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

[Correll]

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. Y...

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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. Y...

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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."

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]

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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

any walls must facilitate our welfare clause General and our Commerce Clause simply Because we have no express immigration clause.

 

[Correll]

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. Y...

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.

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.

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]

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?

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."

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]

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.

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.

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]

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. Y...

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.

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.

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.

I was mostly referring to you and I going at each other, but I'll concede that you got flamed first.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

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."

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Faun]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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."

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.

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.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

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.

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.