The Talk Is Done — Time To Build The Border Wall
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Border Wall: After President Donald Trump said Thursday he'll sign the budget deal, he ended the possibility of a second government shutdown. Now, for part two of this saga: the declaration of an emergency to build the border wall Trump promised to Americans.
We urged him to take that step before the deal had been struck. We did so because the deal actually includes Democrats agreeing to spend money on a wall, a key concession that weakens all their previous arguments against the wall.
But more importantly, the new agreement, though it contains just $1.4 billion for the wall — way below the $5.7 billion Trump requested and the $18 billion he initially asked for — gives the president a start in building the wall. With a declaration of an emergency , he can do even more.
Indeed, Trump has already scraped up $8 billion in funds for the border wall. Trump's Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said Friday Trump has already lined up emergency funds totaling $600 million from the Treasury, $2.5 billion in drug-interdiction funds from the Defense Department, and $3.5 billion from military construction funds.
With the $1.4 billion already in the budget, that's a grand total just under $8 billion. It's a good start.
Yes, It's An Emergency
As for declaring a national emergency, facing wave after wave of illegal immigrant "caravans" egged on by Democrats and open-borders advocates — and the possibility of drug dealers, terrorists and criminals crossing into our country unhindered — make a declaration of a national emergency imperative. As we've said for years, a nation that doesn't control its borders ceases to exist. Period.
Then there's the idea that this represents some kind of "abuse" of the government's power to issue emergency declarations. Please. Since 1976, there have been 60 presidential emergency declarations, and 31 of them are still in force. President Obama alone signed 12. Most of them have been for foreign emergencies, far from the U.S. Given this, the idea that protecting our own border from a surge of illegal incursions doesn't rise to the level of "national emergency" is absurd.
Border Wall: Build It
We keep hearing the Democrats will challenge it in court . Well, let them. It's pretty clear that Trump has the authority to do what he's doing. And, if the Dems pursue a policy of foot-dragging and legal harassment, the Democrats will once again show their lack of seriousness about doing anything about protecting our porous southern border.
The U.S. has already started work on the border wall near El Paso, Trump says. Great. He should keep at it, using whatever funds he can gather through the emergency declaration and from future budgets.
But whatever happens, the wall won't be done in time for 2020, the next national election year. That means Republicans and Democrats will face the border as a major campaign issue in 2020. That's as it should be. Let Trump start building, then let the people decide.
“Yes, It's An Emergency
As for declaring a national emergency, facing wave after wave of illegal immigrant "caravans" egged on by Democrats and open-borders advocates — and the possibility of drug dealers, terrorists and criminals crossing into our country unhindered — make a declaration of a national emergency imperative. As we've said for years, a nation that doesn't control its borders ceases to exist. Period.
Then there's the idea that this represents some kind of "abuse" of the government's power to issue emergency declarations. Please. Since 1976, there have been 60 presidential emergency declarations, and 31 of them are still in force. President Obama alone signed 12. Most of them have been for foreign emergencies, far from the U.S. Given this, the idea that protecting our own border from a surge of illegal incursions doesn't rise to the level of "national emergency" is absurd.
Border Wall: Build It
We keep hearing the Democrats will challenge it in court . Well, let them. It's pretty clear that Trump has the authority to do what he's doing.”
It is not an emergency. This is an abuse of power.
I am very much in favor of having a secured border and legal immigration (planned and controlled for the best interests of our nation). But I am totally against politicians playing loose with the Constitution and the law. The current crop of federal politicians disgrace their positions. The Ds refuse to give meaningful support for securing our border because it would be a political victory for Trump. Partisan politics. Trump, in turn, goes slimy and sets precedents that further diminish the rule of law and ethics in Washington and in the office of PotUS.
What a disgusting display of partisanship and incompetence.
It is not an emergency. It is a long-standing problem (one of many by the way) whose solution is way overdue. Declaring this an emergency is an abuse of power.
Trump already opened his mouth and collectively shot the right in the foot. He said he could have dragged this out but he wanted it done faster...
He just admitted his intention was to violate the constitution and that he could drag it out makes it clear there is no emergency.
It is an emergency.
He already screwed that poodle.
It is a fake emergency because he didn't get his way and doesn't know how to negotiate.
It is the toddler in chief having a temper tantrum because he couldn't get money for his vanity wall that he repeatedly ad nausem said Mexico was going to pay for.
He had 2 yrs of Republican control, just stop with the bullshit. He knew once the House flipped to the Democrats he was fucked, so now he makes up a fake national emergency.
Which has actually been decreasing over the years. Illegal border crossings are way down. Wonder why Trump has fixated on this non-crisis when there are so many more pressing problems that we are facing (hello? AGW!) but Trump doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming because the leader of the free world is an anti-science idiot. This can't end well.
