mistake?


Learn from that.
*
*


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of that boiled down you to making empty assertions and playing the Race Card.  Your attempt to appear reasonable is rendered less credible every time you do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If they are here illegally, and either working under the table or under a fake id, they are not paying their full share of taxes.
> 
> 2. They are stealing jobs and depressing wages. Saying "socialism" is not an argument.
> 
> 3. The cultural issue is valid.
> 
> 4. The invasion of tens of millions of unvetted people, is obvious a national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard that one. That unfounded accusations were made long ago by other people, does not undermine the legitimacy of my arguments.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is pretty special of you to argue that it does.
> *
> *
> Standard lib tactic. When their point is very weak, they don't actually SAY it, they just IMPLY it, so that the person they are debating has to first MAKE their point for them, and then challenge it.
> 
> 
> Giving the liberal in question, the clever, albeit, dishonest out of claiming the other person misrepresented their argument.
> 
> 
> You want to make a point about what happened in 1953, make it clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> That is silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless supporting arguments for an argument, that hopes to grow into a straw man someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the election with his primary message of Building the Wall.
> 
> This is a democratic republic. Winning the election trumps all the polling data and any authorities you want to cite.
> 
> 
> That this is even being discussed instead of just DONE, is a scandal in of itself.
> 
> 
> Meaningless partisan swill.
> 
> 
> _
> _
> Meaningless attempt at deflection.
> _
> _
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good start.
> 
> Building a Wall to protect the nation from outside forces, is perhaps the most legitimate possible use of seizure powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.
> 
> I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?
Click to expand...




I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.


You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale. 

Best as I can tell. 


That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well. 


If that is your intent.


Otherwise, I just do see it at all.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I have explained why I think that.
> 
> 
> If you think I am wrong, the way you would argue that, is to explain the flaw you find in my argument, instead of making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion,
> 
> 
> you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.
> 
> I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:
> 
> The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.
> 
> 
> Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan,
> 
> 
> but no real point that can really be challenged by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.
Click to expand...




Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express wall building clause or an express immigration clause.  

Our Founding Fathers had a better understanding of Capitalism than the whole and entire Right Wing.


----------



## Flopper

danielpalos said:


> There is no express wall building clause or an express immigration clause.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers had a better understanding of Capitalism than the whole and entire Right Wing.


Which is why we need courts to interpret the constitution and laws.  Unlike many countries we do not make major revisions to the constitution.  We rely on the courts to make the constitution a living document.  You're right. Immigration is not specifically addressed just as executive orders, executive privilege, presumption of innocence, jury of peers, political parties, paper money, right to privacy, right to travel, right to vote, separation of church and state, and not even God is addressed.

If we re-wrote the constitution today, it would surely address immigration and many other topics of the day.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always jockeying to be recognized as the most dishonest poster on USM?
> 
> I don't agree with you on anything. * Y...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DUde. That was addressed to Faun, who finally decided to address at least part of my point.
> 
> 
> That bit where you make a mistake and then accuse me of being dishonest, based on your mistake?
> 
> 
> Learn from that.
Click to expand...


I learned a long time ago that when someone interjected themselves into a conversation I was having with another poster, I'd find myself being talked down to - reminded that these are discussion boards and the discussion isn't exclusive.

You are being called on *YOUR* dishonesty.  If you will go back to every thread you participate in, you are the FIRST to begin slinging skeet, calling people names and trying to be dishonest because your narratives about immigration will not hold up under careful scrutiny.


----------



## danielpalos

Flopper said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building clause or an express immigration clause.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers had a better understanding of Capitalism than the whole and entire Right Wing.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we need courts to interpret the constitution and laws.  Unlike many countries we do not make major revisions to the constitution.  We rely on the courts to make the constitution a living document.  You're right. Immigration is not specifically addressed just as executive orders, executive privilege, presumption of innocence, jury of peers, political parties, paper money, right to privacy, right to travel, right to vote, separation of church and state, and not even God is addressed.
> 
> If we re-wrote the constitution today, it would surely address immigration and many other topics of the day.
Click to expand...

There is no interpretation Necessary; you would know that if you had actually read our supreme law of the land.

There is no Immigration clause on Purpose, nor implied.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a wall of text for you to just say you believe you have a monopoly on understanding - even if you have to load your responses with bullshit, lies, misunderstandings and *disproven theories*.  Correll, you've had your ass kicked so many times that I almost feel sorry for you.
> 
> I will trust the posters here to review the links and feel free to ignore you when you call valid links deflection.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You did more to discredit your own argument if I took fifty paragraphs picking your dung apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.
> 
> Best as I can tell.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.
> 
> 
> If that is your intent.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I just do see it at all.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."  

Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:

Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.  

*ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"

*HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.

Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.  

To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.

Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall, and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, unable to sustain a credible argument so you resort to name calling.  If this were a formal debate, you already lost the argument.
> 
> In your world, unless we have a wall, then we cannot secure our borders.  That might be your *opinion*, but certainly *does not constitute a fact*.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.
> 
> I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:
> 
> The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.
> 
> 
> Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan,
> 
> 
> but no real point that can really be challenged by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
Click to expand...



The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.  

The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.

Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.


----------



## danielpalos

any walls must facilitate our welfare clause General and our Commerce Clause simply Because we have no express immigration clause.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always jockeying to be recognized as the most dishonest poster on USM?
> 
> I don't agree with you on anything. * Y...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DUde. That was addressed to Faun, who finally decided to address at least part of my point.
> 
> 
> That bit where you make a mistake and then accuse me of being dishonest, based on your mistake?
> 
> 
> Learn from that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned a long time ago that when someone interjected themselves into a conversation I was having with another poster, I'd find myself being talked down to - reminded that these are discussion boards and the discussion isn't exclusive.
> 
> You are being called on *YOUR* dishonesty.  If you will go back to every thread you participate in, you are the FIRST to begin slinging skeet, calling people names and trying to be dishonest because your narratives about immigration will not hold up under careful scrutiny.
Click to expand...



Just went back, and reread the beginning of this thread.


A lot of back and forth and dishonest and disrespectful tactics. But here post 140, is someone started slinging skeet. My post first, then Faun's reply. 

Trump would be correct to assert a national emergency in order to build the wall


"Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL."

"Fuck you. We're not rebuilding the wall."


That is once you are wrong. I'll try to check with any other threads we are both in too.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A link can be valid, and still have nothing to do with this topic, and thus be nothing but a deflection.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> It is odd that you tried to pretend otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.
> 
> Best as I can tell.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.
> 
> 
> If that is your intent.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I just do see it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."
Click to expand...


Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration. 





> Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:
> 
> Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.
> 
> *ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"




That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.





> *HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.
> 
> Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.
> 
> To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.
> 
> Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,
> 
> You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.






Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget. 


The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.


But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out, 


seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I've made my argument over and over, and this moron is denying the very principle of looking at a man's actions and deducing what his thinking is from that.
> 
> 
> To be clear, he is not arguing that my reasoning is wrong, he is arguing that the very idea of using reasoning to figure out what people think, based on their behavior, is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, he almost certainly started with insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.
> 
> I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:
> 
> The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.
> 
> 
> Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan,
> 
> 
> but no real point that can really be challenged by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.
> 
> The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.
> 
> Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.
Click to expand...




For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot. 

I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.


Thus it stands as the final word.


saying "democrat" is not an argument.


To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always jockeying to be recognized as the most dishonest poster on USM?
> 
> I don't agree with you on anything. * Y...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DUde. That was addressed to Faun, who finally decided to address at least part of my point.
> 
> 
> That bit where you make a mistake and then accuse me of being dishonest, based on your mistake?
> 
> 
> Learn from that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned a long time ago that when someone interjected themselves into a conversation I was having with another poster, I'd find myself being talked down to - reminded that these are discussion boards and the discussion isn't exclusive.
> 
> You are being called on *YOUR* dishonesty.  If you will go back to every thread you participate in, you are the FIRST to begin slinging skeet, calling people names and trying to be dishonest because your narratives about immigration will not hold up under careful scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just went back, and reread the beginning of this thread.
> 
> 
> A lot of back and forth and dishonest and disrespectful tactics. But here post 140, is someone started slinging skeet. My post first, then Faun's reply.
> 
> Trump would be correct to assert a national emergency in order to build the wall
> 
> 
> "Don't care. BUILD THE FUCKING WALL."
> 
> "Fuck you. We're not rebuilding the wall."
> 
> 
> That is once you are wrong. I'll try to check with any other threads we are both in too.
Click to expand...


I was mostly referring to you and I going at each other, but I'll concede that you got flamed first.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance and inability to connect dots does not a deflection make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.
> 
> Best as I can tell.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.
> 
> 
> If that is your intent.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I just do see it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:
> 
> Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.
> 
> *ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.
> 
> Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.
> 
> To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.
> 
> Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,
> 
> You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.
> 
> 
> The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.
> 
> 
> But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out,
> 
> 
> seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.
Click to expand...


I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall

Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?

"_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)

Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture

My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll:
> 
> Every few days we restart the immigration debate with a new thread covering the same ground.
> 
> I'm going to repeat *facts* that you've read many times, but have chosen to ignore.  Pay attention:
> 
> The entire barrier / fence / wall idea originated first with white supremacists and politically adopted by the Democrats.
> 
> 
> Look, dude, the conservatives of 1980 espoused the same, identical solutions in 1980 that I do - and with he same logic.  And who was the standard bearer for the horseshit you push?  That would be Jimmy Carter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan,
> 
> 
> but no real point that can really be challenged by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.
> 
> The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.
> 
> Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.
> 
> I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.
> 
> 
> Thus it stands as the final word.
> 
> 
> saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
Click to expand...


Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.

But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?

Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?

If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.

Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.

You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is DOA as we do not have fewer rights than every other country on the planet nor did anyone but you assert such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
Click to expand...

I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.

And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
Click to expand...


I've butted heads with the extremists on this build a wall nonsense.  If what they say is true, Ronald Reagan and George Bush were for "_open borders_" as would the founding fathers.

The reality today is that the border became LESS secure under the watch of those who obsess over it.  They allowed the government to weaken your private property Rights.  Then, they allowed the foreigners to claim constitutional rights by virtue of the 14th Amendment.  What those who obsess over building a wall REALLY REALLY REALLY want is the *ultimate POLICE STATE*.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It is the fact that the link in question does not have anything to do with the topic and is presented to deflect from the actual real issue being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.
> 
> Best as I can tell.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.
> 
> 
> If that is your intent.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I just do see it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:
> 
> Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.
> 
> *ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.
> 
> Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.
> 
> To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.
> 
> Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,
> 
> You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.
> 
> 
> The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.
> 
> 
> But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out,
> 
> 
> seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
> 
> Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?
> 
> "_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)
> 
> Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture
> 
> My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.
Click to expand...




Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.

Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure. 


But we need the Wall. 


You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see a number of attempts at the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well and an attempt at Appeal to Authority by citing GHWBush and Ronald Reagan,
> 
> 
> but no real point that can really be challenged by me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.
> 
> The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.
> 
> Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.
> 
> I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.
> 
> 
> Thus it stands as the final word.
> 
> 
> saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?
> 
> Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?
> 
> If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.
> 
> Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.
> 
> You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.
Click to expand...



1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.

2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals. 

3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.

4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand my point is not credible.
> 
> 
> YOu ARE stupid, but your previous replies demonstrated an understanding of what I was actually saying.
> 
> 
> My point stands. THe lefties that fight against the US securing the border, want the US to have fewer rights than every other nation on the world, as ever other nation has that specific right.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
Click to expand...



The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.


Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
Click to expand...

Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
Click to expand...



What is it running at? 400,000 arrests a year? 


That that is considered a win, is a sign of how much of a fucking disaster it is.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is it running at? 400,000 arrests a year?
> 
> 
> That that is considered a win, is a sign of how much of a fucking disaster it is.
Click to expand...

Arrests for what, illegal.  There is no express immigration clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The link in question has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand since every few days you build the wall worshipers start another thread and then try to incorporate the *whole litany of phony pretexts* upon which to justify your obsessive religion.  So, why keep having the same discussion?  How come we don't just take care of it in ONE thread and be done with the dishonest excuses you rehash daily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.
> 
> Best as I can tell.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.
> 
> 
> If that is your intent.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I just do see it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:
> 
> Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.
> 
> *ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.
> 
> Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.
> 
> To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.
> 
> Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,
> 
> You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.
> 
> 
> The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.
> 
> 
> But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out,
> 
> 
> seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
> 
> Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?
> 
> "_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)
> 
> Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture
> 
> My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.
> 
> Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.
> 
> 
> But we need the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.
Click to expand...


The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.


----------



## danielpalos

Only lousy Capitalists lose money with a Commerce Clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you STILL struggling to  find something that remotely sounds like you have a counter to the truth?  The fact is the Democrats were screaming national emergency, build a wall prior to 1980 and you're doing a rehash of the same B.S. that is still irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.
> 
> The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.
> 
> Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.
> 
> I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.
> 
> 
> Thus it stands as the final word.
> 
> 
> saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?
> 
> Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?
> 
> If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.
> 
> Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.
> 
> You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.
> 
> 2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.
> 
> 3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.
> 
> 4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.
Click to expand...


There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.

Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.

You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pantload!
> 
> While trying to be a smart ass, unable to make a cogent argument, you belittle and demean every person you disagree with.
> 
> Nobody really understands what you're saying because you never really say anything - at least anything of substance.
> 
> As a constitutionalist, you now have detractors on BOTH sides of the political aisle telling you that your crap isn't worth responding to.  When you mature and start acting like an adult, I might try to take you serious.  Otherwise, if all you have is calling people stupid on each point you disagree with, it simply isn't enough to impress anyone except brainwashed dullards with a shoe size higher than their IQ (like you.)
> 
> When you disagree, you call people libtards and say it is a standard liberal tactic.  Prove it.  Cite your source for such an outrageous and ridiculous allegation.  If you cannot prove it (which you cannot) then we will simply accept the fact that you are a liar looking for attention.  I'm not a liberal and if you had an IQ, you'd realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
Click to expand...


For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.

Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.

Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
Click to expand...



"_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how a link on gun rights relates to the issue of border security.
> 
> 
> You seem to be trying to make everything fit onto a less government is always good, more government is always bad sliding scale.
> 
> Best as I can tell.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty weak argument, and you are not making it well.
> 
> 
> If that is your intent.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I just do see it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:
> 
> Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.
> 
> *ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.
> 
> Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.
> 
> To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.
> 
> Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,
> 
> You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.
> 
> 
> The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.
> 
> 
> But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out,
> 
> 
> seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
> 
> Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?
> 
> "_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)
> 
> Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture
> 
> My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.
> 
> Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.
> 
> 
> But we need the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.
Click to expand...




