╌>

The Talk Is Done — Time To Build The Border Wall

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  make-america-great-again  •  5 years ago  •  270 comments

The Talk Is Done — Time To Build The Border Wall
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.

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.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

“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.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    5 years ago
  • Reagan – We have a border crisis
  • Bush Sr. – We have a border crisis
  • Clinton – We have a border crisis
  • Bush Jr. – We have a border crisis
  • Obama – We have a border crisis
  • Trump – Hey, let’s build a wall & solve the border crisis
  • Libs – OMG! Trump manufactured this border crisis!         https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2019/02/president-trump-declares-border-a-national-emergency/
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    5 years ago
As for declaring a national emergency, facing wave after wave of illegal immigrant "caravans" egged on by ....

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    5 years ago

It is an emergency.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago
It is an emergency

He already screwed that poodle.

"I could do the wall over a long period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster," 
 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago

It is a fake emergency because he didn't get his way and doesn't know how to negotiate.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  lady in black  replied to    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  lady in black  replied to    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.11  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    5 years ago
 It is a long-standing problem

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.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
1.1.12  livefreeordie  replied to  cjcold @1.1.11    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to    5 years ago
You can't negotiate with Democrats, that much was obvious.

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.13    5 years ago

It is not a national emergency :

In 1976, a new National Emergencies Act ended all previous proclamations although not before the Court wrote:

"A national emergency must be based on conditions beyond the ordinary . Otherwise, it has no meaning. The power of the Soviet Union in world affairs does not justify placing the United States in a constant state of national emergency."

The United States Code (Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter I, §5122), now defines emergency and major disaster as follows:

" Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States .

" Major disaster means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby."

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.   

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    5 years ago

One 'inaccurate statement' renders the rest of your statement suspect.

Reagan – We have a border crisis

Reagan favored Immigration reform and open borders.....

The 40th President in 1986 signed the Immigration Reform and Control act which had sought to tighten border security and crack down on businesses knowingly hiring those in the country illegally. The legislation additionally provided amnesty for 2.7 million undocumented immigrants.

And while Reagan did mull creating a ditch at the border, he never called for a wall — he called for the opposite.

“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and they, while they’re working and earning here, they’d pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. They can cross. Open borders both ways,” he said in 1980.

President Reagan and Vice President GHW Bush in their own words...

Bush Sr. – We have a border crisis

More fiction... Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990 and rarely talked about the border.

George Herbert Walker Bush has a vast and complex legacy. Signing the Immigration Act of 1990 is no small part of that — and not simply because of that law’s direct impact. There are 8.4 million more new Americans today than there would have been. The act created a 45 percent increase over prior levels of legal immigration. We’re talking about American husbands and wives, children and parents of U.S. citizens, and a near-tripling of employment-based green cards, which was and remains the driving force behind the development of Silicon Valley and the internet.

 
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.15    5 years ago
By your reasoning, Trump could declare a national emergency for our health system, our national debt, abortion, guns, etc.   Pretty much anything. 

Sounds like a dictator

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.18    5 years ago

Certainly at least abuse of power.   This is a trend amount PotUS' that seems to be growing worse.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1.1.20  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    5 years ago
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.

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.20    5 years ago
Why is the situation not 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.

Migrant caravans are overwhelming the average resources.  Doesn't that constitute an emergency?

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    5 years ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1.1.23  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    5 years ago
We are a constitutional republic with separation of powers and checks & balances.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.22    5 years ago
The existence of a problem indicates that corrective action would be appropriate. 

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.

The long lasting nature of the problem is the result of prior Presidents and Congresses failing to take corrective action. 

We agree.   I stated that too.

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.

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.

Keep in mind that Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi engaged in a power play for the purpose of scoring political points. 

Have I not been stating this??

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

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.23    5 years ago
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.  

I am against the games played in Congress too.

Partisan Congress has lost all credibility when claiming they are defending the Republic and acting in the best interest of the public.

Agreed.   Long time ago.   I have been disgusted with Congress for decades.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
1.1.26  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.19    5 years ago
Certainly at least abuse of power.   This is a trend amount PotUS' that seems to be growing worse.