Wrong
For Trump haters and other critics who claim that there is no border crisis because supposedly illegal crossings are at historic lows
Let’s assume your argument and pursue that logic. Given the low figure of 30,000 per month (and actual numbers for the past 6 months are 50,000 per month) and that Border Patrol data shows they apprehend 50%:
That means EVERY DAY, 7 DAYS a WEEK we have 2000 illegals entering this country, with 1000 living here. 7000 a week, 364,000 a year getting free education, free healthcare paid for by taxpayers
If only 2% are criminals that is 14 criminals a week, 728 criminals a year entering our country
And we’re supposed to believe that is not a crisis for our country? That kind of thinking is either insane, naive, or diabolical
It’s an emergency to American citizens who have been victims of crimes committed by illegals not belonging here. It’s an emergency to those who might die from an overdose of one of many illegal drugs being smuggled over the border by human miles. It’s an emergency to the women and children being trafficked over the border to be sex slaves. It’s an emergency to prevent people from other regions of the world 🌍 from coming in with a crowd of illegals to become sleeper cells to do some future terrorist attack. It is an emergency.
Ah, so that's why Republicans in Trumps campaign decided to negotiate with an enemy foreign government. I always wondered why Republicans would choose such a cowardly tactic as to side with Russian election interference or try to claim it didn't happen or didn't have an effect. But now it's clear it was because they hate their fellow Americans who don't look like they do or believe like they do. There are two competing visions for America, one is a white Christian nation hiding behind a xenophobic vanity wall where white male protestants maintain control versus a diverse American nation that doesn't have a problem with walls or fences where they're needed, they already agreed to 700 miles of it in the highest traffic areas, but they don't fearfully hide behind walls, they allow any faith, culture and people to participate in our constitutional republic as our founders intended.
Liberals and progressives have come a long way since the founding of this nation, and we've had many fights. We haven't won every fight, but we eventually win every major battle. From defeating the treasonous confederates who were hell bent on keeping their slaves, overturning bans on women and blacks voting, defeating segregation and Jim Crow laws, overturning bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage. All progressive battles we have won over the conservatives of each era who always desperately cling to their hideous past of discrimination, hate, prejudice and religious bigotry. The vanity wall will be another battle liberals will stand up against to ensure this nation doesn't sink back into the moronic protectionist ideology of scared half-wit xenophobes.
It is not a national emergency :
The intent is not for an irresponsible PotUS to simply declare something an emergency. It is set up to provide the PotUS with expeditious powers to react to an unforeseen, non-ordinary catastrophic event that cannot wait for acts of Congress. By your reasoning, Trump could declare a national emergency for our health system, our national debt, abortion, guns, etc. Pretty much anything.
Trump declaring our ongoing border security problem a national emergency is an abuse of power.
One 'inaccurate statement' renders the rest of your statement suspect.
Reagan favored Immigration reform and open borders.....
President Reagan and Vice President GHW Bush in their own words...
More fiction... Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990 and rarely talked about the border.
Sounds like a dictator
Certainly at least abuse of power. This is a trend amount PotUS' that seems to be growing worse.
Why is the situation not an emergency? Congress has been dealing with the issue of border security based on the averages. But the reality of the extremes has moved too far from the averages. Migrant caravans are overwhelming the average resources. Doesn't that constitute an emergency?
Because it is a long-standing problem that Congress has debated for decades. Declaring a national emergency for political expedience is an abuse of power.
We are a constitutional republic with separation of powers and checks & balances. Unfortunately, in spite of its careful design, our system does not prevent politicians from being profoundly irresponsible as they play partisan power games at the expense of the people of the USA. But unlike an abrupt event such as a hurricane, wildfire, etc., this problem is not an emergency; it is a long-standing problem that can and should be addressed by an ethical Congress and PotUS who are working for the people rather than themselves.
Declaring a national emergency to workaround partisan power plays is an abuse of power.
The existence of a problem indicates that corrective action would be appropriate. The long lasting nature of the problem is the result of prior Presidents and Congresses failing to take corrective action. A President can only address problems while they are in office. Partisan opposition to a President exercising powers within their jurisdiction is not the equivalent of abuse. Partisan obstruction to deliberately thwart correcting a problem eventually allows the problem to worsen to the point of becoming an emergency.
Keep in mind that Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi engaged in a power play for the purpose of scoring political points. Senator Schumer used Senate filibuster rules to block passage of a continuing resolution to fund government operations that included appropriations for construction of physical barriers on the border. Chuck Schumer shut down the government solely for political purposes, not for the good of the country.
Yes. And Donald Trump won the election. I'm not particularly thrilled by that, either. But Congress trying to overturn the election by ignoring the separation of powers and abusing checks & balances for political purposes has nothing to do with the intent or purpose of a Constitutional Republic.
Partisan Congress has lost all credibility when claiming they are defending the Republic and acting in the best interest of the public.
Absolutely. Our federal politicians continue to be entirely irresponsible regarding border security and immigration practices in general. My comment is on Trump's declaration of an emergency. I am quite in favor of taking corrective action.
We agree. I stated that too.
I understand why Trump is resorting to this. But he is still abusing his power. It sucks that our high-paid representatives are too busy playing power games to get serious about actually representing the people. I would be happy to fire the whole lot.
Have I not been stating this??
Agreed. This is and has been for years political nonsense. Again, Nerm, no matter how much I would like to see us secure our borders (not necessarily with a wall by the way) and ensure we have controlled legal immigration, I will never be in favor of politicians going overstepping their powers.
I am against the games played in Congress too.
Agreed. Long time ago. I have been disgusted with Congress for decades.