You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.


1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.


2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.
> 
> The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.
> 
> Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.
> 
> I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.
> 
> 
> Thus it stands as the final word.
> 
> 
> saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?
> 
> Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?
> 
> If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.
> 
> Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.
> 
> You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.
> 
> 2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.
> 
> 3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.
> 
> 4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.
> 
> Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.
Click to expand...



1. I completely understand the changing demographics. 

2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.

3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.

4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that every nation on the planet has the right to determine who enters and becomes a part of their community?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.
> 
> Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.
> 
> Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.
Click to expand...




Mmm, interesting.


Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton
Click to expand...




Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?


----------



## danielpalos

Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.  Why does the right wing Only have general defense solutions not common defense solutions?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not cut out to understand politics.  With politicians, it is a world of give and take.  A lot of people voted for Donald Trump due to his braggadocio style that he was the master of the "Art of the Deal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's open your eyes a bit so you can see how this stuff works:
> 
> Donald Trump *cannot* walk away from the table with a defeat on his border wall nonsense.   At this stage, he must either cut deals or bend you over and say BOHICA to you while he gives you the ultimate screwing.
> 
> *ONE* possibility is that Nancy Pelosi calls Trump up and says $6 BILLION DOLLARS is what you asked for and I'd like the Democrats gun control bill to become law.  So, how are feeling about the "Art of the Deal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOWEVER*, I know, for a fact, that Trump wants gun control, but  the BOHICA option makes it appear that he is fighting gun control while giving you a royal screwing.  Pay attention as this gets tricky Correll.
> 
> Trump is, most likely, going to exercise those options OTHER THAN asking Pelosi for border wall money.  One of those options is to take money collected from *ASSET FORFEITURES*.
> 
> To that end, Trump nominated William Barr, an anti - gun, gung ho ASSET FORFEITURE tyrant kind of guy.  Trump violated the Constitution three different ways with his bump stock ban.  The worst thing he did was to use Executive powers to outlaw features of weapons and criminalize some guns without going through Congress.  So, it will be a little here, a magazine there, a bayonet lug there - making criminals out of ordinary citizens.
> 
> Those citizens have their assets seized once their caught, the proceeds go toward Trump's wall,
> 
> You and the politicians all sigh a sigh of relief.  You're none the wiser and unable to put the pieces together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.
> 
> 
> The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.
> 
> 
> But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out,
> 
> 
> seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
> 
> Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?
> 
> "_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)
> 
> Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture
> 
> My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.
> 
> Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.
> 
> 
> But we need the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.
> 
> 
> 2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.
Click to expand...


I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?

When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.

When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall idea was being pushed by the Democrats in 1980 and conservatives rejected it.  Today it is *less *of an issue and rejected by  most of the affected states.
> 
> The leaders pulling the strings for the wall STILL want it.  Today, they simply have useful idiots willing to sell their swill, while the Dems pretend to have some humanitarian concerns for the people from south of the border.
> 
> Democrats have a lot to gain from the wall - and you've clearly identified what side of the fence you're on.  That will help me in the future not to confuse you with being conservative or maybe Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.
> 
> I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.
> 
> 
> Thus it stands as the final word.
> 
> 
> saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?
> 
> Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?
> 
> If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.
> 
> Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.
> 
> You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.
> 
> 2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.
> 
> 3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.
> 
> 4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.
> 
> Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I completely understand the changing demographics.
> 
> 2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.
> 
> 3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.
> 
> 4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.
Click to expand...



1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were

2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:

A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens

B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding

3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders

4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a case could be made along those lines. But virtually no one is denying we have that same right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.
> 
> Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.
> 
> Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".
Click to expand...


The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)  

You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?
Click to expand...



Of course not.  If there were a military invasion, I'd support shooting the shit out them as they entered the United States.  You'll never get it.  The people coming here from other countries are participating in the free market.  Everybody is benefiting and the ONLY damn thing you're doing is helping the left dismantle the foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.

If there were some Americans willing to work in my neighborhood, they could make a damn good living.  The reality is, sir, they don't apply for the jobs.  You know it, I know it and so does everybody else.

Most of your most talent (the posterity of the founders) is sucking on their joints, drinking booze, filling their bodies with opioids - or worse and sitting on their ass complaining.  You have more people in prison than any nation on the planet; for every one drug addict in a rehab facility, you have more than TEN drug addicts in prison.  

Half of the American population is getting a check from Uncle Scam and MILLIONS don't have any intention of working as long as mommy and daddy are paying their way (and blowing the real assets of our economy.)  

Wake up dude.  I hire foreigners to do work around my house in order to keep the son of a bitch.  If they didn't do the work for what I can pay, the government would take the place.  Americans that aren't hired don't have enough common sense to start their own business and become entrepreneurs.  They want to be drug addicts, drunks and worthless pieces of shit.  If they showed up in my neighborhood with minimal skills (which is what the Hispanic laborers have), they could get the jobs and there would not be a need for what you call "cheap labor."

The truth is, there is not a swinging dick in this town that pays their help what I'd pay them to do small jobs in their off hours - or to those who possess such skills who claim a foreigner is stealing their job.  I'm not the only one.  Plenty of us cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages for small jobs that do not require a lot of special skills.  These dumb fucking white people that come here with a pick up truck saying they can save me money by charging close to what the big box guys do are out of their minds.

They don't have insurance, no guarantee on their work, and there is no way to collect from them if they screw the job up.  Yet they think the're worth an obscene amount of money when it simply isn't there in working class neighborhoods and with those on a fixed income.  If the dumb asses would work for $20 or so an hour and build themselves up, they could go on and get the jobs with big box guys.  Do you even know how America really works?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most voted for him because of policy. Trade and Immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a very bad deal. If that were to happen, Trump's presidency would be a failure and he would be a one termer.
> 
> 
> 
> Another better option would be to take money from elsewhere in the military construction budget.
> 
> 
> The use of Asset seizures and indeed, even fines, is a growing problem in our government, and one I have strong opinions on.
> 
> 
> But, assuming the worse in this instance AND, judging Trump, and for that matter me, based on  your assumptions on how this will play out,
> 
> 
> seems overly confident and somewhat unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
> 
> Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?
> 
> "_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)
> 
> Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture
> 
> My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.
> 
> Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.
> 
> 
> But we need the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.
> 
> 
> 2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?
> 
> When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.
Click to expand...




Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some who likes to talk about how I can't make an argument, you seem to like the "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacy a lot.
> 
> I addressed that line of argument in my previous post. Nothing in your reply dealt with that.
> 
> 
> Thus it stands as the final word.
> 
> 
> saying "democrat" is not an argument.
> 
> 
> To steal something I heard recently, if you show me a clip of a nazi promoting dental hygiene I am not going to embrace tooth decay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?
> 
> Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?
> 
> If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.
> 
> Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.
> 
> You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.
> 
> 2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.
> 
> 3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.
> 
> 4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.
> 
> Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I completely understand the changing demographics.
> 
> 2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.
> 
> 3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.
> 
> 4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were
> 
> 2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:
> 
> A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens
> 
> B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding
> 
> 3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders
> 
> 4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.
Click to expand...




1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.

INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.


2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.


3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.


4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making assumptions.  Maybe you can show us something different.  Here is the MSM telling us where some of the money is already being taken from:
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ps-civil-asset-forfeiture-to-fund-border-wall
> 
> Connect the dots.  Trump nominates William Barr to be his Attorney General.  Barr's views on asset forfeiture?
> 
> "_I'm disturbed that he's been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction. Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, prove to us where you got the cash, and then you can get it back. But the burden is on the individual_,"  (a quote from Rand Paul about Barr)
> 
> Rand Paul: Barr Nomination 'Very Troubling' as Far as Patriot Act, Civil Asset Forfeiture
> 
> My guess is, the money that Trump has access to via asset forfeiture, will greatly increase with Barr as his A.G.  The people who own guns that will become criminals over-night will astonish you six months down the road when you see how much more the feds are raking in under Barr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.
> 
> Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.
> 
> 
> But we need the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.
> 
> 
> 2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?
> 
> When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.
Click to expand...


Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.

Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, but since you've shockingly decided to address my actual argument, I will be happy to start from here.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting that every nation has the right to determine who enters and becomes part of their community.
> 
> 
> 2. Thank you for admitting that some people argue that America does not have the same right. Let's call them the anti-American radicals for the purpose of this discussion. That seems fair, considering that they do want the US to not have a right that every other nation has.
> 
> 
> 3.  Those of you who oppose the Wall, and other efforts to secure the border, but claim not to be part of the anti-American radicals,
> 
> 
> and this is the crux of the matter....
> 
> 
> please tell my in what ways does your position on the matter, differ from those anti-American radicals?
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.
> 
> Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.
> 
> Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)
> 
> You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.
Click to expand...



There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are for the nutty wall idea (it was theirs to begin with) and you say that is *NOT* a reason for scuttling support for it.  Okay, I can live with that.
> 
> But, *WHY* did the Dems, who pretend to be the humanitarians, have suggested the wall in the first place?
> 
> Democrats are about *control and dependence on government*.  Democrats are for gun control because it's *control, NOT *because it will save lives, but because it is about *control*. I tend to believe that the Dems floated the wall idea as a way to see if Republicans would come to the table and negotiate.  Republicans wanted the cheap labor; Democrats wanted the easy votes.  What better way than to propose a physical barrier that would lead to a "_legalization process_" that would allow foreigners to be here without court battles and legislative battles over whether or nor foreigners could be here?
> 
> If you want to recoup $175,000  after a car wreck for your car, lost wages, physical damage to your person, punitive damages, etc. and have attorney fees, your attorney will ask for much much more.  Politicians are no different.  With the threat of a wall looming over everyone's heads, they have to negotiate something between the parties.
> 
> Regardless of what everyone thinks, the wall idea will ultimately be defeated - even if it goes up.  We will* NOT* be deporting Dreamers - and mostly because each year this drags on, Dreamers get pregnant and / or get married and have children.  THOSE children will be deemed to be American citizens even in a stacked United States Supreme Court.  AND the courts will not separate families over the immigration status of their parents because improper entry is, at best a civil misdemeanor.  So, even if deport the parents of Dreamers, they will be back - and the liberals want to make voters of them.
> 
> You need a permanent solution.  You don't need a wall and a jackass playing God, trying to circumvent the separation of powers.  There is *NO CASE* that can be made for a wall based upon a perceived national emergency.  IF the courts or Congress takes the matter up, maybe they will answer that question rather than whether the president can rule via Executive fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.
> 
> 2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.
> 
> 3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.
> 
> 4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.
> 
> Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I completely understand the changing demographics.
> 
> 2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.
> 
> 3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.
> 
> 4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were
> 
> 2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:
> 
> A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens
> 
> B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding
> 
> 3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders
> 
> 4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.
> 
> INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.
> 
> 
> 2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.
> 
> 
> 3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.
> 
> 
> 4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.
Click to expand...



You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.

You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass? 

You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  If there were a military invasion, I'd support shooting the shit out them as they entered the United States.  You'll never get it.  The people coming here from other countries are participating in the free market.  Everybody is benefiting and the ONLY damn thing you're doing is helping the left dismantle the foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> If there were some Americans willing to work in my neighborhood, they could make a damn good living.  The reality is, sir, they don't apply for the jobs.  You know it, I know it and so does everybody else.
> 
> Most of your most talent (the posterity of the founders) is sucking on their joints, drinking booze, filling their bodies with opioids - or worse and sitting on their ass complaining.  You have more people in prison than any nation on the planet; for every one drug addict in a rehab facility, you have more than TEN drug addicts in prison.
> 
> Half of the American population is getting a check from Uncle Scam and MILLIONS don't have any intention of working as long as mommy and daddy are paying their way (and blowing the real assets of our economy.)
> 
> Wake up dude.  I hire foreigners to do work around my house in order to keep the son of a bitch.  If they didn't do the work for what I can pay, the government would take the place.  Americans that aren't hired don't have enough common sense to start their own business and become entrepreneurs.  They want to be drug addicts, drunks and worthless pieces of shit.  If they showed up in my neighborhood with minimal skills (which is what the Hispanic laborers have), they could get the jobs and there would not be a need for what you call "cheap labor."
> 
> The truth is, there is not a swinging dick in this town that pays their help what I'd pay them to do small jobs in their off hours - or to those who possess such skills who claim a foreigner is stealing their job.  I'm not the only one.  Plenty of us cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages for small jobs that do not require a lot of special skills.  These dumb fucking white people that come here with a pick up truck saying they can save me money by charging close to what the big box guys do are out of their minds.
> 
> They don't have insurance, no guarantee on their work, and there is no way to collect from them if they screw the job up.  Yet they think the're worth an obscene amount of money when it simply isn't there in working class neighborhoods and with those on a fixed income.  If the dumb asses would work for $20 or so an hour and build themselves up, they could go on and get the jobs with big box guys.  Do you even know how America really works?
Click to expand...



And that is why we have had decades of wage stagnation. 


Because people like you, hire Third World immigrants, legal or illegal, to do work that otherwise, you would have to pay a more for.


It is the rare person that gives up, when they have actual opportunity available. 


It is also the rare person that doesn't give up, when they have NO opportunity available.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for at least admitting that your guess about the future is a guess.
> 
> Like I said, I am not happy about the abuses of Asset Seizure.
> 
> 
> But we need the Wall.
> 
> 
> You want to attack Asset Seizure? i'm with you. But not at this time, not as an excuse to not secure the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.
> 
> 
> 2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?
> 
> When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.
> 
> Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.
Click to expand...



1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.

2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps in the 80s, the dems thought that a Wall would drive a legalization process. But I see no reason to believe that is the case now. INdeed, as you say with the passage of time and the illegals having children, that's a moot point at this late date.
> 
> 2. The Dreamers are a relatively small number. We can deport the illegals.
> 
> 3. The court battle is an unlikely victory. But one we have to try at some point. Surrender is just a faster way to lose.
> 
> 4. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. The Mexican government is. THe Democrats are. The cheap labor Republicans are. SECURING THE BORDER, AND ENFORCING THE LAW, is the primary job of a government. And they have refused to do that. Trump is just about the only one NOT being a jackass on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.
> 
> Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I completely understand the changing demographics.
> 
> 2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.
> 
> 3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.
> 
> 4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were
> 
> 2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:
> 
> A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens
> 
> B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding
> 
> 3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders
> 
> 4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.
> 
> INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.
> 
> 
> 2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.
> 
> 
> 3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.
> 
> 
> 4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.
> 
> You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass?
> 
> You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.
Click to expand...