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @1.1.26    5 years ago

It's time for term limits

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    5 years ago

Hasn't he been building it all along?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    5 years ago

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?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  bbl-1 @2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
2.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  cjcold  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
2.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  cjcold @2.1.2    5 years ago

Laughable.  Mankind cannot stop the weather or change our earth’s climate cycles

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
2.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1    5 years ago

Obama taking virtually the same executive actions and for the very same reason, yet Democrats had no problem with it

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.1    5 years ago

Those of you who demand a wall are in the obvious minority.  Democracy caters to majorities.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  cjcold @2.1.2    5 years ago

Why?  They are a great American organization. https://www.heartland.org     See for yourself. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.5    5 years ago
Democracy caters to majorities.

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.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.8  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.7    5 years ago

Be specific.  What belief of mine is in the minority and considered by me to be under tyrannical rule?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.8    5 years ago

Did someone say that you thought something you don't?

And now you want proof?

LOL.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.4    5 years ago

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.4    5 years ago

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?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
2.1.12  livefreeordie  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.5    5 years ago

We aren’t a democracy. The founders established us as a Republic of states because they stated that democracies are terrible for liberty

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
2.1.13  livefreeordie  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.10    5 years ago

He had to. Show me where he got legislation approved for the actions he took at the border

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.12    5 years ago
We aren’t a democracy.

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.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.15  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.12    5 years ago

Is that your best attempt at defending minority rule?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.5    5 years ago

Democracy yes, Democrats no. Big difference between the two...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.17  Studiusbagus  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.13    5 years ago
Show me where he got legislation approved for the actions he took at the border

The responsibility is on you to prove he did...you made the claim.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.13    5 years ago

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.

He had to.

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".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to    5 years ago

False equivalency. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.21  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @2.1.20    5 years ago

No it’s not.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.22  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.21    5 years ago

Yes it is. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.18    5 years ago

Don't you love the smell of conservative hypocrisy on a Wednesday afternoon?

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1.24  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.7    5 years ago
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.

Pot, meet kettle .. and boil it over.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1.25  katrix  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.18    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.28  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.27    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4  Studiusbagus    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
4.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Studiusbagus @4    5 years ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1    5 years ago

I didn’t flag your post for off topic.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.1    5 years ago

It should have been for terms of service.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
4.2  livefreeordie  replied to  Studiusbagus @4    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.2.1  cjcold  replied to  livefreeordie @4.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.2  Don Overton  replied to  cjcold @4.2.1    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.4  Studiusbagus  replied to    5 years ago
do you think they know how to use the weapons maybe you could come to damn neck and teach us.

Don, correct me if I'm wrong...

MUVA, If I'm not mistaken, you're addressing a disabled American Vet.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.2.4    5 years ago

I think MUVA has expressed that he is many many times???

Or did you mean DO ?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.7  Studiusbagus  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.5    5 years ago
Or did you mean DO ?

Yes

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.8  Studiusbagus  replied to    5 years ago

A new personal low...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.10  Studiusbagus  replied to  livefreeordie @4.2    5 years ago

No semi-automatic ban is going to violate the 2nd amendment.

You'd still have plenty of single action weapons to bear.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.11  Dulay  replied to    5 years ago

Yet by citing 'war fighters', 'Rangers', 'Special forces' and 'Seals', you cite a select FEW, NOT a 'good portion' of Republicans OR conservatives. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.13  Dulay  replied to    5 years ago
They mostly vote if not all republican and do need training in how to use a weapon.

They are under 1% of the population, MANY a slightly higher percentage of Republicans. In short, NOT representative...

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
4.2.14  katrix  replied to    5 years ago
Just letting you and him know that most actual war fighters are more conservative my avatar is the type I ran while at seal team 18

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  katrix @4.2.14    5 years ago

As if MUVA would make a claim like that if it wasn’t true.  I’ll take him at his word regarding his past.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5  Dulay    5 years ago
the declaration of an emergency to build the border wall Trump promised to Americans.