And as each one gains power, they never seem to think of the precedent they are setting.
And Congress rolls over, and has clearly forgotten their role in checking the power of the Executive Office. Sure, it's worse now than ever before under Trump, but both parties contributed to it getting this far.
It's time for term limits
Hasn't he been building it all along?
Definitely need a wall around the WH, Trump Tower and every piece of real estate the Trump owns. Except Ivanka of course.
But, if it was such an emergency why did the Trump say he 'didn't have to do it'? And why did he zip down to Mar a Largo on our dime if it was such an emergency? The conundrum of all conundrums and the Trump placed every brick.
Did Barr go to Mar a Largo too?
And why did it become a bigger emergency once Republicans lost the House? This total moron in the WH ran on draining the swamp and fiscal responsibility, yet he has exploded the deficit, hired tons of beltway lobbyists, and is now openly instigating an action that admittedly will have to cycle through several losing court battles before ending up at the feet of the SC. What a deal maker.
Because those of us who demand the wall have been flooding the White House to pressure the President to take this step if Congress refuses to do its duty
its either build the wall or deploy 50,000military personnel to permantly guard the border until Congress does its job
So how many reserves do we have to deploy to stop illegal global warming?
Personally, I would love to see troops on the steps of the Heartland Institute.
Laughable. Mankind cannot stop the weather or change our earth’s climate cycles
Obama taking virtually the same executive actions and for the very same reason, yet Democrats had no problem with it
Those of you who demand a wall are in the obvious minority. Democracy caters to majorities.
Why? They are a great American organization. See for yourself.
You believe that only as long as it is your beliefs and projects are in the majority. If your ideas fall in with the minority opinion you claim that majority rule is tyranny and oppression.
Be specific. What belief of mine is in the minority and considered by me to be under tyrannical rule?
Are you implying that President Obama sought to re-appropriate funds from different Federal Agencies in defiance of Congress?
Please provide a relative link.
btw Executive Actions by the 44the POTUS averaged 34 per year and were loudly decried as "executive overreach".
The 45th POTUS, who was one of the loudest critics of Obama's EAs, has surpassed Obama with an average of 46 per year so far.
So much for the criticisms, eh?
He was responding to an event and he did not declare a national emergency.
If a similar event occurs now, Trump can also marshal federal forces to deal with the event.
Do you not see the difference between this and Trump declaring our ongoing border security problem as a whole a national emergency as part of a political end-run to fulfill a campaign promise?
We aren’t a democracy. The founders established us as a Republic of states because they stated that democracies are terrible for liberty
He had to. Show me where he got legislation approved for the actions he took at the border
We are a representative democracy. It is true that we are not a direct democracy.
We are also a republic. In fact we are a federal constitutional republic based on a system of representative democracy.
Is that your best attempt at defending minority rule?
Democracy yes, Democrats no. Big difference between the two...
The responsibility is on you to prove he did...you made the claim.
I guess I will be waiting a long time for any link showing that Obama (or any other POTUS)
tried to re-appropriate funds approved by Congress for something else.
So now, after 8 years of bitching about Obama's use of EA's and golfing,
it's OK for Trump to not only do the same, but to exceed in both while the GOP controlled Congress and the White House passed no new border legislation?
.
That, Larry, sounds like a monumental failure of leadership from Trump, McConnell & Ryan.
That is the epitome of "sad".
False equivalency.
No it’s not.
Yes it is.
Don't you love the smell of conservative hypocrisy on a Wednesday afternoon?
Pot, meet kettle .. and boil it over.
I guess I will be waiting a long time for any link showing that Obama (or any other POTUS)
tried to re-appropriate funds approved by Congress for something else.
You will .. because it hasn't happened before. This is a totally different situation .. Trump claiming power over the requirement for Congress to appropriate funds... and these poor fools don't even think about the precedent it would set, much yet understand the Constitution.
Wow. You might want to rethink that statement if you want to not be seen as a racist. My comment had nothing to do with race.
We suffer the most expensive least efficient public healthcare system in the world and our roads and our bridges are crumbling but we can afford by far the world's best and most expensive military. Too many of our public schools are failing yet financially we still stand astride the world like a Colossus. And yet, somehow Flint still does not have potable drinking water. Are you really telling me we need a goddamn medieval wall? Is that really the top of our priority list? What we need is better leadership. STAT...
Well, here's your precedent....Dem in office, mass shooting happens.
Absolutely nothing stops the Dem president from taking semi-automatic weapons off the street.
Doesn't effect 2nd amendment because you can still own single action firearms.
You have no standing to stop it.
[Removed]
I didn’t flag your post for off topic.
It should have been for terms of service.
More than 95% of handguns and long guns in this country are semi automatic. There are more than 16 million AR-15 or similar long guns owned in this country. What kind of mindset actually believes we will give up our natural right of self defense against criminals or tyrannical government?
James Madison
"T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46"
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey father of environmental movement in"Abbey's Road", 1979
This liberal owns an AR-15, a 30-06, a Glock 17, a couple of semi auto shotguns and a few other pistols in various calibers. I shoot them (and reload) on a regular basis.
Liberals don't worry me. Far right wing fascists do.