1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable. 


2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.


3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".


4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted there is a fringe who might be against denying access to people entering the country illegally.  But even that is not what you’re claiming. What you’re claiming, as moronic as it is ... is that anyone against building the wall is for open borders. In your vain attempts to castigate your political opponents by falsely framing their position, you have to actually completely ignore their desires to secure the border using other methods; which means they’re not at all for open borders, as you falsely claim— they simply do not agree with you on what methods are least effective.
> 
> And you’re still wrong saying we’d have fewer rights than every other nation on Earth if you don’t count securing our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.
> 
> Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.
> 
> Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)
> 
> You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".
Click to expand...


There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.

If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  If there were a military invasion, I'd support shooting the shit out them as they entered the United States.  You'll never get it.  The people coming here from other countries are participating in the free market.  Everybody is benefiting and the ONLY damn thing you're doing is helping the left dismantle the foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> If there were some Americans willing to work in my neighborhood, they could make a damn good living.  The reality is, sir, they don't apply for the jobs.  You know it, I know it and so does everybody else.
> 
> Most of your most talent (the posterity of the founders) is sucking on their joints, drinking booze, filling their bodies with opioids - or worse and sitting on their ass complaining.  You have more people in prison than any nation on the planet; for every one drug addict in a rehab facility, you have more than TEN drug addicts in prison.
> 
> Half of the American population is getting a check from Uncle Scam and MILLIONS don't have any intention of working as long as mommy and daddy are paying their way (and blowing the real assets of our economy.)
> 
> Wake up dude.  I hire foreigners to do work around my house in order to keep the son of a bitch.  If they didn't do the work for what I can pay, the government would take the place.  Americans that aren't hired don't have enough common sense to start their own business and become entrepreneurs.  They want to be drug addicts, drunks and worthless pieces of shit.  If they showed up in my neighborhood with minimal skills (which is what the Hispanic laborers have), they could get the jobs and there would not be a need for what you call "cheap labor."
> 
> The truth is, there is not a swinging dick in this town that pays their help what I'd pay them to do small jobs in their off hours - or to those who possess such skills who claim a foreigner is stealing their job.  I'm not the only one.  Plenty of us cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages for small jobs that do not require a lot of special skills.  These dumb fucking white people that come here with a pick up truck saying they can save me money by charging close to what the big box guys do are out of their minds.
> 
> They don't have insurance, no guarantee on their work, and there is no way to collect from them if they screw the job up.  Yet they think the're worth an obscene amount of money when it simply isn't there in working class neighborhoods and with those on a fixed income.  If the dumb asses would work for $20 or so an hour and build themselves up, they could go on and get the jobs with big box guys.  Do you even know how America really works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why we have had decades of wage stagnation.
> 
> 
> Because people like you, hire Third World immigrants, legal or illegal, to do work that otherwise, you would have to pay a more for.
> 
> 
> It is the rare person that gives up, when they have actual opportunity available.
> 
> 
> It is also the rare person that doesn't give up, when they have NO opportunity available.
Click to expand...



You continue to post bullshit.  So, your view is that once people are poor, they do not deserve to own their property unless they can afford to pay assholes to charge them a surgeon's wages for jobs that are worth what a person can pay?

Congratulations.  You have just identified yourself as a SOCIALIST,.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line of all bottom lines is that the border will not work in our constitutional Republic.  It has been demonstrated that the peripheral laws will only expand, taking away your Liberty and making America a third world cesspool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.
> 
> 
> 2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?
> 
> When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.
> 
> Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.
Click to expand...


1)  You have inflated the numbers and you don't even give your own God credit for what he's claiming... or have his other measures been colossal failures?  It cannot be both

2)  You have to call people names because you think it helps to give credibility to your argument.  Acutally, it says you have NO argument.  Voting results in the last two election cycles have you LOSING SUPPORT, not gaining.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are *2 MILLION* Dreamers.  Each of them has parents. NO COURT IN AMERICA is going to allow you to separate those people from their parents and since both sides have no desire to remove Dreamers; they are citizens albeit de facto.
> 
> Figure it out, those *2 MILLION Dreamers + 4 MILLION parents = 6 MILLION people*.  That is one Hell of a voting bloc in anybody's playbook.  That is just one class of people.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world, unable to fathom the rapidly changing demographics.  You are in denial of history and unable to understand America is not some shithole where people, like the Israelis, depend upon our Freedom and Liberty which generates money to help support their small wall.  Without us, the Israelis would be history.  You are attacking the free enterprise system and have NO plan to avert the kind of disaster we created the last time America deported the Hispanics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I completely understand the changing demographics.
> 
> 2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.
> 
> 3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.
> 
> 4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were
> 
> 2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:
> 
> A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens
> 
> B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding
> 
> 3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders
> 
> 4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.
> 
> INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.
> 
> 
> 2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.
> 
> 
> 3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.
> 
> 
> 4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.
> 
> You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass?
> 
> You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.
> 
> 
> 3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".
> 
> 
> 4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".
Click to expand...


1)  The current immigration laws were forced through Congress by the far left in an attempt to wage subtle genocide against white people

2)  Well reading is not your strong suit.  I'm madder than Hell to think that people like you think they can live off their parents and the taxpayers, sit on your ass wailing about the wages in America on the Internet and believing you should be paid as much as the people who either go to school and get an education OR get off their lazy asses and claim some of the many existing jobs out there.

3)  You start at the bottom and work your way up.  Entrepreneurs live off work you think you're too damn good to do and they work their way up.  You really buy into that shit that because you're an American you should be paid an obscene amount of money for doing little more than mopping floors or being a laborer.

Your infantile remarks help discredit stupid people that buy into that swill you sell.  The left thanks you.

The swill you sell (current immigration laws that are anti-white) and give unlimited powers to the federal government to nullify the Bill of Rights in order to save your from yourself are counter-productive to a Republic.

4)  Someone should spit in your face for you lame ass comments about what I feel toward the posterity of the founders since I am a direct descendant of one.  I'm not gloating and if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you'd realize that I'm mad as Hell at the  utter stupidity of dumb asses like you.  The people I know, myself included, have fought, sweated, sacrificed, and spent more money than you make, trying to save this country while idiots like you come along, buy into left wing horseshit propaganda and do all you can to destroy your own culture through blatant stupidity.

When you get about four decades of this shit under your belt, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cause, and have sacrificed all you can give, come talk to us about how freaking great you think you are.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "other means" boils down to the same shit we've been doing that has failed massively for generations.
> 
> 
> Arguing for the status quo is being for an open border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.
> 
> Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.
> 
> Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)
> 
> You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.
> 
> If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)
Click to expand...



You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that. 


But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.


This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except that it’s not since border crossings are at the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. And still trending lower. And if you build a 30 foot wall along the entire border and foreigners continue to breach it, then what? Rebuild the wall again with a 40 foot wall?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  If there were a military invasion, I'd support shooting the shit out them as they entered the United States.  You'll never get it.  The people coming here from other countries are participating in the free market.  Everybody is benefiting and the ONLY damn thing you're doing is helping the left dismantle the foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> If there were some Americans willing to work in my neighborhood, they could make a damn good living.  The reality is, sir, they don't apply for the jobs.  You know it, I know it and so does everybody else.
> 
> Most of your most talent (the posterity of the founders) is sucking on their joints, drinking booze, filling their bodies with opioids - or worse and sitting on their ass complaining.  You have more people in prison than any nation on the planet; for every one drug addict in a rehab facility, you have more than TEN drug addicts in prison.
> 
> Half of the American population is getting a check from Uncle Scam and MILLIONS don't have any intention of working as long as mommy and daddy are paying their way (and blowing the real assets of our economy.)
> 
> Wake up dude.  I hire foreigners to do work around my house in order to keep the son of a bitch.  If they didn't do the work for what I can pay, the government would take the place.  Americans that aren't hired don't have enough common sense to start their own business and become entrepreneurs.  They want to be drug addicts, drunks and worthless pieces of shit.  If they showed up in my neighborhood with minimal skills (which is what the Hispanic laborers have), they could get the jobs and there would not be a need for what you call "cheap labor."
> 
> The truth is, there is not a swinging dick in this town that pays their help what I'd pay them to do small jobs in their off hours - or to those who possess such skills who claim a foreigner is stealing their job.  I'm not the only one.  Plenty of us cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages for small jobs that do not require a lot of special skills.  These dumb fucking white people that come here with a pick up truck saying they can save me money by charging close to what the big box guys do are out of their minds.
> 
> They don't have insurance, no guarantee on their work, and there is no way to collect from them if they screw the job up.  Yet they think the're worth an obscene amount of money when it simply isn't there in working class neighborhoods and with those on a fixed income.  If the dumb asses would work for $20 or so an hour and build themselves up, they could go on and get the jobs with big box guys.  Do you even know how America really works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why we have had decades of wage stagnation.
> 
> 
> Because people like you, hire Third World immigrants, legal or illegal, to do work that otherwise, you would have to pay a more for.
> 
> 
> It is the rare person that gives up, when they have actual opportunity available.
> 
> 
> It is also the rare person that doesn't give up, when they have NO opportunity available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to post bullshit.  So, your view is that once people are poor, they do not deserve to own their property unless they can afford to pay assholes to charge them a surgeon's wages for jobs that are worth what a person can pay?
> 
> Congratulations.  You have just identified yourself as a SOCIALIST,.
Click to expand...




That is a nice strawman. I can see that you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My previous response to what you said, stands. You are welcome to address it, if you want.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are connecting two distinct issues and assuming cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 1. There is nothing about our Constitutional Republic that is contrary to having a Wall on the border to help maintain security.
> 
> 
> 2. The assumption that "peripheral laws" will expand, somehow* because* of this, a. unsupported, and b. still not a good enough reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?
> 
> When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.
> 
> Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You have inflated the numbers and you don't even give your own God credit for what he's claiming... or have his other measures been colossal failures?  It cannot be both
> 
> 2)  You have to call people names because you think it helps to give credibility to your argument.  Acutally, it says you have NO argument.  Voting results in the last two election cycles have you LOSING SUPPORT, not gaining.
Click to expand...




1. The standard number used, was based on Census results, ie asking people here illegally to admit on government forms that they were here illegally. That gave a falsely low number. And then years passed, and that number was never adjusted to deal with the constant inflow.

20 million is far more reasonable. 



2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal is not calling someone a name. This is a tactic designed by the Left to avoid actual debate on the issues, by manufacturing false outrage. 

YOur attempt to dodge real debate, is noted and held against you.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I completely understand the changing demographics.
> 
> 2. YOu are correct that I have no plan to deal with the impact of deporting the illegals. Any disruption would be worth it.
> 
> 3. My point stands. Trump is not the jackass on this issue. Those that oppose him are.
> 
> 4. Capitalism is not based on cheap, illegal labor. SOME businesses might be. Some might have to adjust their pricing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were
> 
> 2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:
> 
> A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens
> 
> B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding
> 
> 3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders
> 
> 4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.
> 
> INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.
> 
> 
> 2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.
> 
> 
> 3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.
> 
> 
> 4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.
> 
> You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass?
> 
> You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.
> 
> 
> 3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".
> 
> 
> 4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The current immigration laws were forced through Congress by the far left in an attempt to wage subtle genocide against white people
> 
> 2)  Well reading is not your strong suit.  I'm madder than Hell to think that people like you think they can live off their parents and the taxpayers, sit on your ass wailing about the wages in America on the Internet and believing you should be paid as much as the people who either go to school and get an education OR get off their lazy asses and claim some of the many existing jobs out there.
> 
> 3)  You start at the bottom and work your way up.  Entrepreneurs live off work you think you're too damn good to do and they work their way up.  You really buy into that shit that because you're an American you should be paid an obscene amount of money for doing little more than mopping floors or being a laborer.
> 
> Your infantile remarks help discredit stupid people that buy into that swill you sell.  The left thanks you.
> 
> The swill you sell (current immigration laws that are anti-white) and give unlimited powers to the federal government to nullify the Bill of Rights in order to save your from yourself are counter-productive to a Republic.
> 
> 4)  Someone should spit in your face for you lame ass comments about what I feel toward the posterity of the founders since I am a direct descendant of one.  I'm not gloating and if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you'd realize that I'm mad as Hell at the  utter stupidity of dumb asses like you.  The people I know, myself included, have fought, sweated, sacrificed, and spent more money than you make, trying to save this country while idiots like you come along, buy into left wing horseshit propaganda and do all you can to destroy your own culture through blatant stupidity.
> 
> When you get about four decades of this shit under your belt, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cause, and have sacrificed all you can give, come talk to us about how freaking great you think you are.
Click to expand...




1. Agreed. But enforcing those laws are still better than just letting anyone who wants walk into the country.


2. a. You intent was unclear in that portion of your post, but you seem to be attacking the idea of caring about the income stagnation of unskilled or semi skilled workers. Was that you intent?

2 b And nothing of what you posted explained your comment about "old white asses dying off".


3. Too many Americans have been denied the opportunity to work their way up, because they are constantly being undercut, by the unlimited supply of Third World, labor, in several forms.

It is completely reasonable to advocate for policy to address that issue.


4. You seem to be jumping all over the place.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the bitching you do at me when I know what politician is going to vote which way, you think you have a monopoly on understanding.
> 
> Look dude, for real, you are being two faced and hypocritical.  You are saying that if we don't agree with you, we're for ... an "_open border_."  OTOH, I think you are playing semantics.  An open border and a secure border are two different concepts.
> 
> Your case for a wall is a classic fail in a country that is wholly and totally committed to the amalgamation of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)
> 
> You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.
> 
> If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
Click to expand...



You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.

I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.

They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.

Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.  

Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man_"  General George Patton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Do you consider the flow of illegals to be a military invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  If there were a military invasion, I'd support shooting the shit out them as they entered the United States.  You'll never get it.  The people coming here from other countries are participating in the free market.  Everybody is benefiting and the ONLY damn thing you're doing is helping the left dismantle the foundational principles upon which the Republic rests.
> 
> If there were some Americans willing to work in my neighborhood, they could make a damn good living.  The reality is, sir, they don't apply for the jobs.  You know it, I know it and so does everybody else.
> 
> Most of your most talent (the posterity of the founders) is sucking on their joints, drinking booze, filling their bodies with opioids - or worse and sitting on their ass complaining.  You have more people in prison than any nation on the planet; for every one drug addict in a rehab facility, you have more than TEN drug addicts in prison.
> 
> Half of the American population is getting a check from Uncle Scam and MILLIONS don't have any intention of working as long as mommy and daddy are paying their way (and blowing the real assets of our economy.)
> 
> Wake up dude.  I hire foreigners to do work around my house in order to keep the son of a bitch.  If they didn't do the work for what I can pay, the government would take the place.  Americans that aren't hired don't have enough common sense to start their own business and become entrepreneurs.  They want to be drug addicts, drunks and worthless pieces of shit.  If they showed up in my neighborhood with minimal skills (which is what the Hispanic laborers have), they could get the jobs and there would not be a need for what you call "cheap labor."
> 
> The truth is, there is not a swinging dick in this town that pays their help what I'd pay them to do small jobs in their off hours - or to those who possess such skills who claim a foreigner is stealing their job.  I'm not the only one.  Plenty of us cannot afford to pay a surgeon's wages for small jobs that do not require a lot of special skills.  These dumb fucking white people that come here with a pick up truck saying they can save me money by charging close to what the big box guys do are out of their minds.
> 
> They don't have insurance, no guarantee on their work, and there is no way to collect from them if they screw the job up.  Yet they think the're worth an obscene amount of money when it simply isn't there in working class neighborhoods and with those on a fixed income.  If the dumb asses would work for $20 or so an hour and build themselves up, they could go on and get the jobs with big box guys.  Do you even know how America really works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why we have had decades of wage stagnation.
> 
> 
> Because people like you, hire Third World immigrants, legal or illegal, to do work that otherwise, you would have to pay a more for.
> 
> 
> It is the rare person that gives up, when they have actual opportunity available.
> 
> 
> It is also the rare person that doesn't give up, when they have NO opportunity available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to post bullshit.  So, your view is that once people are poor, they do not deserve to own their property unless they can afford to pay assholes to charge them a surgeon's wages for jobs that are worth what a person can pay?
> 
> Congratulations.  You have just identified yourself as a SOCIALIST,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a nice strawman. I can see that you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.
> 
> 
> My previous response to what you said, stands. You are welcome to address it, if you want.
Click to expand...


You love that wallist bullshit.  When confronted with the FACTS, you resort to the standard canard.  The language of the right is "straw man argument," ad hominem attack, logical fallacy, etc. in a vain effort to escape the realities of our times.

They may use such dodges in formal debates, but in legal briefs those terms are not used.  Metaphors, analogies any hypothetical examples are how the legal system evaluates the credibility of what you're saying.  Here is a case in point and you should think this over:

Back in the 1990s I helped a friend when he (as a county sheriff) refused to enforce the Brady Bill requiring background checks at the expense of local governments.  It went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.  He won the case.  The United States Supreme Court in their ruling said:

"... _the Court held that *the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly*.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional_."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the United States Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump on Sanctuary Cities, do you know what precedent they relied on?

Federal Judge Blocks Trump's 'Sanctuary Cities' Order - The Atlantic

Tell me again about those straw man arguments and that standard left wing wallist bullshit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume *NOTHING*.  I've worked all sides of this issue since 1977.  You?
> 
> When the wall is unnecessary, it is overreach by the president to ignore state governors, both Houses of Congress, the overwhelming majority of National Security Advisers, and the American people.  You having a hard on for a dictator is no justification for something that is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> When peripheral laws connected to the wall nullify the Bill of Rights, it is the *BEST* reason to avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.
> 
> Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You have inflated the numbers and you don't even give your own God credit for what he's claiming... or have his other measures been colossal failures?  It cannot be both
> 
> 2)  You have to call people names because you think it helps to give credibility to your argument.  Acutally, it says you have NO argument.  Voting results in the last two election cycles have you LOSING SUPPORT, not gaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The standard number used, was based on Census results, ie asking people here illegally to admit on government forms that they were here illegally. That gave a falsely low number. And then years passed, and that number was never adjusted to deal with the constant inflow.
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal is not calling someone a name. This is a tactic designed by the Left to avoid actual debate on the issues, by manufacturing false outrage.
> 
> YOur attempt to dodge real debate, is noted and held against you.
Click to expand...



1)  You've offered* NO* evidence of how many people are in this country without papers.  Would you like to place a wager on which of us will be closer?  The Census is coming up next year, you know.  Would you wager - say fifty grand as proof of your belief in that number?  I can secure my end of the bet if you can

2)  I do not call people "illegal" any damn thing - left or right until they've been arrested, tried in a court of law by a jury of their peers and sentenced.  This practice relates to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "_equal protection of the laws_"  - if those people are "illegal" absent Due Process, then when the government wants to presume that because you are a Trump supporter, white, male... then you might be an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist.  And the LEO community won't give two hoots in Hell about Due Process for you either.  I'm telling you this from experience.  And the dumb shits that went to prison are on the same side of the political fence as you - and they ended up in prison for the same reason you probably will. 

It's kind of stupid to risk your entire ideology on points that will cause you to lose.  You don't have enough people to keep sacrificing in a war of attrition.  You should take the founders admonitions seriously:

"_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._"  Thomas Paine


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Obviously you do NOT understand the changing demographics.  Otherwise you would avoid pushing legislation that will lead to a confrontation.  You remind me of the Ku Klux Klan waging their wars in the 1960s.  They could not win regardless of how "right" they thought they were
> 
> 2)  Since you have no plan, let me tell you how this goes:
> 
> A)  Dreamers will ultimately become citizens
> 
> B)  Their parents will win in the courts because we've already seen how violently and soundly the public reacts when you attempt to separate families.  So, that alone gives you another *6 MILLION *new Hispanic voters.  Dude, in the last elections, Republicans win by mere handfuls of votes.  While your old white asses are aging and dying off, the non-whites are becoming citizens and breeding
> 
> 3)  Trump is not God.  He cannot circumvent the destiny of America.  Even if you could build a wall, it would be temporary AND the peripheral laws bringing about the ultimate* POLICE STATE* and martial law will be the end of the posterity of the founders
> 
> 4)  I'm not exactly a capitalist, but I do realize that a free market enterprise system made America the greatest nation in recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.
> 
> INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.
> 
> 
> 2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.
> 
> 
> 3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.
> 
> 
> 4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.
> 
> You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass?
> 
> You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.
> 
> 
> 3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".
> 
> 
> 4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The current immigration laws were forced through Congress by the far left in an attempt to wage subtle genocide against white people
> 
> 2)  Well reading is not your strong suit.  I'm madder than Hell to think that people like you think they can live off their parents and the taxpayers, sit on your ass wailing about the wages in America on the Internet and believing you should be paid as much as the people who either go to school and get an education OR get off their lazy asses and claim some of the many existing jobs out there.
> 
> 3)  You start at the bottom and work your way up.  Entrepreneurs live off work you think you're too damn good to do and they work their way up.  You really buy into that shit that because you're an American you should be paid an obscene amount of money for doing little more than mopping floors or being a laborer.
> 
> Your infantile remarks help discredit stupid people that buy into that swill you sell.  The left thanks you.
> 
> The swill you sell (current immigration laws that are anti-white) and give unlimited powers to the federal government to nullify the Bill of Rights in order to save your from yourself are counter-productive to a Republic.
> 
> 4)  Someone should spit in your face for you lame ass comments about what I feel toward the posterity of the founders since I am a direct descendant of one.  I'm not gloating and if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you'd realize that I'm mad as Hell at the  utter stupidity of dumb asses like you.  The people I know, myself included, have fought, sweated, sacrificed, and spent more money than you make, trying to save this country while idiots like you come along, buy into left wing horseshit propaganda and do all you can to destroy your own culture through blatant stupidity.
> 
> When you get about four decades of this shit under your belt, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cause, and have sacrificed all you can give, come talk to us about how freaking great you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Agreed. But enforcing those laws are still better than just letting anyone who wants walk into the country.
> 
> 
> 2. a. You intent was unclear in that portion of your post, but you seem to be attacking the idea of caring about the income stagnation of unskilled or semi skilled workers. Was that you intent?
> 
> 2 b And nothing of what you posted explained your comment about "old white asses dying off".
> 
> 
> 3. Too many Americans have been denied the opportunity to work their way up, because they are constantly being undercut, by the unlimited supply of Third World, labor, in several forms.
> 
> It is completely reasonable to advocate for policy to address that issue.
> 
> 
> 4. You seem to be jumping all over the place.
Click to expand...



1)  Create a Guest Worker program with NO expectation of citizenship

2 a)  (sic)  -  The way it used to be in America is that you started at the bottom and worked your way up.  You seem not to want that.  If you are an entrepreneur, you find a need and fill it.

My father started a construction company with virtually no money.  His first customers were gotten when my father would bid* half* of what regular contractors were bidding.  We never went hungry and he died a millionaire.  You think whites are too good to do that today.  I'm sorry for you

2b) (sic)  - Like it or not dude, the people spewing the shit you spew have been on the front pages of the newspapers, courted by the MSM, and have had the advantage of 24 / 7 MSM coverage for the last decade and a half.

What did your side accomplish?

The conservative leaders and the militia leaders of the 1990s are gone.  Nobody remembers them.  What you aspire to was liberalism in 1980.  The political and legal victories made by the conservatives were reversed by the people you keep sucking up to.  The *ONLY* things the wallists have done is to build a bigger and more intrusive government, kill off more of your own kind than the left ever could have, and sabotage the work done by constitutionalists, conservatives and patriots - erasing all the gains they made from the 1970s through about 2001 / 2002 when your side adopted socialism as a solution

3)  I take bids on jobs all the time.  Americans who *think* they're contractors come out here in a pick up truck and bid against the big box guys.  I'm sorry dude, but a 10 percent lower bid isn't going to cut it.  I have to take chances on these guys.  They have no insurance; they aren't bonded; they have no assets if they screw up a job; you can't get anything guaranteed. 

They can undercut the big box guys by 40 percent and make a great living.  Anyone who says different is full of shit.  The big box guys pay 30 percent of the gross to the man who recommends them to do the job.  My best friend drives around finding roofing jobs.  Each time he signs up a customer, he gets 30 percent of the gross on that job.  After expenses he's raking in over 70 grand a year.  Save your lies.  I know how the game is played

4)  You jump all over the place as well.


----------



## K9Buck

Correll said:


> 20 million is far more reasonable.



This Yale/MIT study put it at around 22 million as of last September.  

Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US


----------



## K9Buck

Porter Rockwell said:


> 1)  You've offered* NO* evidence of how many people are in this country without papers.



fwiw...

Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US


----------



## Toro

K9Buck said:


> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.



Thank you for your retarded logic.

When the Dems get back into power, they will use the exact same logic to increase environmental taxes for global warming.


----------



## K9Buck

Toro said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your retarded logic.
> 
> When the Dems get back into power, they will use the exact same logic to increase environmental taxes for global warming.
Click to expand...


Seventy THOUSAND illegals came in just last month.  Yes, it is an emergency.  No, Congress is UNWILLING to protect America's borders or its citizens.  Yes, Trump absolutely MUST declare a national emergency do what is necessary to stop the tens of thousands of illegals streaming into America monthly.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Yale/MIT study put it at around 22 million as of last September.
> 
> Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US
Click to expand...



US Census comes up soon.  I will accept the 11 million number.  Gentlemen place your wagers.  We start at 50 grand.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are being victimized by millions of illegals and it is clear that the U.S. Congress is _unwilling_ to protect their American constituents.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that the SCOTUS is willing to defend the American people and it's possible that they would ultimately rule that Trump cannot protect the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your retarded logic.
> 
> When the Dems get back into power, they will use the exact same logic to increase environmental taxes for global warming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seventy THOUSAND illegals came in just last month.  Yes, it is an emergency.  No, Congress is UNWILLING to protect America's borders or its citizens.  Yes, Trump absolutely MUST declare a national emergency do what is necessary to stop the tens of thousands of illegals streaming into America monthly.
Click to expand...


How many of those elusive "illegals" left?


----------



## K9Buck

Porter Rockwell said:


> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?



Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
Click to expand...


That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:

*WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*

The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.

*The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business. 

Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:

"_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.

The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.

The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.

America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.

The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.

Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.

Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.


----------



## K9Buck

Porter Rockwell said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
Click to expand...


Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Tell me what you mean by "committed to the amalgamation of people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)
> 
> You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.
> 
> If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
Click to expand...



So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well over 20 million illegals living in this country, show that the Wall, and many other steps are completely needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.
> 
> Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You have inflated the numbers and you don't even give your own God credit for what he's claiming... or have his other measures been colossal failures?  It cannot be both
> 
> 2)  You have to call people names because you think it helps to give credibility to your argument.  Acutally, it says you have NO argument.  Voting results in the last two election cycles have you LOSING SUPPORT, not gaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The standard number used, was based on Census results, ie asking people here illegally to admit on government forms that they were here illegally. That gave a falsely low number. And then years passed, and that number was never adjusted to deal with the constant inflow.
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal is not calling someone a name. This is a tactic designed by the Left to avoid actual debate on the issues, by manufacturing false outrage.
> 
> YOur attempt to dodge real debate, is noted and held against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You've offered* NO* evidence of how many people are in this country without papers.  Would you like to place a wager on which of us will be closer?  The Census is coming up next year, you know.  Would you wager - say fifty grand as proof of your belief in that number?  I can secure my end of the bet if you can
> 
> 2)  I do not call people "illegal" any damn thing - left or right until they've been arrested, tried in a court of law by a jury of their peers and sentenced.  This practice relates to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "_equal protection of the laws_"  - if those people are "illegal" absent Due Process, then when the government wants to presume that because you are a Trump supporter, white, male... then you might be an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist.  And the LEO community won't give two hoots in Hell about Due Process for you either.  I'm telling you this from experience.  And the dumb shits that went to prison are on the same side of the political fence as you - and they ended up in prison for the same reason you probably will.
> 
> It's kind of stupid to risk your entire ideology on points that will cause you to lose.  You don't have enough people to keep sacrificing in a war of attrition.  You should take the founders admonitions seriously:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._"  Thomas Paine
Click to expand...




1. The idea that people in the country illegally, will honestly say so on a government form is wrong. That is the basic flaw of the last number. That has not been updated by people since the last census. 


2. This is not a court of law. We know that millions and millions of people are in this country illegally. Lumping them into a group and referring to the group as "illegals" is completely reasonable and not a slur. You are employing the liberal tactic of manufactured offense to deflect from valid points you don't like.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
Click to expand...


*BULLSHIT
*
The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:

One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie. 

According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year

How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?

There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:

Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic

Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.

Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.

 Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.

With respect to prisons:

America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:

_"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_

You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.