The border wall Trump promised Mexico would pay for. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5    5 years ago

and it will be recovered from them.  It will pay for itself several times over in the crimes and loss of life it prevents.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    5 years ago
and it will be recovered from them.

HOW? 

It will pay for itself several times over in the crimes and loss of life it prevents.

Utter bullshit. Ever were that true, that money should go into the Treasury, NOT out of it. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    5 years ago
and it will be recovered from them.  It will pay for itself several times over in the crimes and loss of life it prevents.  

Still want to bitch about "You'll save an avg. of $2500 on your insurance"?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    5 years ago
It will pay for itself several times over in the crimes and loss of life it prevents.

So will the ban on semi-automatics.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.5  charger 383  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.4    5 years ago

they prevent crime 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.6  Studiusbagus  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.5    5 years ago
they prevent crime 

So does a single action, a revolver, a pump shotgun...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.6    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.7    5 years ago

After being the "law and order" party It seems like you're ready to be a criminal.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.8    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
5.1.10  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.8    5 years ago

320

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.11  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.9    5 years ago
Will the grabbers try to lock up 50 million people?

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.12  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.9    5 years ago
Will the grabbers try to lock up 50 million people?

What makes you think that 50 million people will decide to be lawless with you? 

Will they resort to violence to attempt to compel physically forced confiscation?

That's what LAWS do Xx. Those who willfully violate those laws are rightly physically forced to comply. 

We simply will not give up the 2nd amendment as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court.  

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.14  Dulay  replied to    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.15  charger 383  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.6    5 years ago

A manual typewriter and party line phone provide communication too

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.16  Studiusbagus  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.15    5 years ago

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???

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.17  charger 383  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.16    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.18  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.11    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to    5 years ago

If we don’t get the wall built we should contemplate that though I’d prefer not to if the wall is finished.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.20  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.17    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.21  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.18    5 years ago
 Who exactly is going to enforce such laws.  

Who enforces laws now Xx. 

Many rural county sheriffs and small town police departments won’t even try to enforce such tyranny.  

Why not? It wasn't tyranny when the first assault weapons ban was in effect. 

Most of the states state law enforcement won’t either.

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. 

Posse Comitatus will prevent military law enforcement on American soil against American citizens.

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. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
5.1.22  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @5.1.21    5 years ago

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! 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.24  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.22    5 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.25  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.7    5 years ago
We will hoard and hide them and refuse to comply with any confiscation.  

Then you will become felons and loose your 2nd Amendment rights altogether. GREAT IDEA!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.26  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.18    5 years ago
When the first few are locked up and the just me is shot, the rest will openly resist the dystopian police state regime.......

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.27  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.20    5 years ago
The gun industry likely can’t wait for the next democrat president to come along and wildly stimulate their sales.

Yes they do rely on the gullibility of the right don't they? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.28  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.26    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.29  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.21    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.30  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.17    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.31  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.29    5 years ago
I said most states not the states with the most population.

If population doesn't matter, why'd you cite 50 million Xx? 

Most rural law enforcement doesn’t enforce California gun laws unless a violation happens in their presence and they see it.  

Bullshit. 

As to national guard, much of its make up is of gun owning citizens from similar small town and rural parts of the state.  

Point? 

They’d be no more likely to turn on fellow citizens than the standing army would.  

How would upholding the law by turning on fellow citizens Xx. 

We had national guard here during the Carr Fire and many were like our neighbors. 

I bet some of them were from those 'secular progressive coastal' hell holes that you decry so often...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.32  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.28    5 years ago
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.  

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. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.33  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.30    5 years ago
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. 

More big talk....

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.34  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.18    5 years ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
5.1.35  Nowhere Man  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.34    5 years ago
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.....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.36  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.32    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.37  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.36    5 years ago
The Brady Bill didn’t outlaw semi automatic pistols or semi automatic hunting rifles.

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.

The law banned certain semi-automatic firearms with two or more specific design features, and also prohibited the manufacture of ammunition magazines that held over ten rounds. [9]

And still the 2nd amend. survived.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.38  Studiusbagus  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.35    5 years ago
going to be out on the front line looking to take all those weapons away from their lawful owners?