I collect firearms used in American combat. At this point I've got 47. The automatics have been plugged. A good portion of the republicans that make noise about firearms have no idea how to even use them
Don, correct me if I'm wrong...
MUVA, If I'm not mistaken, you're addressing a disabled American Vet.
I think MUVA has expressed that he is many many times???
Or did you mean DO ?
Yes
A new personal low...
No semi-automatic ban is going to violate the 2nd amendment.
You'd still have plenty of single action weapons to bear.
Yet by citing 'war fighters', 'Rangers', 'Special forces' and 'Seals', you cite a select FEW, NOT a 'good portion' of Republicans OR conservatives.
They are under 1% of the population, MANY a slightly higher percentage of Republicans. In short, NOT representative...
So you claim. My boss is a former SEAL and he knows that Trump spits on his service, and that of the entire military. True SEALS don't claim loyalty to a President, but to our country and our Constitution.
As if MUVA would make a claim like that if it wasn’t true. I’ll take him at his word regarding his past.
The border wall Trump promised Mexico would pay for.
and it will be recovered from them. It will pay for itself several times over in the crimes and loss of life it prevents.
HOW?
Utter bullshit. Ever were that true, that money should go into the Treasury, NOT out of it.
Still want to bitch about "You'll save an avg. of $2500 on your insurance"?
So will the ban on semi-automatics.
they prevent crime
So does a single action, a revolver, a pump shotgun...
It doesn’t matter what laws democrats pass on gun control. We are not giving up our semi pistols or rifles or clips. We will hoard and hide them and refuse to comply with any confiscation. We will use peaceful passive resistance to defy such laws and tell the gun grabbing left what they can do with their law. We will resist as such to the extent that only a martial law police state that shreds the constitution to pieces will allow them to try to have their way with us on this matter. We will literally test them to that point and see if they would create a dystopian police state to get their way. We can assure that nothing short of that will cause any compliance with such confiscations. And even then it may not...
After being the "law and order" party It seems like you're ready to be a criminal.
On that issue, you bet. And proudly so. Then is when the words of Charlton Heston will really matter. Will the grabbers try to lock up 50 million people? Will they resort to violence to attempt to compel physically forced confiscation? We simply will not give up the 2nd amendment as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Since you want to reference a dead movie star...
We don't need to lock up 50 million people.
Or, in taking a line from the movie "stand by me"
"Are you going to shoot us all?"
"Nope, just you"
The rest will fall in place when the first few are sitting in a prison.
What makes you think that 50 million people will decide to be lawless with you?
That's what LAWS do Xx. Those who willfully violate those laws are rightly physically forced to comply.
OH the irony.
Y'all are all about originalism, what the Founders said about and meant in the Constitution. Y'all decry 'activist Judges' until you get a ruling that you like. Suddenly originalism be damned.
Xx and I are talking about forcibly confiscating weapons made illegal by statute. It infers NOTHING about removing or even arresting a PERSON. DO try to keep up.
A manual typewriter and party line phone provide communication too
Pretty good!
And just like a manual typewriter one has to prepare and think about what they're doing. Put the wrong key at the wrong place would force you to start over...can't do that with one bullet let alone five in rapid succession.
Or
Are you telling me that sacrificing safety for speed is a good thing?
How many more people would be alive today if that guy in Vegas did not have a semi-automatic with a bumpstock? Once he started, they were fish in a barrel, literally.
Did you know bumpstocks are banned after March, but you can still buy them up to the day of the ban? What victims???
I bought my bumpstock last year, only because they did not want me to have one. Stored in 2 pieces
Lots of people bought them
Not on this issue. When the first few are locked up and the just me is shot, the rest will openly resist the dystopian police state regime. Who exactly is going to enforce such laws. Many rural county sheriffs and small town police departments won’t even try to enforce such tyranny. Most of the states state law enforcement won’t either. They will be busy enforcing other laws and not get around to it. Posse Comitatus will prevent military law enforcement on American soil against American citizens. BATF is not large enough to compel nationwide compliance.
If we don’t get the wall built we should contemplate that though I’d prefer not to if the wall is finished.
A lot of people bought large capacity ammo clips and cartridges just before their state banned them too. The gun industry likely can’t wait for the next democrat president to come along and wildly stimulate their sales.
Who enforces laws now Xx.
Why not? It wasn't tyranny when the first assault weapons ban was in effect.
Really? You base that conclusion on WHAT Xx? The VAST majority of our population live in states run by Democrats or Moderates that WILL follow Federal law. That whittles your 50 million down considerably. It makes an even BIGGER dent in the ACTUAL number of assault rifles in the US, which the NRA estimates is at MOST 15 million.
Though if Sheriffs and local LEOs refuse to DO THEIR JOBS, Governors can and will use the National Guard to get it done. So tell your Shasta County Sheriff to expect company if he fails to uphold his oath.
So you are all in favor of local law enforcement enforcing some federal laws such as this but the should disregard federal laws that you don't like such as immigration laws. Hmmmm!
Immigration laws are exclusively federal LEO jurisdiction, gun regulations are not.
Fail.
Then you will become felons and loose your 2nd Amendment rights altogether. GREAT IDEA!
Spare me the "What 'we' are going to do" hoohaa...you aren't that well connected to correctly tell me what a whole segment of the country will do, or how they'll react.