----------



## K9Buck

Porter, I support immigration.  I don't support illegal immigration and the open-border policies of the Democrats.  Obviously, you feel differently.  I suppose we can leave it there.


----------



## depotoo

First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage


Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms


Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.

Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.


Porter Rockwell said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm arguing for the enforcement of our democratically enacted laws. The Klan in the 60s were fighting to deprive American citizens of their full rights. To compare these two is quite insane.
> 
> INdeed, that you gloat about a racial group "dying off" makes you more like the Klan than me.
> 
> 
> 2. And again, nothing like gloating about the dying off of the largest single ethnic group in the country, to really be convincing as the Voice of Reason.
> 
> 
> 3.  What posterity? You're gloating about old white guys dying off. Don't pretend to care about the posterity of the Founders  now.
> 
> 
> 4. I agree. And cheap labor is not required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.
> 
> You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass?
> 
> You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.
> 
> 
> 3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".
> 
> 
> 4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The current immigration laws were forced through Congress by the far left in an attempt to wage subtle genocide against white people
> 
> 2)  Well reading is not your strong suit.  I'm madder than Hell to think that people like you think they can live off their parents and the taxpayers, sit on your ass wailing about the wages in America on the Internet and believing you should be paid as much as the people who either go to school and get an education OR get off their lazy asses and claim some of the many existing jobs out there.
> 
> 3)  You start at the bottom and work your way up.  Entrepreneurs live off work you think you're too damn good to do and they work their way up.  You really buy into that shit that because you're an American you should be paid an obscene amount of money for doing little more than mopping floors or being a laborer.
> 
> Your infantile remarks help discredit stupid people that buy into that swill you sell.  The left thanks you.
> 
> The swill you sell (current immigration laws that are anti-white) and give unlimited powers to the federal government to nullify the Bill of Rights in order to save your from yourself are counter-productive to a Republic.
> 
> 4)  Someone should spit in your face for you lame ass comments about what I feel toward the posterity of the founders since I am a direct descendant of one.  I'm not gloating and if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you'd realize that I'm mad as Hell at the  utter stupidity of dumb asses like you.  The people I know, myself included, have fought, sweated, sacrificed, and spent more money than you make, trying to save this country while idiots like you come along, buy into left wing horseshit propaganda and do all you can to destroy your own culture through blatant stupidity.
> 
> When you get about four decades of this shit under your belt, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cause, and have sacrificed all you can give, come talk to us about how freaking great you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Agreed. But enforcing those laws are still better than just letting anyone who wants walk into the country.
> 
> 
> 2. a. You intent was unclear in that portion of your post, but you seem to be attacking the idea of caring about the income stagnation of unskilled or semi skilled workers. Was that you intent?
> 
> 2 b And nothing of what you posted explained your comment about "old white asses dying off".
> 
> 
> 3. Too many Americans have been denied the opportunity to work their way up, because they are constantly being undercut, by the unlimited supply of Third World, labor, in several forms.
> 
> It is completely reasonable to advocate for policy to address that issue.
> 
> 
> 4. You seem to be jumping all over the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Create a Guest Worker program with NO expectation of citizenship
> 
> 2 a)  (sic)  -  The way it used to be in America is that you started at the bottom and worked your way up.  You seem not to want that.  If you are an entrepreneur, you find a need and fill it.
> 
> My father started a construction company with virtually no money.  His first customers were gotten when my father would bid* half* of what regular contractors were bidding.  We never went hungry and he died a millionaire.  You think whites are too good to do that today.  I'm sorry for you
> 
> 2b) (sic)  - Like it or not dude, the people spewing the shit you spew have been on the front pages of the newspapers, courted by the MSM, and have had the advantage of 24 / 7 MSM coverage for the last decade and a half.
> 
> What did your side accomplish?
> 
> The conservative leaders and the militia leaders of the 1990s are gone.  Nobody remembers them.  What you aspire to was liberalism in 1980.  The political and legal victories made by the conservatives were reversed by the people you keep sucking up to.  The *ONLY* things the wallists have done is to build a bigger and more intrusive government, kill off more of your own kind than the left ever could have, and sabotage the work done by constitutionalists, conservatives and patriots - erasing all the gains they made from the 1970s through about 2001 / 2002 when your side adopted socialism as a solution
> 
> 3)  I take bids on jobs all the time.  Americans who *think* they're contractors come out here in a pick up truck and bid against the big box guys.  I'm sorry dude, but a 10 percent lower bid isn't going to cut it.  I have to take chances on these guys.  They have no insurance; they aren't bonded; they have no assets if they screw up a job; you can't get anything guaranteed.
> 
> They can undercut the big box guys by 40 percent and make a great living.  Anyone who says different is full of shit.  The big box guys pay 30 percent of the gross to the man who recommends them to do the job.  My best friend drives around finding roofing jobs.  Each time he signs up a customer, he gets 30 percent of the gross on that job.  After expenses he's raking in over 70 grand a year.  Save your lies.  I know how the game is played
> 
> 4)  You jump all over the place as well.
Click to expand...




1. Better than what we have, but still forcing Americans to compete directly against Third World labor, AND will make any children those workers have, American citizens. 

2.a. Not wanting people stuck on the bottom, nor wanting the bottom to be so low, is not wanting to do away with the concept of working your way up.

2b  THe failure of the republicans to do anything about this issue, is true. But what you are suggesting is surrender. That is just a faster way of losing.


3. YOu are making rational choices based on the business environment you are operating in. That is fine. I want to change the environment to give more opportunity to American citizens.  Do those Big Box guys use immigrant labor?


My mother in law was a nurse's aide at a small city hospital. Her hospital was bought out by a major health network based in a near by city, with a significant immigrant population. 


It was a huge problem because the small city hospital's nurse's aides, made much more than those in the bigger city.

The difference of a few dollars an hour, can make the difference between poverty and working poor.


----------



## Correll

K9Buck said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Yale/MIT study put it at around 22 million as of last September.
> 
> Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US
Click to expand...



I was rounding down.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Yale/MIT study put it at around 22 million as of last September.
> 
> Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> US Census comes up soon.  I will accept the 11 million number.  Gentlemen place your wagers.  We start at 50 grand.
Click to expand...




It is absurd to think that people in the country illegally will truthfully fill out government forms. Too many of them will be concerned that the forms would be used to deport them. As it would be in a sane world.


----------



## Faun

depotoo said:


> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

How much money has that scan artist, Brian Kolfage, collected...?


----------



## danielpalos

K9Buck said:


> Porter, I support immigration.  I don't support illegal immigration and the open-border policies of the Democrats.  Obviously, you feel differently.  I suppose we can leave it there.


We have a Constitution.  There is no immigration clause.  We have a naturalization and should have no illegal problem simply Because our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new mantra of the masses starts out _"I don't care what color you are, what religion you are_", etc.  So, those who want to sugarcoat our woes will phrase it as multiculturalism while a racist might call it race mixing (even though most racists are opposed to the myriad of political ideologies and religions that foreigners bring with them when they come here.)
> 
> You want me to believe that an American is just some dumb ass that submits themselves to the same tyrannical and unconstitutional laws that you submitted to and agrees to be a slave of the state.  Serf, slave, subject... that's all a citizen is in your world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.
> 
> If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
Click to expand...


I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.

1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.

BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.

Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job

2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:

The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.

This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liars like you inflating the numbers help provide bonafide reasons that most people call B.S. on your socialist solution.
> 
> Calling people illegal is a sign of weakness as well.  Without the name calling, you have to look at them as people.  You can't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You have inflated the numbers and you don't even give your own God credit for what he's claiming... or have his other measures been colossal failures?  It cannot be both
> 
> 2)  You have to call people names because you think it helps to give credibility to your argument.  Acutally, it says you have NO argument.  Voting results in the last two election cycles have you LOSING SUPPORT, not gaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The standard number used, was based on Census results, ie asking people here illegally to admit on government forms that they were here illegally. That gave a falsely low number. And then years passed, and that number was never adjusted to deal with the constant inflow.
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal is not calling someone a name. This is a tactic designed by the Left to avoid actual debate on the issues, by manufacturing false outrage.
> 
> YOur attempt to dodge real debate, is noted and held against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You've offered* NO* evidence of how many people are in this country without papers.  Would you like to place a wager on which of us will be closer?  The Census is coming up next year, you know.  Would you wager - say fifty grand as proof of your belief in that number?  I can secure my end of the bet if you can
> 
> 2)  I do not call people "illegal" any damn thing - left or right until they've been arrested, tried in a court of law by a jury of their peers and sentenced.  This practice relates to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "_equal protection of the laws_"  - if those people are "illegal" absent Due Process, then when the government wants to presume that because you are a Trump supporter, white, male... then you might be an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist.  And the LEO community won't give two hoots in Hell about Due Process for you either.  I'm telling you this from experience.  And the dumb shits that went to prison are on the same side of the political fence as you - and they ended up in prison for the same reason you probably will.
> 
> It's kind of stupid to risk your entire ideology on points that will cause you to lose.  You don't have enough people to keep sacrificing in a war of attrition.  You should take the founders admonitions seriously:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._"  Thomas Paine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea that people in the country illegally, will honestly say so on a government form is wrong. That is the basic flaw of the last number. That has not been updated by people since the last census.
> 
> 
> 2. This is not a court of law. We know that millions and millions of people are in this country illegally. Lumping them into a group and referring to the group as "illegals" is completely reasonable and not a slur. You are employing the liberal tactic of manufactured offense to deflect from valid points you don't like.
Click to expand...


1)  Your idiotic notion that governments will tell us the truth in background checks in order to come here is naive.  The Census is far more accurate than you give them credit for

2)  You have accused me of liberalism about one too many times.  Cite your source of proof that what I did is a liberal tactic or your entire criticism of  me will have been successfully refuted.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Porter, I support immigration.  I don't support illegal immigration and the open-border policies of the Democrats.  Obviously, you feel differently.  I suppose we can leave it there.



Leave it any place you like.  I do not support laws that infringe on my *unalienable* Rights, regardless of who you think they were intended to control.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

depotoo said:


> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those elusive "illegals" left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Since your post started out with something utterly ridiculous, I didn't bother to read it.  

If a doctor's salary is not impacted by these supposed costs, then there are NO real costs to the medical profession.  That is high school accounting.  You might get a few thank yous for stupidity, but if you post a link that supports a theory, I can post TEN to dispute.  As such, the balance of your post isn't worth considering.


----------



## danielpalos

Why does the right wing allege to subscribe to Capitalism?  Socialism on a national basis is all they seem to know.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic liar jockeying for relevance in a changing world.  The United States Constitution does not give ANY branch of the government the authority to interfere in who a state may invite to stay within their borders.  Besides that, NO democratically elected body can deny to any person their rights to Life and Liberty.
> 
> You think I'm gloating that dumb asses like you don't want to put your efforts into saving the Republic and I'm trying to convince you to pull your head out of your ass?
> 
> You don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.  You advocate for martial law; you push for the ultimate *POLICE STATE*;  you're all about more *control*, more laws, more tax money, more involvement by bureaucrats that know how to use your precedents against you and you *STILL *have this desire to screw the posterity of the founders over, making sure that they can NEVER be able to mount a resistance to the flustercuck you are creating.  You are your own worst enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.
> 
> 
> 3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".
> 
> 
> 4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  The current immigration laws were forced through Congress by the far left in an attempt to wage subtle genocide against white people
> 
> 2)  Well reading is not your strong suit.  I'm madder than Hell to think that people like you think they can live off their parents and the taxpayers, sit on your ass wailing about the wages in America on the Internet and believing you should be paid as much as the people who either go to school and get an education OR get off their lazy asses and claim some of the many existing jobs out there.
> 
> 3)  You start at the bottom and work your way up.  Entrepreneurs live off work you think you're too damn good to do and they work their way up.  You really buy into that shit that because you're an American you should be paid an obscene amount of money for doing little more than mopping floors or being a laborer.
> 
> Your infantile remarks help discredit stupid people that buy into that swill you sell.  The left thanks you.
> 
> The swill you sell (current immigration laws that are anti-white) and give unlimited powers to the federal government to nullify the Bill of Rights in order to save your from yourself are counter-productive to a Republic.
> 
> 4)  Someone should spit in your face for you lame ass comments about what I feel toward the posterity of the founders since I am a direct descendant of one.  I'm not gloating and if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you'd realize that I'm mad as Hell at the  utter stupidity of dumb asses like you.  The people I know, myself included, have fought, sweated, sacrificed, and spent more money than you make, trying to save this country while idiots like you come along, buy into left wing horseshit propaganda and do all you can to destroy your own culture through blatant stupidity.
> 
> When you get about four decades of this shit under your belt, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cause, and have sacrificed all you can give, come talk to us about how freaking great you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Agreed. But enforcing those laws are still better than just letting anyone who wants walk into the country.
> 
> 
> 2. a. You intent was unclear in that portion of your post, but you seem to be attacking the idea of caring about the income stagnation of unskilled or semi skilled workers. Was that you intent?
> 
> 2 b And nothing of what you posted explained your comment about "old white asses dying off".
> 
> 
> 3. Too many Americans have been denied the opportunity to work their way up, because they are constantly being undercut, by the unlimited supply of Third World, labor, in several forms.
> 
> It is completely reasonable to advocate for policy to address that issue.
> 
> 
> 4. You seem to be jumping all over the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Create a Guest Worker program with NO expectation of citizenship
> 
> 2 a)  (sic)  -  The way it used to be in America is that you started at the bottom and worked your way up.  You seem not to want that.  If you are an entrepreneur, you find a need and fill it.
> 
> My father started a construction company with virtually no money.  His first customers were gotten when my father would bid* half* of what regular contractors were bidding.  We never went hungry and he died a millionaire.  You think whites are too good to do that today.  I'm sorry for you
> 
> 2b) (sic)  - Like it or not dude, the people spewing the shit you spew have been on the front pages of the newspapers, courted by the MSM, and have had the advantage of 24 / 7 MSM coverage for the last decade and a half.
> 
> What did your side accomplish?
> 
> The conservative leaders and the militia leaders of the 1990s are gone.  Nobody remembers them.  What you aspire to was liberalism in 1980.  The political and legal victories made by the conservatives were reversed by the people you keep sucking up to.  The *ONLY* things the wallists have done is to build a bigger and more intrusive government, kill off more of your own kind than the left ever could have, and sabotage the work done by constitutionalists, conservatives and patriots - erasing all the gains they made from the 1970s through about 2001 / 2002 when your side adopted socialism as a solution
> 
> 3)  I take bids on jobs all the time.  Americans who *think* they're contractors come out here in a pick up truck and bid against the big box guys.  I'm sorry dude, but a 10 percent lower bid isn't going to cut it.  I have to take chances on these guys.  They have no insurance; they aren't bonded; they have no assets if they screw up a job; you can't get anything guaranteed.
> 
> They can undercut the big box guys by 40 percent and make a great living.  Anyone who says different is full of shit.  The big box guys pay 30 percent of the gross to the man who recommends them to do the job.  My best friend drives around finding roofing jobs.  Each time he signs up a customer, he gets 30 percent of the gross on that job.  After expenses he's raking in over 70 grand a year.  Save your lies.  I know how the game is played
> 
> 4)  You jump all over the place as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Better than what we have, but still forcing Americans to compete directly against Third World labor, AND will make any children those workers have, American citizens.
> 
> 2.a. Not wanting people stuck on the bottom, nor wanting the bottom to be so low, is not wanting to do away with the concept of working your way up.
> 
> 2b  THe failure of the republicans to do anything about this issue, is true. But what you are suggesting is surrender. That is just a faster way of losing.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are making rational choices based on the business environment you are operating in. That is fine. I want to change the environment to give more opportunity to American citizens.  Do those Big Box guys use immigrant labor?
> 
> 
> My mother in law was a nurse's aide at a small city hospital. Her hospital was bought out by a major health network based in a near by city, with a significant immigrant population.
> 
> 
> It was a huge problem because the small city hospital's nurse's aides, made much more than those in the bigger city.
> 
> The difference of a few dollars an hour, can make the difference between poverty and working poor.
Click to expand...