If I was not retired from law enforcement? Yes. Why not? I've forcibly have taken them and disassembled them before their eyes. 

I sincerely doubt it, but one could hope.....

Death wishing?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.39  Studiusbagus  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.17    5 years ago

Oh sorry

 It's rebellion and speed over safety.....

But, but, but, everybody's buying them Mom!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
5.1.40  Nowhere Man  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.38    5 years ago
Death wishing?

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.41  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.40    5 years ago
Nope, asking if you would put your money, or life, where your mouth is.....

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.42  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.41    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.43  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.42    5 years ago

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? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.44  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.38    5 years ago

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?  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.45  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.44    5 years ago

A social media sweep would bring in a bunch. Hell, there are members here who have posted picks of their weapons...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.46  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.44    5 years ago

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"

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.48  Dulay  replied to    5 years ago

Be afraid, be very afraid.../s

BTW, as an Asian, I take umbrage in talk of camps in the US...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.49  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.46    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.50  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.48    5 years ago

Creating camps in America for feared domestic opposition is a progressive phenomenon.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.1.51  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.49    5 years ago

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 ?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.52  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.49    5 years ago
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. 

You're not promoting a peacful end. You're promoting terrorizing to surrender.

Then friendly persuasion can be used to urge them to stop

I worked for "Italian businessmen" in my youth. They called it "friendly persuasion" too.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.53  Studiusbagus  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.40    5 years ago
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..

Nope, asking if you would put your money, or life, where your mouth is.....

The first was a question, the second comment was no question, the third is a lie.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.54  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.50    5 years ago

So after I state I take umbrage of such talk, you make a point to comment about it anyway. BAD FORM Xx. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.55  GregTx  replied to  Dulay @5.1.45    5 years ago

Dammit, I totally missed those. Lemme jump into that........

#F***THENFA  #IALREADYOWNWMDS

256

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.56  Dulay  replied to  GregTx @5.1.55    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.57  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.54    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.58  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.51    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.59  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.57    5 years ago
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.

FDR isn't a member here and didn't read my prior post Xx. You did. BAD FORM. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.60  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.58    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.61  GregTx  replied to  Dulay @5.1.56    5 years ago

Sorry to hear about your cat. If you feel a real connection to the brindle, you should pull the trigger 😉 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.62  Dulay  replied to  GregTx @5.1.61    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.63  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.60    5 years ago

They weren’t just talking about “assault” weapons.  They were talking about taking every single semi auto firing rifle and pistol in the country.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.64  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.63    5 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.65  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.57    5 years ago

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.

Lt. General John L. DeWitt, leader of the Western Defense Command, believed that the civilian population needed to be taken control of to prevent a repeat of Pearl Harbor. To argue his case, DeWitt prepared a report filled with known falsehoods, such as examples of sabotage that were later revealed to be the result of cattle damaging power lines.
 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.66  Studiusbagus  replied to  Dulay @5.1.64    5 years ago
They WHO Xx? I have NOT seen even ONE proposal to do such a thing. 

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?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.67  Dulay  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.66    5 years ago
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...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.68  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.64    5 years ago

See 5.1.4 and 5.1.6 as they propose just that.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.69  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.68    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.70  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.69    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.71  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.70    5 years ago
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?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.72  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.71    5 years ago
_v=63f541508691385
5.1.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  Keep America Great! @5.1    2 weeks ago
It will pay for itself several times over in the crimes and loss of life it prevents.

So will the ban on semi-automatics.

 
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1548446273 7
   REPLY
 
 
_v=63f541501264162
5.1.5  charger 383  replied to Studiusbagus @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

they prevent crime 

 
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1548446273 1
   REPLY
 
 
_v=63f541508691385
5.1.6  Studiusbagus  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.5    2 weeks ago
they prevent crime 

So does a single action, a revolver, a pump shotgun...

