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

[Faun]

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.

And you’re brain-dead to “deduce” he said we have fewer rights than ever other country.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

”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.

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.

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]

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.

”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.

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.

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]

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.

”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.

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.

”Also, he almost certainly started with insults.”

Nope, you’re wrong about that too...

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.

Your invective is highlighted for emphasis.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.

Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.

stop whining about illegals, hypocrite.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

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?

We have a Constitution.

 

[OldLady]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.
.....

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.

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]

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.

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.
.....

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.

”Also, he almost certainly started with insults.”

Nope, you’re wrong about that too...

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.

Your invective is highlighted for emphasis.

Cut down to nothing to hide the previous posts. Not very convincing.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.

Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.

stop whining about illegals, hypocrite.

Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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?

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

there is no immigration clause, why is that, illegal.

Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.

stop whining about illegals, hypocrite.

Why should I address your points, when you never address mine?


Go bother someone, else, coward.

You have no point to make. Our Constitution is Express not Implied.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

”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.

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.

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.

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]

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.