1)  Are you now admitting that we should have a Guest Worker program with no expectation of citizenship?

2 a)  You start on the bottom.  What a dumbass statement on your part!  Work, earn some references, demonstrate your skills and then those who pay more will hire you.  I learned that from a millionaire

2b)  Correll, your stupidity is amazing.  BEFORE people like you sold out to the left, we had this war won back in the 1990s.  You keep saying the Republicans are doing nothing - which is horseshit.  They are giving you the socialist utopia you demand at lightning speed

3)  Some big box guys hire undocumented foreigners, some do not.  The pay scale is pretty consistent.  Because undocumented foreigners do not have licenses, insurance, or are bonded and they have no over head... not to mention spending 30 percent of the take on a referral, they can do the work for substantially cheaper and still pay their help the same as the big box guys. Laborers are making between $12 to $16 an hour depending upon the kind of work they do.

When an American loses their job, they go on unemployment and draw welfare.  Foreigners band together, go out and offer to do work for the lower income class at a discount they can afford.  I'll tell you this to your face if we ever meet:

There is not a chance in HELL that I would lose my house because I could not afford to pay someone a surgeon's wages to do something that only requires a 90 day skill level to learn.  I'll hire the foreign labor every damn time.  If an out of work American wants to earn MORE than his employer pays him, but he has to be responsible for his own taxes, respond to the ads.  

*ALL* hospitals are being bought up bigger and bigger conglomerates.  They pay a little more right now, but once you succeed and the medical profession is socialized, the gravy train is going to stop.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Yale/MIT study put it at around 22 million as of last September.
> 
> Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> US Census comes up soon.  I will accept the 11 million number.  Gentlemen place your wagers.  We start at 50 grand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd to think that people in the country illegally will truthfully fill out government forms. Too many of them will be concerned that the forms would be used to deport them. As it would be in a sane world.
Click to expand...


It is absurd to think that people *coming here* would fill out ANY form honestly if it would keep them out of the U.S.  Yet you are dumb enough to invest in doing background checks and relying on what Mexico says - you know, the same country that prints up comic books telling their citizenry how to avoid the immigration authorities as they enter the U.S, 

The Census Bureau has ways other than the person's response AND it is illegal to use the information against them (though they are being reminded, it will help undocumented foreigners to receive representation in Congress)

The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know


----------



## depotoo

Business finance is obviously not your forte.





Porter Rockwell said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer your question with one of my own.  Why do you oppose controlling who enters our nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since your post started out with something utterly ridiculous, I didn't bother to read it.
> 
> If a doctor's salary is not impacted by these supposed costs, then there are NO real costs to the medical profession.  That is high school accounting.  You might get a few thank yous for stupidity, but if you post a link that supports a theory, I can post TEN to dispute.  As such, the balance of your post isn't worth considering.
Click to expand...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

depotoo said:


> Business finance is obviously not your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a totally dumb ass question.  But, let me fix it for you:
> 
> *WHY I OPPOSE THE BUILD THE WALL CRACKPOTS*
> 
> The number *one* reason is the dumb fucks on the right think the only way a foreigner should enter is through some non-existent method they call _"legal_" which is code for citizenship.
> 
> *The Constitution* does not require people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market.  We're losing our country because the right is wrong on the way we do business.
> 
> Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress a very limited role in this.  It is in some very short and sweet language:
> 
> "_Congress shall have the power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization_"  Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> The second major reason I'm opposed to those people is that after FOUR DECADES of being involved in this issue, the percentages of people from south of the border never changes.
> 
> The build the wall people harp on how many people come here, but never give a figure on how many go back to their native country.  If they *worked* in the field and spent equal amounts of time on every side, they would understand:  it's interstate commerce.  People coming here to engage in the free market are* not *covered by the Constitution.  The word* immigration* means to leave one's country for the purpose of coming to another country for *permanent residence*.Look it up in a legal dictionary if you don't believe it.
> 
> The third major reason can be found in my critics admission that I don't agree with this idiocy is that the immigration laws were forced through Congress by liberals.  They were meant to implode and they end up being a subtle tool for committing genocide against the white people.
> 
> America was not built to be inhabited by every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual orientation, and religious viewpoint.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a rite of passage in order to exercise *unalienable* Rights.  You have to separate interstate commerce from immigration since coming here has NOTHING to do with immigration (constitutionally speaking) UNLESS the foreigner plans on staying here permanently.
> 
> The bigger question is why are people like you so consumed with *CONTROL?*    Do you not listen to the voices of reason?  To draw you a legal analogy (IF you can understand it) the way I ALMOST lost a court case came when I won a political battle to limit the places a person can smoke.  Great.  Separate areas for people to eat without breathing cigarette smoke.
> 
> Then the city of Atlanta banned "_assault weapons_."  They cited the very bill I helped write.  They said that we empowered government to protect our safety with the anti - smoking bill.  So, by outlawing so - called _assault weapons_,  they were protecting our safety.  The ONLY reason we ended up winning is because Georgia law pre-empted local legislation that is inconsistent with state law.
> 
> Now you want to *control *people who come here and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered.  Then you'll bitch when the government passes a law based upon legislation you supported to unconstitutionally* control *a group of people engaging in otherwise legal activities???  I should teach you the concept of regulation instead of *control*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since your post started out with something utterly ridiculous, I didn't bother to read it.
> 
> If a doctor's salary is not impacted by these supposed costs, then there are NO real costs to the medical profession.  That is high school accounting.  You might get a few thank yous for stupidity, but if you post a link that supports a theory, I can post TEN to dispute.  As such, the balance of your post isn't worth considering.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Business finance not my forte????  Surely you jest.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Why does the right wing allege to subscribe to Capitalism?  Socialism on a national basis is all they seem to know.



I used to find your posts annoying.  But, the truth is the Republicans - ESPECIALLY the Tea Party Republicans have become farther to the left than even the Democrats were willing to go.

I'm a constitutionalist, a patriot, and the "conservatism" that I supported in 1980 is exactly 180 degrees *opposite* of that these guys are promoting here.

Correll has already ADMITTED that the immigration laws were put into place as a subtle form of genocide against the whites.  Yet he *STILL* supports them!  

The Dems floated the idea for a barrier / wall / fence back in the late 1970s realizing that there were a lot of racist types in the Republican Party.  Conservatives soundly rejected the very idea the wallists on this thread are trying to sell you on:


Of course, just like with the income tax, the Republicans took the bait and when they know they are dead wrong, they will fight to the death rather than simply admit, the Democrats gave them a mind screwing.


----------



## depotoo

No.  Your understanding of business costs associated with hospitals is obvious.
Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants



Porter Rockwell said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business finance is obviously not your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our schools, jails, prisons and emergency rooms are filled with illegals and there is a cost associated with their presence, which is passed on to the American citizen.  Obviously, the U.S. Congress and possibly half of the U.S. are opposed to border security and even having immigration policies.  Why am I obligated to take food off of my child's plate in order to subsidize foreigners that have no legal right to be here?  How did I incur that debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since your post started out with something utterly ridiculous, I didn't bother to read it.
> 
> If a doctor's salary is not impacted by these supposed costs, then there are NO real costs to the medical profession.  That is high school accounting.  You might get a few thank yous for stupidity, but if you post a link that supports a theory, I can post TEN to dispute.  As such, the balance of your post isn't worth considering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business finance not my forte????  Surely you jest.
Click to expand...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

depotoo said:


> No.  Your understanding of business costs associated with hospitals is obvious.
> Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business finance is obviously not your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since your post started out with something utterly ridiculous, I didn't bother to read it.
> 
> If a doctor's salary is not impacted by these supposed costs, then there are NO real costs to the medical profession.  That is high school accounting.  You might get a few thank yous for stupidity, but if you post a link that supports a theory, I can post TEN to dispute.  As such, the balance of your post isn't worth considering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business finance not my forte????  Surely you jest.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I've been reading stories like that for the last *four* decades.  Having worked for a major insurance company for five and a half years, you keep pushing and I'll ruin your argument for you.

The reality here is that your link is *17 years old *and the hospital is still in business!  Here is a current link to their pay scale:

Martin Memorial Health Systems Hourly Pay | PayScale

Here is a scale for Grady in the Atlanta area:

How much does Grady Memorial Hospital pay? | Indeed.com

If I add the low and high for Grady's RNs and divide by 2 for an average wage then multiply that by 40 hours per week and multiply that by 52 weeks a year, Grady RNs make $59,280 per year.  Grady is one of Georgia's biggest if, not the biggest, hospital in the state.  

Florida has nearly *TWICE* the number of undocumented immigrants, yet the hospital you cite pays close to the same as Georgia's highest paying facilities.  Do you see where your argument is going or do you want to continue?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a contradiction between your talk of "amalgamation" and gloating that whites are "dying off".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.
> 
> If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
Click to expand...





1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.


2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 20 million is not an inflated number. Calling me a liar, when it is you spouting number that were weak shit, before they became old, is certainly not called for.
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal, is not name calling. NOr does it indicate any attempt to dehumanize them. Save the drama for the tourists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You have inflated the numbers and you don't even give your own God credit for what he's claiming... or have his other measures been colossal failures?  It cannot be both
> 
> 2)  You have to call people names because you think it helps to give credibility to your argument.  Acutally, it says you have NO argument.  Voting results in the last two election cycles have you LOSING SUPPORT, not gaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The standard number used, was based on Census results, ie asking people here illegally to admit on government forms that they were here illegally. That gave a falsely low number. And then years passed, and that number was never adjusted to deal with the constant inflow.
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Calling an illegal alien, an illegal is not calling someone a name. This is a tactic designed by the Left to avoid actual debate on the issues, by manufacturing false outrage.
> 
> YOur attempt to dodge real debate, is noted and held against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You've offered* NO* evidence of how many people are in this country without papers.  Would you like to place a wager on which of us will be closer?  The Census is coming up next year, you know.  Would you wager - say fifty grand as proof of your belief in that number?  I can secure my end of the bet if you can
> 
> 2)  I do not call people "illegal" any damn thing - left or right until they've been arrested, tried in a court of law by a jury of their peers and sentenced.  This practice relates to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "_equal protection of the laws_"  - if those people are "illegal" absent Due Process, then when the government wants to presume that because you are a Trump supporter, white, male... then you might be an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist.  And the LEO community won't give two hoots in Hell about Due Process for you either.  I'm telling you this from experience.  And the dumb shits that went to prison are on the same side of the political fence as you - and they ended up in prison for the same reason you probably will.
> 
> It's kind of stupid to risk your entire ideology on points that will cause you to lose.  You don't have enough people to keep sacrificing in a war of attrition.  You should take the founders admonitions seriously:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself._"  Thomas Paine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea that people in the country illegally, will honestly say so on a government form is wrong. That is the basic flaw of the last number. That has not been updated by people since the last census.
> 
> 
> 2. This is not a court of law. We know that millions and millions of people are in this country illegally. Lumping them into a group and referring to the group as "illegals" is completely reasonable and not a slur. You are employing the liberal tactic of manufactured offense to deflect from valid points you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your idiotic notion that governments will tell us the truth in background checks in order to come here is naive.  The Census is far more accurate than you give them credit for
> 
> 2)  You have accused me of liberalism about one too many times.  Cite your source of proof that what I did is a liberal tactic or your entire criticism of  me will have been successfully refuted.
Click to expand...




1. Did I ever say that I trust foreign governments to tell US the truth? The Census is based on voluntarily offered information. People breaking the law have motivation to lie.


2. Manufacturing a reason to be offended, and then being offended, and accusing someone of being a bad person in some such way, is a standard liberal tactic. And that is what you are doing, by pretending that calling people here illegally, illegals, is somehow so bad, that you have to fight with me over it. Instead of discussing the actual issue.