Yes they do rely on the gullibility of the right don't they?
So you believe that the many on my side would just compliantly yield to the firms of coercion and tyranny that your side would try to impose upon us if only they could? Do you really believe that your side could intimidate the bulk of us into passive submission if only a select few of us are made examples of. In reality we wouldn’t comply but would avenge them instead. Taking away guns is the first step to tyranny so it would be massively resisted at the outset. Its not likely that 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states would amend the 2nd amendment out of existence so in order for such confiscation to take place the constitution would have already been trampled upon.
I said most states not the states with the most population. Most rural law enforcement doesn’t enforce California gun laws unless a violation happens in their presence and they see it. As to national guard, much of its make up is of gun owning citizens from similar small town and rural parts of the state. They’d be no more likely to turn on fellow citizens than the standing army would. We had national guard here during the Carr Fire and many were like our neighbors.
Exactly. When liberals try to ban something conservatives triple down on buying and possessing whatever it is they are trying to ban because they are trying to. The more they talk about gun control the more we will flood the nation, states, cities, and streets with them because they are trying to take them. No negotiation, no discussion, no compromise, the more they open their pie holes and flap their gums about gun control the more guns we put into circulation as a direct response until they forever stop and leave us alone.
If population doesn't matter, why'd you cite 50 million Xx?
Bullshit.
Point?
How would upholding the law by turning on fellow citizens Xx.
I bet some of them were from those 'secular progressive coastal' hell holes that you decry so often...
WRONNNNG!
There would be no need to adapt the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not effected.
You can still own and bear firearms...just not semi-automatics. There is ZERO in the amendment that states what firearms you can bear.
Or better yet, the Brady bill did just that and survived the challenges. Didn't see anyone violently resisting as you would predict.
More big talk....
Yeah, I remember all those tough talkers being in the streets and fighting law enforcement when the Brady bill passed....oh wait! That didn't happen.
Just lemme ask one question....
YOU.... (personally)
.....going to be out on the front line looking to take all those weapons away from their lawful owners?
I sincerely doubt it, but one could hope.....
The Brady Bill didn’t outlaw semi automatic pistols or semi automatic hunting rifles......nor did it confiscated weapons it banned that people already had in their possession. Nothing remotely comparable.
No. But it did narrow who could not own a gun.
And a year after the Brady bill was signed came the assault weapons ban.
And still the 2nd amend. survived.
If I was not retired from law enforcement? Yes. Why not? I've forcibly have taken them and disassembled them before their eyes.
Death wishing?
Oh sorry
It's rebellion and speed over safety.....
But, but, but, everybody's buying them Mom!
Nope, asking if you would put your money, or life, where your mouth is.....
Since you consider the rest of us just "tough talkers"
I know I will....
But then I have have already done that in my life, so I know what it means.
We've ALL put our money where our mouth is NWM, it's called taxes. My Federal, State and Local taxes pay for LAW ENFORCEMENT.
My County Sheriff Dept. does a hell of a job.
The gun grabbers gabbing about the laws they are going to pass against law abiding citizens and the way that they are going to trample all over us are the ones engaging the tough talk.
WTF are you talking about Xx? I haven't said a fucking thing about 'tough talk'.
BTFW, how is passing legislation 'tough talk'? Isn't that how y'all try to get what YOU want?
If you could would you go door to door? What would be your probable cause to even knock on the door of each home? Would membership in a certain religious belief or political party be a factor? What judge would sign the search warrants for such an endeavor? What would be the criteria a LE person would use to seek a warrant and for the judge to sign it?
A social media sweep would bring in a bunch. Hell, there are members here who have posted picks of their weapons...
What? Do you dream this would be some "Dragnet" thing?
Wake up to the 21st century, all guns are sold. It's not like selling a pack of gum. There's a paper trail. No need for stormtroopers until some whack job gets stupid on an individual basis then the headline reads "Owner of illegal weapons opens fire on Officers one officer injured, shooter dead"
"You going to shoot everybody?"
"No, just you"
Be afraid, be very afraid.../s
BTW, as an Asian, I take umbrage in talk of camps in the US...
The grabbers wouldn’t be resisted when at one persons house. They would not be resisted then but individually when not engaged in that. Then friendly persuasion can be used to urge them to stop targeting American citizens. If grabbers know we know who they are and where they live then they will likely stop doing it and the matter can peacefully end.
Creating camps in America for feared domestic opposition is a progressive phenomenon.
I would have copied and pasted the crazy parts of your post but that would have involved c & p-ing the whole post. But here's one...
The grabbers wouldn’t be resisted when at one persons house. They would not be resisted then but individually when not engaged in that.
WTF does that even mean ? Seriously ?
You're not promoting a peacful end. You're promoting terrorizing to surrender.
I worked for "Italian businessmen" in my youth. They called it "friendly persuasion" too.
The first was a question, the second comment was no question, the third is a lie.
So after I state I take umbrage of such talk, you make a point to comment about it anyway. BAD FORM Xx.
Dammit, I totally missed those. Lemme jump into that........
