Right wing militia detains 200 migrants at gun point on New Mexico!! HELL YEAH!

[Porter Rockwell]

I am embarrassed for the right wing. I don't vote for Democrats. Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over. WTF? Are they really that stupid?

The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "illegal aliens") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have NO jurisdiction. What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???

they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.

I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half. But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.

The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan. We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:

He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing. That would be a fallacy - and that's all he's got. Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers. It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not. Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.

so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,

GOT IT,,,

In the last three threads that Correll and I have engaged in, I have FACTUALLY refuted your bullshit more than 25 times. As you stated, you "quit reading after..."

Not reading the mostly irrelevant walls of text you like, is completely reasonable.


And I note, you did quite well in that post, making a point in under 500 words.

That is your problem. A couple of hundred words challenge your pea brain... which caused you to drop out of high school and be unable to read and respond to a few paragraphs that you think constitute a wall of text. Your brains (if you had any) would pop out if you had to read a book.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.

"He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety" Benjamin Franklin

You want a popularity contest? Let me tell you a FACT, son. Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong. So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money. You're still wrong.

Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work. It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts. That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE. SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!

If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.

Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.


That is the humanitarian answer.


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like your home.

A wall will not deter anyone. You're being played by politicians and your efforts to destroy American citizens ability to resist tyranny is worse that danielpalos trying to look for additional Democrat voters.

IF we enforce it, we have a Republic - as Franklin said, "if you can keep it." You keep advocating we forfeit those avenues of redress, those tools of Liberty (private property, the Right to Privacy, and the Right of free men to rebel against tyrannical laws.) Get off the drugs - that will be the humanitarian answer for you.

 

[Andylusion]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.

Rightwing, upholding the law, in face of left-wing fear, hate and bigotry.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I support your right to ignore your education. You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.

If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal. If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you. The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law. That is a lie.

I held public meetings twice a month for decades. I'm going to tell you something right now: face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way. You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.

sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor the law of the land

When you invoked a war on so - called "illegal aliens," you negated your own argument over National Security. You're either addressing a legal problem OR a military concern. You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.

Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions

That is all irrelevant. If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage. Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?

why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???

that makes no sense,,,

and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,

It don't make sense. That's the point. You keep harping on so - called "illegal aliens," and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you. How short does this have to be for you to understand it? You either have an "illegal" problem OR you have a National Security problem. The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.

 

[progressive hunter]

sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor the law of the land

When you invoked a war on so - called "illegal aliens," you negated your own argument over National Security. You're either addressing a legal problem OR a military concern. You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.

Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions

That is all irrelevant. If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage. Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?

why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???

that makes no sense,,,

and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,

It don't make sense. That's the point. You keep harping on so - called "illegal aliens," and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you. How short does this have to be for you to understand it? You either have an "illegal" problem OR you have a National Security problem. The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.

I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue

 

[Porter Rockwell]

QUESTION: Why are danielpalos posts so short?

ANSWER: By their own admission, the wallists are limited to Tweet sized posts. Paragraphs become walls of text for the mental midgets.

 

[Andylusion]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

Vigilante justice seldom goes well. What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border? Was that completely ineffective? What are those people doing?

The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere. That's the whole point of having a wall. Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military. Because they did not know where the boarder was. Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.

Walls are very effective. Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.

 

[Correll]

IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?

NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.

"He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety" Benjamin Franklin

You want a popularity contest? Let me tell you a FACT, son. Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong. So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money. You're still wrong.

Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work. It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts. That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE. SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!

If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

You should back up and try again. No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition. Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?

Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.


Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?

 

[Correll]

they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.

I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half. But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.

The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan. We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:

He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing. That would be a fallacy - and that's all he's got. Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers. It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not. Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.

so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,

GOT IT,,,

In the last three threads that Correll and I have engaged in, I have FACTUALLY refuted your bullshit more than 25 times. As you stated, you "quit reading after..."

Not reading the mostly irrelevant walls of text you like, is completely reasonable.


And I note, you did quite well in that post, making a point in under 500 words.

That is your problem. A couple of hundred words challenge your pea brain... which caused you to drop out of high school and be unable to read and respond to a few paragraphs that you think constitute a wall of text. Your brains (if you had any) would pop out if you had to read a book.

And you did it again. You made your point and insulted me several times, all with three sentences. Why not do that?


Wading though meaningless and irrelevant filler is not a "problem" for me, it is just a waste of time.


And, it is wrong of you to use such filler to put in weak points, and claims, under the hope of them being ignored, and thus given a hint of validity though not being challenged.


I don't let people do that, so when you put out a bunch of bs, I call you on it, and the thread bogs down into meaningless semantics and bs.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When you invoked a war on so - called "illegal aliens," you negated your own argument over National Security. You're either addressing a legal problem OR a military concern. You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.

Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions

That is all irrelevant. If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage. Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?

why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???

that makes no sense,,,

and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,

It don't make sense. That's the point. You keep harping on so - called "illegal aliens," and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you. How short does this have to be for you to understand it? You either have an "illegal" problem OR you have a National Security problem. The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.

I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue

Waving flags??? Surely you jest. Let us look at the LEGAL definition that the courts are going to respond to:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?

People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "rights." What is happening is a consensual act. Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.

 

[Correll]

If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.

Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.


That is the humanitarian answer.


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like your home.

A wall will not deter anyone. .....

Sure it will.


Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.


Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.

 

[danielpalos]

NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.

"He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety" Benjamin Franklin

You want a popularity contest? Let me tell you a FACT, son. Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong. So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money. You're still wrong.

Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work. It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts. That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE. SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!

If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.

Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.


That is the humanitarian answer.


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like your home.

Upgrading Ellis Island is more humane.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

Vigilante justice seldom goes well. What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border? Was that completely ineffective? What are those people doing?

The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere. That's the whole point of having a wall. Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military. Because they did not know where the boarder was. Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.

Walls are very effective. Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.

Bullshit. Walls have never worked.

Walls Don't Work

 

[danielpalos]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.

Rightwing, upholding the law, in face of left-wing fear, hate and bigotry.

show us the express immigration clause, right wingers.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.

Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.


That is the humanitarian answer.


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like your home.

A wall will not deter anyone. .....

Sure it will.


Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.


Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.

History proves you wrong. Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot. The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.

 

[danielpalos]

NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.

"He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety" Benjamin Franklin

You want a popularity contest? Let me tell you a FACT, son. Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong. So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money. You're still wrong.

Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work. It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts. That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE. SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!

If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

You should back up and try again. No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition. Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?

Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.


Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?

I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.

 

[Correll]

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.

Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.


That is the humanitarian answer.


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like your home.

A wall will not deter anyone. .....

Sure it will.


Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.


Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.

History proves you wrong. Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot. The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.

What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?


And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.

 

[danielpalos]

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.

Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.


That is the humanitarian answer.


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like your home.

A wall will not deter anyone. .....

Sure it will.


Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.


Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.

we have a general welfare clause not a general malfare clause.

 

[Correll]

If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?

That would be an appropriate use of the military.
.....

So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.

You should back up and try again. No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition. Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?

Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.


Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?

I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.

I'm sure you do.


I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.

 

[Andylusion]

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?

Vigilante justice seldom goes well. What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border? Was that completely ineffective? What are those people doing?

The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere. That's the whole point of having a wall. Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military. Because they did not know where the boarder was. Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.

Walls are very effective. Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.

Bullshit. Walls have never worked.

Walls Don't Work

Really..... funny how that wall in Berlin worked for decades on end, keeping people in.

Care to try again?