----------



## danielpalos

depotoo said:


> No.  Your understanding of business costs associated with hospitals is obvious.
> Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business finance is obviously not your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, no it hasn’t collapsed-
> MAJOR UPDATE on the Gofundme Wall – THIS IS THE INFO YOU HAVE ASKED FOR
> Click here to support We The People Will Build the Wall organized by Brian Kolfage
> 
> 
> Secondly, the salary of doctors has nothing to do with the costs to hospitals for treating those illegals that can’t pay.  Why do you think hospitals close?  They can’t stay afloat, due to unpaid bills due to indigent care, whether from illegals or others.
> A Hospital on Border Going Over the Edge
> Illegal Immigrants Overrun Arizona's Emergency Rooms
> 
> 
> Prisons, thirdly.  Take away the criminal illegal inhabitants, how much does our population come in line with other countries not facing the influx of illegals we have.  And this figure does not include state prisons or local jail numbers.
> 
> Immigration Status of Aliens in BOP Custody
> As of September 28, 2017, a total of 24,476 confirmed aliens were housed in BOP facilities, and an additional 14,979 foreign-born individuals in BOP facilities remained under ICE investigation; together these known and suspected aliens accounted for 21 percent of all federal inmates in BOP custody.2 At least 22,614 aliens in BOP facilities were unlawfully present, including 20,240 people (51 percent of the total) who had been ordered removed and 2,374 people (six percent) who were unlawfully present and in removal proceedings. Less than five percent of the total (1,852 people) were lawfully present and in removal proceedings, and just 10 aliens had received an immigration benefit or received relief from removal. See Figure 1.
> https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Alien_Incarceration_Report_OIS_FY17_Q4_2.pdf
> It is stated that criminal  illegal aliens avg 7 arrests.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT
> *
> The House of Representatives fell to the Democrats. Trump lost support in the Senate. Then some group started a GoFundMe page to raise the money to build the wall. That effort collapsed and the people who started the page had to refund the collected funds. I'd like to put some perspective into what that effort represents:
> 
> One of the wallists talking points is that so called "_illegals_" are getting free health care and bankrupting the hospitals. So, the medical community had a dog in the fight - IF you buy the lie.
> 
> According to one source specialists make around $300,000 per year
> 
> How Much Do Doctors Make in 2018?
> 
> There are over 500,000 specialists in the United States:
> 
> Active physicians U.S. number by specialty 2018 | Statistic
> 
> Not all of those specialists will come into contact with undocumented foreigners; however, there are emergency hospital personnel, paramedics, LRNs, RPNs, PAs, etc., etc. that do which figure into the over-all picture. But if we use just the specialists only, we arrive at an income of $150 BILLION dollars a year. Again that does not count the 20 or so support personnel behind each specialist. And a GoFundMe page collapses because we cannot find $5 Billion dollars? Simply translated, the wallists are blowing smoke and there is no real concern by those supposedly affected to write a one time check to make their jobs easier and their incomes higher. The wallists do not understand the economics of their own country. Most Americans do NOT support the wall. That number rises daily.
> 
> Insofar as schools are concerned, your problem is with the federal government.  You want to make government bigger.  The reality is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government involved in education.
> 
> Did you realize that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Danbury Baptists regarding the separation of church and state, the educational system in the U.S. was the church's bailiwick? Jefferson was essentially promising the people that the government would never usurp that authority... yet that is exactly what happened and you're trying your best to justify it! The irony of it all.
> 
> With respect to prisons:
> 
> America has more people in prison than any nation on the planet.  It is part and parcel of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  Author Ayn Rand wrote:
> 
> _"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system … that’s the game…"_
> 
> You are pushing horseshit.  Border security and the wall aren't even remotely related. Foreigners are here because the American people *willingly* do business with them.  The medical industry, with the most to lose, in your standard canard of excuses obviously disagrees with you.  They spoke more with silence than I can with a thousand paragraphs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since your post started out with something utterly ridiculous, I didn't bother to read it.
> 
> If a doctor's salary is not impacted by these supposed costs, then there are NO real costs to the medical profession.  That is high school accounting.  You might get a few thank yous for stupidity, but if you post a link that supports a theory, I can post TEN to dispute.  As such, the balance of your post isn't worth considering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business finance not my forte????  Surely you jest.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause; we should be able to generate some revenue from foreign nationals to help defray costs, with our naturalization clause.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Our immigration laws were, mostly, enacted though our democratic process. Wanting them enforced is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, when you say shit like " your old white asses are dying off, while non whites are breeding and becoming citizens" yes, that sounds like gloating.
> 
> 
> 3. Wanting an immigration policy designed to benefit Americans, is not pusHing for "the ultimate POLICE STATE".
> 
> 
> 4. And again, don't pretend to care about the founders, while gloating that their posterity are "dying off".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  The current immigration laws were forced through Congress by the far left in an attempt to wage subtle genocide against white people
> 
> 2)  Well reading is not your strong suit.  I'm madder than Hell to think that people like you think they can live off their parents and the taxpayers, sit on your ass wailing about the wages in America on the Internet and believing you should be paid as much as the people who either go to school and get an education OR get off their lazy asses and claim some of the many existing jobs out there.
> 
> 3)  You start at the bottom and work your way up.  Entrepreneurs live off work you think you're too damn good to do and they work their way up.  You really buy into that shit that because you're an American you should be paid an obscene amount of money for doing little more than mopping floors or being a laborer.
> 
> Your infantile remarks help discredit stupid people that buy into that swill you sell.  The left thanks you.
> 
> The swill you sell (current immigration laws that are anti-white) and give unlimited powers to the federal government to nullify the Bill of Rights in order to save your from yourself are counter-productive to a Republic.
> 
> 4)  Someone should spit in your face for you lame ass comments about what I feel toward the posterity of the founders since I am a direct descendant of one.  I'm not gloating and if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you'd realize that I'm mad as Hell at the  utter stupidity of dumb asses like you.  The people I know, myself included, have fought, sweated, sacrificed, and spent more money than you make, trying to save this country while idiots like you come along, buy into left wing horseshit propaganda and do all you can to destroy your own culture through blatant stupidity.
> 
> When you get about four decades of this shit under your belt, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the cause, and have sacrificed all you can give, come talk to us about how freaking great you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Agreed. But enforcing those laws are still better than just letting anyone who wants walk into the country.
> 
> 
> 2. a. You intent was unclear in that portion of your post, but you seem to be attacking the idea of caring about the income stagnation of unskilled or semi skilled workers. Was that you intent?
> 
> 2 b And nothing of what you posted explained your comment about "old white asses dying off".
> 
> 
> 3. Too many Americans have been denied the opportunity to work their way up, because they are constantly being undercut, by the unlimited supply of Third World, labor, in several forms.
> 
> It is completely reasonable to advocate for policy to address that issue.
> 
> 
> 4. You seem to be jumping all over the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Create a Guest Worker program with NO expectation of citizenship
> 
> 2 a)  (sic)  -  The way it used to be in America is that you started at the bottom and worked your way up.  You seem not to want that.  If you are an entrepreneur, you find a need and fill it.
> 
> My father started a construction company with virtually no money.  His first customers were gotten when my father would bid* half* of what regular contractors were bidding.  We never went hungry and he died a millionaire.  You think whites are too good to do that today.  I'm sorry for you
> 
> 2b) (sic)  - Like it or not dude, the people spewing the shit you spew have been on the front pages of the newspapers, courted by the MSM, and have had the advantage of 24 / 7 MSM coverage for the last decade and a half.
> 
> What did your side accomplish?
> 
> The conservative leaders and the militia leaders of the 1990s are gone.  Nobody remembers them.  What you aspire to was liberalism in 1980.  The political and legal victories made by the conservatives were reversed by the people you keep sucking up to.  The *ONLY* things the wallists have done is to build a bigger and more intrusive government, kill off more of your own kind than the left ever could have, and sabotage the work done by constitutionalists, conservatives and patriots - erasing all the gains they made from the 1970s through about 2001 / 2002 when your side adopted socialism as a solution
> 
> 3)  I take bids on jobs all the time.  Americans who *think* they're contractors come out here in a pick up truck and bid against the big box guys.  I'm sorry dude, but a 10 percent lower bid isn't going to cut it.  I have to take chances on these guys.  They have no insurance; they aren't bonded; they have no assets if they screw up a job; you can't get anything guaranteed.
> 
> They can undercut the big box guys by 40 percent and make a great living.  Anyone who says different is full of shit.  The big box guys pay 30 percent of the gross to the man who recommends them to do the job.  My best friend drives around finding roofing jobs.  Each time he signs up a customer, he gets 30 percent of the gross on that job.  After expenses he's raking in over 70 grand a year.  Save your lies.  I know how the game is played
> 
> 4)  You jump all over the place as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Better than what we have, but still forcing Americans to compete directly against Third World labor, AND will make any children those workers have, American citizens.
> 
> 2.a. Not wanting people stuck on the bottom, nor wanting the bottom to be so low, is not wanting to do away with the concept of working your way up.
> 
> 2b  THe failure of the republicans to do anything about this issue, is true. But what you are suggesting is surrender. That is just a faster way of losing.
> 
> 
> 3. YOu are making rational choices based on the business environment you are operating in. That is fine. I want to change the environment to give more opportunity to American citizens.  Do those Big Box guys use immigrant labor?
> 
> 
> My mother in law was a nurse's aide at a small city hospital. Her hospital was bought out by a major health network based in a near by city, with a significant immigrant population.
> 
> 
> It was a huge problem because the small city hospital's nurse's aides, made much more than those in the bigger city.
> 
> The difference of a few dollars an hour, can make the difference between poverty and working poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Are you now admitting that we should have a Guest Worker program with no expectation of citizenship?
> 
> 2 a)  You start on the bottom.  What a dumbass statement on your part!  Work, earn some references, demonstrate your skills and then those who pay more will hire you.  I learned that from a millionaire
> 
> 2b)  Correll, your stupidity is amazing.  BEFORE people like you sold out to the left, we had this war won back in the 1990s.  You keep saying the Republicans are doing nothing - which is horseshit.  They are giving you the socialist utopia you demand at lightning speed
> 
> 3)  Some big box guys hire undocumented foreigners, some do not.  The pay scale is pretty consistent.  Because undocumented foreigners do not have licenses, insurance, or are bonded and they have no over head... not to mention spending 30 percent of the take on a referral, they can do the work for substantially cheaper and still pay their help the same as the big box guys. Laborers are making between $12 to $16 an hour depending upon the kind of work they do.
> 
> When an American loses their job, they go on unemployment and draw welfare.  Foreigners band together, go out and offer to do work for the lower income class at a discount they can afford.  I'll tell you this to your face if we ever meet:
> 
> There is not a chance in HELL that I would lose my house because I could not afford to pay someone a surgeon's wages to do something that only requires a 90 day skill level to learn.  I'll hire the foreign labor every damn time.  If an out of work American wants to earn MORE than his employer pays him, but he has to be responsible for his own taxes, respond to the ads.
> 
> *ALL* hospitals are being bought up bigger and bigger conglomerates.  They pay a little more right now, but once you succeed and the medical profession is socialized, the gravy train is going to stop.
Click to expand...





I do NOT want American workers competing against Third World labor. That is a way to guarantee wage stagnation for our lower and middle classes, as we have seen.


The reason I mention the difference in wages for nurse's aids, between a high surplus labor market and a not high surplus labor market, was to show how a difference in the labor supply can lead to major differences in price of labor, ie wages. 



This nation is named AMERICA. It is completely right and proper for AMERICANS, to expect AMERICAN government policies that serves the interests of AMERICANS. 


That is not "Socialism" so save me the drama.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is *no *contradiction of what I'm saying to you.  You simply are not paying attention.  It's really that simple.  You are a pawn in a political mind game.
> 
> If you don't understand Hegelian Dialectics and if you can't step back and be objective, the only thing you will ever be for the left is a useful idiot (that's their lingo for it BTW.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
Click to expand...



1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.

2)  You haven't proven walls do work.

Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone

Why the Wall Won't Work

Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear

Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work

Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work

Walls don’t work

Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn

Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work

TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK

'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls

Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it

Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall

So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.

2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted

3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 million is far more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Yale/MIT study put it at around 22 million as of last September.
> 
> Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> US Census comes up soon.  I will accept the 11 million number.  Gentlemen place your wagers.  We start at 50 grand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd to think that people in the country illegally will truthfully fill out government forms. Too many of them will be concerned that the forms would be used to deport them. As it would be in a sane world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is absurd to think that people *coming here* would fill out ANY form honestly if it would keep them out of the U.S.  Yet you are dumb enough to invest in doing background checks and relying on what Mexico says - you know, the same country that prints up comic books telling their citizenry how to avoid the immigration authorities as they enter the U.S,
> 
> The Census Bureau has ways other than the person's response AND it is illegal to use the information against them (though they are being reminded, it will help undocumented foreigners to receive representation in Congress)
> 
> The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know
Click to expand...




If it were up to me, we would have no immigration, especially from the Third World, except for immediate family.


So, I do not trust Mexico, not as far as I could throw it. The whole damn nation.


Illegals are not likely to trust that the information cannot be used against them. They know that they are here illegally, hence the , to you, very shocking term, "illegal".


And would expect that if they admitted there were here against our laws, that they would be rapidly deported.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
Click to expand...





1. And you are arguing to make the situation even worse. 

2. THere are examples of walls working and not working. THey can work. Would ONE example of a wall working be enough for you?


3. So, you don't believe that increased supply leads to decreased price? If you can prove that one, I can promise you a Noble Prize in economics.


4. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Controlling who and what enters our nation is not that.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  We know the right wing doesn't care about the law, Only their bigotry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are arguing to make the situation even worse.
> 
> 2. THere are examples of walls working and not working. THey can work. Would ONE example of a wall working be enough for you?
> 
> 
> 3. So, you don't believe that increased supply leads to decreased price? If you can prove that one, I can promise you a Noble Prize in economics.
> 
> 
> 4. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Controlling who and what enters our nation is not that.
Click to expand...


1)  It has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we were winning this war *BEFORE* your side got involved.  I have NOTHING to do with the situation.  YOU DO.  It's YOUR side's policies that are grabbing the headlines; it's YOUR side in charge.  You made the situation worse.  Had it not been for dumbasses like you, we'd have won the war a decade ago.


2)  Walls do not work.  Short term solutions are no solution at all AND you forget that we are not some pissant country that is not the center of the world's attention.

3)  You have so little faith in what you believe that you ignored an honest wager.  

According to Donald Trump, he keeps saying that there are more jobs under his administration; wages are rising; our economy is getting better.  So, which lie is the correct one?  You cannot have it both ways.

Either wages are rising AND more job opportunities happened *WITHOUT *a wall or they did not.  Seems that you cannot decide what side of the lie you should be on.

Dude, plain and simple:

When Americans want to go back to work, they will.  We may have to wean them off the Welfare State and eliminate *your POLICE STATE* along with the left's Nanny State, but you don't need a wall to have border security.  You don't even believe it.  That is why you like to  argue it - some are wondering who you're trying to convince - me or yourself.

You even have your supply and demand concepts confused.  Americans demand the foreigners be here.  How do you stop that?  In my neighborhood, if these asshole white boys that live in mommy's basement, making $650 a month on a debit card for food and various other welfare handouts were cut off, they'd go back to work and your problems would be solved.  There are more of those in my neighborhood than there are white boys under 40 that actually have a job.  

So, they can live on free mommy rent, $650 on a debit card for food, and whatever other handouts they can get, but they can't live on jobs that pay $20 an hour?  You are full of shit, sir.