#F***THENFA #IALREADYOWNWMDS
I have always thought of my honkin big dog as my first line of defense, shotgun as backup. She doesn't even like leaves to land on the property. I've been looking into getting a pit from a shelter now that I'm retired but it's hard to find cat friendly females. Got my eye on one though...5 month old brindle. Unfortunately, I just had to put my oldest cat down and my petty cash for the month is that much shorter...
Well it was fellow progressive FDR and his liberal friends in congress then whom you should be upset about. It was the conservative Reagan who signed reparations for what the progressives did.
That if it became a civil war between grabbers and keepers the battle would not stay at keepers homes but would be taken directly to the grabbers anywhere else.
FDR isn't a member here and didn't read my prior post Xx. You did. BAD FORM.
You still seem under the delusion that ALL gun owners will take to the streets if the few million that own 'assault weapons' have to give them up. I for one will not.
Sorry to hear about your cat. If you feel a real connection to the brindle, you should pull the trigger 😉
She has this head tilt thingy that is endearing as hell. Still got to convince the wife. Then I'll have to go and introduce her to my honkin pup and see how they get along. I used to have 4 cats and 3 dogs. I'm down to 2 cats and the beast and it's getting empty around here...
Like you, I'm used to 'tripping hazards' covering the floor.
They weren’t just talking about “assault” weapons. They were talking about taking every single semi auto firing rifle and pistol in the country.
They WHO Xx? I have NOT seen even ONE proposal to do such a thing.
Actually, FDR was not inclined to send the Japanese to internment camps.
It was a Conservative bigot General John DeWitt that set this up and just like conservatives today, lied his ass off to get the government to relocate the Japanese to camps.
Well....don't you know them?
The "Deep State" ...come on! Every liberal personally knows every member of the deep state...did you forget the secret handshake?
I must have missed a meeting. I'll have to ask around at our Spring solstice drum circle for an update...
See 5.1.4 and 5.1.6 as they propose just that.
You DO realize that 'they' is a plural form don't you Xx?
BTW, those comments don't state EVERY rifle AND pistol. You're ASSUMING again...
No it said every semi auto pistol and rifle. It then suggested the kind of pistols, rifles, and shotguns we’d be “generously” permitted to keep instead.
You know we can all READ those comments right?
Why are you bearing false witness Xx?
So will the ban on semi-automatics.
they prevent crime
So does a single action, a revolver, a pump shotgun...
WRONNNNG!
There would be no need to adapt the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not effected.
You can still own and bear firearms...just not semi-automatics. There is ZERO in the amendment that states what firearms you can bear.
Or better yet, the Brady bill did just that and survived the challenges. Didn't see anyone violently resisting as you would predict.
NOTE ONE of those comments says EVERY Xx.
Why are you bearing false witness?
I’m not. He says ban on semi automatics. He then says the types of rifles, pistols, and shot guns we can have to reduce crime. In his last about the 2A he said we couldn’t have semi auto weapons. I never said otherwise. I never said that he advocated for the banning of all guns. I said he advocated for the ban of all semi automatic pistols and hunting rifles. We won’t give them up. His ban would outlaw a Daisy .22 rifle with a cheap scope and a 10 bullet detachable magazine that sells for about $180 at a Big Five store.
You ARE, and you just did it again.
You said:
Now you are equivocating and blathering about different comments. You told me to read TWO comments and then made false claims about those TWO comments.
NOWHERE does he say EVERY or ALL.
Why are you bearing false witness Xx?
“So will the ban on semi-automatics.” You saw some sort of exception in that sentence because I sure didn’t.
Yet you STILL intentionally mischaracterized another members comment.
Why are you bearing false witness Xx?
After thinking on this overnight, I've come to the conclusion I certainly hope this wall goes through. It will take money from projects in all 50 states. It will hasten eminent domain land seizures. I'm convinced that someone in Trump's Administration has money invested one or more companies that will do the construction and they aren't smart enough to get away with it. We'll pay more for steel because of Trump Tariffs. There are certain to be serious cost overruns.
All of these things can, and will be, used by Dems against Reps in upcoming elections. Once a Dem gets into office we'll get an emergency declaration on health care and the nation will finally get either get a single payer or universal healthcare system and there will be nothing the cons can do about it. We might even see an emergency declaration on gun violence and push on more expansive federal gun restriction laws.
Rock on for more Executive Power abuses! /s
There won’t be another democrat party president for a very long time....
You keep thinking that.
I think that is what the republican were saying in the mid term that we'll hold the line...Oopppsss lost 40, or was it 41 seats.
It's obvious from your claim that your knowledge of American politics is not only bias but limited.
MAGA! Finish that wall!
I guess you forgot that in 2010 the democrats were saying that they were going to keep the house and lost 60 plus seats and control of the house in that years election
I didn't forget anything...My point was nothing or party is forever that is the history of politics in American...So there ya go.
Brilliant rebuttal, did Ann Coulter write it for you.
Nope. I did it all by myself. I agree that it, like me equal brilliant.
Delusions of grandeur again.
Nope, Coulter thinks they are stupid....
Damn! Trump said they were stupid, Coulter said they are stupid....
Walks....ducks....
[Deleted]
With the Trumps and all their criminal cabal going to prison soon?
Yeah people aren't going to connect him with the Republicans....noooo.
You'll be lucky to keep a decent minority.
Again? How about......Still.....Endless......On-going.....Eternal.....
Because it never stops......
Please don't let on where those substitutes can be found?
They'll question how a dinosaur can teach words.
I’d like to publicly thank who ever it was that flagged the post calling me a Russian bot while I was away.
removed for context
Notice instead of replying with a cogent response you suddenly got bumper sticker chant?
[deleted]
You're welcome...
Nothing new there.
So, you say it's time to build the wall when Scumbag tells you he's already built most of the wall is he lying? And when he promised you a solid, hardened cement wall (that would be paid for by Mexico) and you're just getting steel slats and you're paying for it how do you shut out from your mind the fact that he's played you a sucker? And it was both amusingly and horrifyingly easy it was to get the Trumpers to change their chant from "build the wall" the "finish the wall" at that rally and ever since. It was like watching someone flip a switch on a bunch of automatons.
And now "stronger together", lol
And now we actually have at least one democrat party presidential candidate open to the idea of tearing down existing border barriers.
No, our version of that is “United We Stand”
You forgot to leave the fine print exclusions on rhe bottom.
seems like the RNC inadvertently borrowed Hillary's campaign slogan.
which seems rather odd...
Can't make this stuff up, lol.....
More soon to be ex-RNC staffers.
I’m more Tea Party aligned than RNC until the establishment is no longer in control of the RNC.
Maybe not. Who knows it was inadvertent? Maybe it’s a form of co opting and triangulation.
Why? I like it! We are getting stronger together. We Made America Great Again MAGA, and now stronger together we are going to KEEP AMERICA GREAT! 🇺🇸
We simply recognized that Trump has made some progress on the wall and are encouraging further and additional progress. Finish the wall! Besides by making public that some wall already exists it makes it easier to get democrat presidential candidates to advocate for tearing down already existing “immoral” border barriers.
Perhaps you aren't aware that Trump is lying when he says that. He hasn't even started to build new sections of the fence yet; he's simply repaired some existing parts.
But his base just eats his lies up, and rejects all facts. SMH
And you know that he hasn’t added anything anywhere to existing barriers since he became president exactly how?
The Scumbag lie that he's built any new wall and many more about the border and immigrants can be found here:
"he's simply repaired some existing parts."
It is me, you are not supposed to be talking Katrix and here you are going around the restriction. If you do this again, you will get a 2 day vacation. Do not engage Katrix on any level and she will return the favor.]
I didn't reply to anyone specifically. I used a general statement made by someone as an EXAMPLE to the rest of a "RELEVANT to the article" post !
No names were given what-so-ever.
As far as whom I can and cannot respond to.....where is the list I MUST follow again ?
If I can't comment to someone, as you say, why are they allowed to comment on a seed or Article I put up, yet "I" can't respond to them ? ….. as YOU say.
PUT MY RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE POST BACK UP PLEASE !
OK, I am going to make this as plain as possible. When you have a reply restriction, that means you can't use anything they say. I don't care if YOU think it's relevant. YOU don't get to make that call. The restriction operates as an ignore and you know that because you can't reply to her since the system makes it impossible. YOU ARE RESPONDING TO KATRIX THE MOMENT YOU QUOTED HER. DO NOT REPLY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO ANYTHING THAT KATRIX SAYS. YOUR COMMENT WILL REMAIN DELETED AND IF YOU CONTINUE I WILL GIVE YOU THAT 2 DAY VACATION.
And so am I …. AGAIN :
If I can't comment to someone, as you say, why are they allowed to comment on a seed or Article "I" put up, yet "I" can't respond to them WHEN THEY DO ?
DOESN'T ONE GOOD TURN DESERVE ANOTHER ….to be FAIR ?
Was her comment to you? NO. It was a comment in a thread to other members in the thread. So long as she is not talking to you, as in referencing something you said, then you can not talk to her. Last warning. I am really trying to be fair here.
Doesn't matter who the comment was put to. It was my seed with my name as the seeder.
Funny, I responded the same way to the "Member comment" on MY seed as I did here, yet you didn't scold me for that ! Was it because it was MY seed ?
As a "Seeder" and/or author, I can comment towards anyone that comes about on MY Stuff !
"I am really trying to be fair here."
Not True !
FAIR would be to "not Allow" ANY, ANYWHERE !
If you NEED to suspend me, unless you REVOKE my membership, I will be back again doing what I do !
But this is not your seed and you don't have control here. She can not come onto your seed and vice versa.
And yes you are now getting a two-day vacation for feeling you are above the rules that everyone else has to follow. And don't threaten me with how you will come back. I will do what I have to do.
Oh well.
Now I know the rules huh !
"One is not like the other" !
Interesting that you chose to edit the inconvenient truths from that quote.
He is not allowed to use that quote Dulay. It came from Katrix and they have a "No Reply" restriction. He is not supposed to be engaging her on any level and vice versa.
And that would be ?
Bye, Bye...
Since you are restricted from replying to Katrix's comments, I won't block quote them here so that you can use a back door to do so.
So what are you trying to start by waiting two weeks to make that comment? Stay on the topic of the seeed article.
I was drawn back to this seed by your comment. It's ironic that you'd say anything about a 'late' comment since you so often 'fluff' your own seeds to the FP.