----------



## K9Buck

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are gloating about me and mine "dying off". It is hard to be objective about that.
> 
> 
> But any positive :Amalgamation" should* not *be based on the elimination of one of the major parts.
> 
> 
> This is an assumption on my part. Are you aiming, or saying that our society is aiming for a POSITIVE "amalgamation"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
Click to expand...



Do you agree with Beto that existing barriers should be dismantled?


----------



## danielpalos

K9Buck said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Beto that existing barriers should be dismantled?
Click to expand...

I believe we should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure to relieve this humanitarian issue on our border.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

K9Buck said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to reword your entire posting before my dumb ass could understand it.
> 
> I'm not gloating that the posterity of the founders (i.e. the white people) are dying off.  I've worked for the last few decades trying to warn them of the subtle genocide of whites by non-whites.
> 
> They can preach all the horse dung on God's green earth about equality, anti-discrimination themes, etc., but rest assured that most of the non-white voters in the United States see you as a perceived enemy and our system based upon Anglo Saxon laws as impediments to what they want.  And so the non-whites wage a cultural war removing the statues, monuments, memorials, and plaques that speak to our history.  They bitched about the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate when that was absolute B.S. and once they've run out of the aforementioned items to eliminate, they will want to change the U.S. flag - the one that flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision went down.
> 
> Throughout history, even in the Bible,  the mixing of cultures, races, religions, differing political opinions, sexual persuasions etc. has always resulted in the fall of that civilization.  In the Bible the people "_sought to be one_" and that precipitated  God destroying Tower of Babel.  Same thing happened with the Roman Empire.
> 
> Those playing into the hands of the globalists are insuring the demise of the white people.  Every couple of years I watch helplessly as people refuse sound counsel and fall by the wayside.  I've known many that have been put in prison, jail, flipped by the LEO community... even killed.  Each year we accept more liberalism, more Big Brother Government, more tyranny and I get sick of saying I told you so while people like you play into their hands and end up licking the boots of the slave masters - even praising them for selling you into slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Beto that existing barriers should be dismantled?
Click to expand...


It's not my call.  That decision should be left to those who are most impacted by it.  We should not be in the business of sticking our noses into everyone else's business.  How do you think we got into this predicament in the first place?  That government that governs least, governs best.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you against the idea of a wall, to prevent people coming in, over and above what is already too many allowed by law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are arguing to make the situation even worse.
> 
> 2. THere are examples of walls working and not working. THey can work. Would ONE example of a wall working be enough for you?
> 
> 
> 3. So, you don't believe that increased supply leads to decreased price? If you can prove that one, I can promise you a Noble Prize in economics.
> 
> 
> 4. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Controlling who and what enters our nation is not that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  It has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we were winning this war *BEFORE* your side got involved.  I have NOTHING to do with the situation.  YOU DO.  It's YOUR side's policies that are grabbing the headlines; it's YOUR side in charge.  You made the situation worse.  Had it not been for dumbasses like you, we'd have won the war a decade ago.
> 
> 
> 2)  Walls do not work.  Short term solutions are no solution at all AND you forget that we are not some pissant country that is not the center of the world's attention.
> 
> 3)  You have so little faith in what you believe that you ignored an honest wager.
> 
> According to Donald Trump, he keeps saying that there are more jobs under his administration; wages are rising; our economy is getting better.  So, which lie is the correct one?  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Either wages are rising AND more job opportunities happened *WITHOUT *a wall or they did not.  Seems that you cannot decide what side of the lie you should be on.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple:
> 
> When Americans want to go back to work, they will.  We may have to wean them off the Welfare State and eliminate *your POLICE STATE* along with the left's Nanny State, but you don't need a wall to have border security.  You don't even believe it.  That is why you like to  argue it - some are wondering who you're trying to convince - me or yourself.
> 
> You even have your supply and demand concepts confused.  Americans demand the foreigners be here.  How do you stop that?  In my neighborhood, if these asshole white boys that live in mommy's basement, making $650 a month on a debit card for food and various other welfare handouts were cut off, they'd go back to work and your problems would be solved.  There are more of those in my neighborhood than there are white boys under 40 that actually have a job.
> 
> So, they can live on free mommy rent, $650 on a debit card for food, and whatever other handouts they can get, but they can't live on jobs that pay $20 an hour?  You are full of shit, sir.
Click to expand...




1. How and when were we "winning" this battle?


2. Walls sometimes work. 

3. Trump has increased border security some, and increased deportations, some, and the initial results are encouraging. So, let's do a lot more of that, and get even more of the good stuff.


I think I am starting to understand what is going on with you.


In the 80s, the Free Trade, unspoken subset free movement of labor, argument was the increased competition would lead to new innovation from American entrepreneurs and businessmen and in short order America would come roaring back.


That did not happen. Instead of American entrepreneurs and businessmen, found ways to adjust so that THEY would flourish in the new environment, and the American worker got shafted.


YOU can see that this situation is bad for Americans, but you are now financially invested in the new environment, and that is warping your thinking so that your answer, is to have American workers become more like Third World workers. 


That is not a good policy for America.


We want policy that will be good for America over all, and Americans individually.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been over this with you how many times now?  You looking for the next guy to try and shoot me down?  Good luck.
> 
> 1) The number ONE reason that your question is wrong is that Congress has NO AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of opportunities *willingly* offered.  That, sir is why your solution is socialist.
> 
> BEFORE all this B.S. got started the employer owned the job they created.  The man who owned a house or apartment owned his property.
> 
> Today the government tries to tell us who we have to hire, rent to, buy from, etc. and you're going right along with the program.  When America was America, you got a job by working for someone who would later vouch for you by way of a phone call or U.S. Snail Mail letter.  Now, we do "_background checks"_ and take the word of a corrupt government.  It used to be you did not have to hire someone based on their color or sexual orientation.  You hired who would do the best job
> 
> 2)  Next, information is power.  Throwing up a wall and thinking it will keep people out is wishful thinking.  In fact, it created the pretext necessary for the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap.  Let's talk about that:
> 
> The same man who gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify bill is one and the same who gave you the so - called "_*Patriot Act*_."  Most recently he has added to his socialist ID schemes with enhanced DNA laws.  He also introduced the Build the Wall Act.  Many of his socialist solutions have been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.
> 
> This massive abuse of your Right to Privacy gives the government unfettered access to every aspect of your life, the worst outcome being that the people will never be able to organize a resistance to tyrannical government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A nation, or any group with no ability to define itself, will cease to exist in short order. And this nation has had immigration policies for a very long time.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing in your post, supports your primary point, ie that walls don't work. YOu were insulting, and you made a lot of assertions. And you attacked the source of the idea. But you at not point, supported your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Since the immigration laws you cite have been on the books, the whites have become a virtual minority in the U.S.
> 
> 2)  You haven't proven walls do work.
> 
> Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone
> 
> Why the Wall Won't Work
> 
> Why Walls Don't Work, by Michael Dear
> 
> Why Trump's Emergency Mexico Border Wall Won't Actually Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Walls don’t work
> 
> Trump’s border wall will not work ‘no matter how high’, scientists warn
> 
> Letter: History shows us: Walls don't work
> 
> TRUMP HIMSELF ADMITTED WALLS WON'T WORK
> 
> 'The Daily Show' found an old Trump speech encouraging people to climb concrete walls
> 
> Ted Whidby: Walls don’t work, and Republicans like Reagan knew it
> 
> Along the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wall
> 
> So far I have scientists, historians, think tank groups, *BUSINESSINSIDER* (i.e. prominent business leaders), Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the leaders of the most affected states disagreeing with your position.  Those with the most real life exposure DISAGREE with you.
> 
> 2)  Your alleged impact on wages was successfully refuted
> 
> 3)  You're making an argument for socialism.  You cannot sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are arguing to make the situation even worse.
> 
> 2. THere are examples of walls working and not working. THey can work. Would ONE example of a wall working be enough for you?
> 
> 
> 3. So, you don't believe that increased supply leads to decreased price? If you can prove that one, I can promise you a Noble Prize in economics.
> 
> 
> 4. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Controlling who and what enters our nation is not that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  It has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we were winning this war *BEFORE* your side got involved.  I have NOTHING to do with the situation.  YOU DO.  It's YOUR side's policies that are grabbing the headlines; it's YOUR side in charge.  You made the situation worse.  Had it not been for dumbasses like you, we'd have won the war a decade ago.
> 
> 
> 2)  Walls do not work.  Short term solutions are no solution at all AND you forget that we are not some pissant country that is not the center of the world's attention.
> 
> 3)  You have so little faith in what you believe that you ignored an honest wager.
> 
> According to Donald Trump, he keeps saying that there are more jobs under his administration; wages are rising; our economy is getting better.  So, which lie is the correct one?  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Either wages are rising AND more job opportunities happened *WITHOUT *a wall or they did not.  Seems that you cannot decide what side of the lie you should be on.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple:
> 
> When Americans want to go back to work, they will.  We may have to wean them off the Welfare State and eliminate *your POLICE STATE* along with the left's Nanny State, but you don't need a wall to have border security.  You don't even believe it.  That is why you like to  argue it - some are wondering who you're trying to convince - me or yourself.
> 
> You even have your supply and demand concepts confused.  Americans demand the foreigners be here.  How do you stop that?  In my neighborhood, if these asshole white boys that live in mommy's basement, making $650 a month on a debit card for food and various other welfare handouts were cut off, they'd go back to work and your problems would be solved.  There are more of those in my neighborhood than there are white boys under 40 that actually have a job.
> 
> So, they can live on free mommy rent, $650 on a debit card for food, and whatever other handouts they can get, but they can't live on jobs that pay $20 an hour?  You are full of shit, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How and when were we "winning" this battle?
> 
> 
> 2. Walls sometimes work.
> 
> 3. Trump has increased border security some, and increased deportations, some, and the initial results are encouraging. So, let's do a lot more of that, and get even more of the good stuff.
> 
> 
> I think I am starting to understand what is going on with you.
> 
> 
> In the 80s, the Free Trade, unspoken subset free movement of labor, argument was the increased competition would lead to new innovation from American entrepreneurs and businessmen and in short order America would come roaring back.
> 
> 
> That did not happen. Instead of American entrepreneurs and businessmen, found ways to adjust so that THEY would flourish in the new environment, and the American worker got shafted.
> 
> 
> YOU can see that this situation is bad for Americans, but you are now financially invested in the new environment, and that is warping your thinking so that your answer, is to have American workers become more like Third World workers.
> 
> 
> That is not a good policy for America.
> 
> 
> We want policy that will be good for America over all, and Americans individually.
Click to expand...



1)  Throughout the 1990s patriots had taken the 16th Amendment to task.  They pointed out the income tax was a plank from the Communist Manifesto.  Furthermore, so many smaller cases were won (and the government never appealed them ) that it inspired my own U.S. Congressman, Rep. John Linder, to introduce legislation that would effectively* repeal* the 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax.  That legislation would become the most researched legislative proposal in U.S. history.  It was called the FAIR Tax.

Now, I don't know that the FAIR Tax was a good bill; I don't even know whether or not it would have passed.  What I DO KNOW is that the wallists emptied out the patriot movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) and, instead of repealing the 16th Amendment, you created a pretext for keeping the 16th Amendment since (under the REAL ID Act) your Socialist Surveillance Number ....ooops "_Social Security Number_" became your National ID Number and we were denied the opportunity to put the 16th Amendment on trial, so to speak, in both Houses of Congress.  So thank you very much for National ID - just what we needed to push us toward socialism.

In the 1970s through 1990s the patriot movement had made inroads to dismantling the 14th Amendment by pointing out that it created two classes of citizens, then tried to place the posterity of the founders into 14th Amendment jurisdiction, taking away their God given, inherent, *unalienable*, natural and absolute Rights, replacing them with privileges and immunities as the government sought fit to dole out.  That move on your part basically nullified the Bill of Rights and by forced use of the SSN, it denied the posterity of the founders the ability to separate themselves from an illegal / de facto government.  What you fail to understand, we were *WINNING* the fight!!!

Your *false* allegations that undocumented foreigners were not paying taxes gave the communists among us the pretext to hang onto that plank from the Communist Manifesto.  Had you not gotten involved in that fight, you would not have mythical "_anchor babies_" to bitch about.

If I were to list all the fights from privacy Rights to Second Amendment Rights and from womb to the tomb surveillance to the assaults by your side on the presumption of innocence (which claimed most of the leadership of the 1970s through 1990s) this would be the longest posting in USM's history

2)  Walls don't work.  I've posted stuff from historians, scientists, and business leaders.  You just keep repeating lies.  As General George Patton said, "_Fixed fortifications are a testament to the stupidity of man._"  Dude, if you want to be real, the *only* applicability a wall would have in the United States is if you were determined to reclaim America for the posterity of this country (i.e. the white race.)

3)  Now that you've admitted that border security has been *increased without a wall*, let us also consider that too much of anything is a BAD thing.  Water is good.  It sustains your life.  Too much of it and you drown.

The wall carries with it the past (those laws that led up to building the pretext for it) and would include the so - called "_Patriot Act_," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, warrant less searches, the repeal of the Bill of Rights, an end to the presumption of innocence, etc., etc. ad infinitum.  It also means that bad laws will get drastically enforced - *ASSET FORFEITURE*, Constitution Free Zone, and more 24 / 7  /365 womb to the surveillance of the American people... plus a hundred or so more laws that will endanger your Right to Liberty - not that I think you would give a rat's ass.

Although I was having to vote for the lesser of two evils, you have demonstrated an absolute ignorance of recent history.  That's most likely because you did not actually *live* it.  I'm not saying you weren't alive, you were not politically and socially ACTIVE.  That will always be the advantage I have over you.

For example, in 1982 the unemployment rate soared to over 10 percent.  In 1986 Reagan granted "_amnesty_" to 3 MILLION  undocumented foreigners.  By the year 2000, the unemployment rate had dipped to 3.9 percent (which is almost statistical zero unemployment)  and it was done WITHOUT a wall.

*BEFORE* 9 / 11 the unemployment rate had fallen to its lowest point since the 1950s.  There is a stark contrast here.  In 1953 Congress began talking about something called "_Operation Wetback_."  In 1954 immigration officials were deporting every Hispanic they could catch... and in less than five years the unemployment *DOUBLED*.

The reality is, no matter how you slice it or dice it, you do NOT understand the economics of your own country.  You don't understand how free enterprise works; you don't know how jobs are created; you fail to understand how more government has killed our ability to create better jobs and make things better for America.  ALL you have are lies that have been told over and over until you begin to believe the socialist horse dung fed to you by the far left that employs what they call useful idiots that do their dirty work, completely clueless as to what is *really* happening.


----------