As I said, you allowed and participated in the week long off topic thread #5. It's a little late to demand that comments be limited to the topic of the seed now.
That being said, my comment was in reply to ME and I explained why I couldn't block quote what he wanted.
Trump feels that the Pentagon doesn't need the money. His ego fence needs it more. Apparently his idolaters don't give a crap about our actual national defense. Not that he has a clue what the Pentagon actually does .. he's just pissed because most of HIS generals know that they actually work for all of us.
Trump seems to forget that it is Congress that determines the money for the Pentagon, NOT the WH, nor Trump. He also seems to forget that he is not the King or Emperor of the US, as much as he would like to think so. And the Pentagon works for all Americans, not just Trump, as much as he likes to think so.
He also seems to think that being the POTUS means he owns America lock stock and barrel, which he by no means does. And that obviously really pisses him off. Because that is how he sees himself.
He also seems to feel that being President is just a part-time job to be worked at at his pleasure, and his duties as President are not near as important as playing golf. Even Putin, Trumps mentor and Best Friend, puts in more time at his job of being a dictator of his country.
I truly hope that in the up-coming primaries the Republicans will seriously find a far more qualified and experienced candidate to run on their ticket. I am sure there are many such people out there if they really look hard enough, as the GOP will not be the shoo in it was in 2016, no matter who the Dems pick. And as I am not a member of either party, I speak from a practical POV, not from party blindness.
Just my own opinion.
We were a shoo in in 2016? Who knew?
Trump and Putin.
Exactly. Now let’s get to work on finishing that wall!
You've got to START on to finish one Xx. There is NO WALL.
Simply ridiculous.....
really? What is that in El Paso and going into the sea south of San Diego?
A wall that had nothing to do with Trump and the citizens hate it.
By the way...did you see el paso is suing Trump for lying about them? And they're going to win.
It's called a FENCE Xx. Much of it was built with funding appropriated in the legislation entitled the 'SECURE FENCE ACT of 2006' and the "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes." bill.
Neither of those Bills appropriate ONE DIME for a WALL though they DO authorize BILLIONS for FENCING.
Does THAT look like a WALL to you Xx?
I think I could figure out how to package kilos of drugs that fit through that 'WALL'. How about you?
It looks like a wall the President proposed. I have a fence around my back yard and a shorter one around the front. What is proposed is much more capable.
Suing a public figure acting/speaking in the context of their job/campaign is impossible. Dream on.
It DOES? Let's see:
In Trump's '10 point plan for immigration' #1 was:
So gee Xx. Trump proposed a hardened concrete, rebar and steel IMPENETRABLE PHYSICAL WALL and you think that a child peering through a FENCE fulfilled his promise. WOW.
Are you sure it hasn't morphed into a WALL Xx? You better look again. I mean after all, you think the picture I linked looks like a WALL right?
Capable of WHAT? Have you figured out how to package kilos to pass through that FENCE yet Xx?
It FAILS to stop drugs and it FAILS to stop entry.
It's kabuki theatre featuring a shinny object to mesmerize his sycophants and you cheerlead...
And funds used from the emergency declaration can be used for anything wall like beyond the directly appropriated funds in the recent deal. Un directed funds a President has access to as well as the drug corridors issue can be used for the very kind of wall Pelosi opposes.
You really have no fucking clue what it takes to do a government project on this scale Xx.
Let's take your delusional scenario and pretend that Trump is going to take the money he is stealing for other needed projects to build his fantasy wall.
What will be the design Xx?
Are you aware that the CBP AND the Army Corp of Engineers REJECTED all of Trump's fantasy prototypes? I've linked the IG report on Trump's border WALL designs here multiple times.
NONE of the concrete prototypes could be constructed on anything over a 10% grade Xx and the cost for all of them was OVER THE TOP.
In the middle of last year, the CBP FINALLY convinced Mr. 'I build the best WALLS believe ME' that concrete wasn't what they needed or wanted and that the FENCE prototypes that they wasted money on were NO BETTER than what they've been building on the border for almost a decade.
Trump is going to build the SAME KIND of FENCE that OBAMA did Xx. Suck it up and accept that reality.
Stop coming on here and pretending that a FENCE is a WALL.
Stop pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.
Yeah...I'm dreaming and reading facts...and you?
Not near as ridiculous as most of the stuff you post. So who are you to judge me?
Your superior in every way shape, and form. That’s who. The stuff I post is pure genius and sheer spectacular brilliance and wisdom.
believe you may ave possibly spelled you're
wrong
You are nobody's superior so just flush that notion out of your head. You certainly aren't superior to Raven
The time has come....to finish the wall and double the size and funding of ICE.
Did did you miss #10? Try to stay on topic as the post above yours is.
Did you miss #5 thread? Not much about a WALL there...
This seed has been off topic for over a week.
Finish the wall! We are facing a clear and present danger on our border and it is a national emergency.
How many times do I have to tell you? You can't finish what's never been started Xx.
It has been started and areas being repaired that have existed are being done to Trump standards instead of what it was.
Tell you what Xx. How about you post a photo of this 'WALL' that you allege exists.
If you post a photo of a FENCE, you've failed...
OK Everyone.. stop with the personal comments.