 
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1548446273 7
   REPLY
_v=63f541508691385
5.1.32  Studiusbagus  replied to  Keep America Great! @5.1.28    2 weeks ago
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.  

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. 

 
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1548446273 4
   REPLY
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.74  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.72    5 years ago
5.1.70 seeder Keep America Great! replied to Dulay @5.1.69
No it said every semi auto pistol and rifle.

NOTE ONE of those comments says EVERY Xx. 

Why are you bearing false witness? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.75  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.74    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.76  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.75    5 years ago
I’m not.

You ARE, and you just did it again. 

You said:

No it said every semi auto pistol and rifle.

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. 

I said he advocated for the ban of all semi automatic pistols and hunting rifles. 

NOWHERE does he say EVERY or ALL. 

Why are you bearing false witness Xx?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.77  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.76    5 years ago

“So will the ban on semi-automatics.”     You saw some sort of exception in that sentence because I sure didn’t.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
5.1.78  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.77    5 years ago
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? 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6  evilone    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  evilone @6    5 years ago

There won’t be another democrat party president for a very long time....

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.1  evilone  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago
There won’t be another democrat party president for a very long time....

You keep thinking that.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Kavika @6.1.2    5 years ago

MAGA!  Finish that wall!  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  Kavika @6.1.2    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Kavika   replied to  arkpdx @6.1.4    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.3    5 years ago
MAGA!  Finish that wall!  

Brilliant rebuttal, did Ann Coulter write it for you. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Kavika @6.1.6    5 years ago

Nope.  I did it all by myself.  I agree that it, like me equal brilliant.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.7    5 years ago
  I agree that it, like me equal brilliant.

Delusions of grandeur again. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  Kavika @6.1.6    5 years ago
Brilliant rebuttal, did Ann Coulter write it for you. 

Nope, Coulter thinks they are stupid....

Damn! Trump said they were stupid, Coulter said they are stupid....

Walks....ducks....

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
6.1.10  pat wilson  replied to  Kavika @6.1.2    5 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.11  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    5 years ago
There won’t be another democrat party president for a very long time....

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.1.12  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @6.1.8    5 years ago
Delusions of grandeur again.

Again? How about......Still.....Endless......On-going.....Eternal.....

Because it never stops......

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.13  Studiusbagus  replied to  Raven Wing @6.1.12    5 years ago

Please don't let on where those substitutes can be found?

They'll question how a dinosaur can teach words.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.14  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.10    5 years ago

I’d like to publicly thank who ever it was that flagged the post calling me a Russian bot while I was away.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.14    5 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.16  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    5 years ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.17  Studiusbagus  replied to  Kavika @6.1.6    5 years ago

Notice instead of replying with a cogent response you suddenly got bumper sticker chant?

"MAGA!  Finish that wall!"

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.14    5 years ago

You're welcome...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.1.19  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @6.1.2    5 years ago
It's obvious from your claim that your knowledge of American politics is not only bias but limited. 

Nothing new there.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1  Split Personality  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    5 years ago
change their chant from "build the wall" the "finish the wall"

And now "stronger together", lol

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @7.1    5 years ago

And now we actually have at least one democrat party presidential candidate open to the idea of tearing down existing border barriers.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @7.1    5 years ago

No, our version of that is “United We Stand”

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
7.1.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.2    5 years ago
No, our version of that is “United We Stand”

You forgot to leave the fine print exclusions on rhe bottom.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.2    5 years ago

seems like the RNC inadvertently borrowed Hillary's campaign slogan.

which seems rather odd...

384

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.4    5 years ago

Can't make this stuff up, lol.....

More soon to be ex-RNC staffers.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @7.1.3    5 years ago

I’m more Tea Party aligned than RNC until the establishment is no longer in control of the RNC.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.5    5 years ago

Maybe not.  Who knows it was inadvertent?  Maybe it’s a form of co opting and triangulation.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.5    5 years ago

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!  🇺🇸 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    5 years ago

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.   

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
7.2.1  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.2    5 years ago
Finish the wall!

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

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  katrix @7.2.1    5 years ago

And you know that he hasn’t added anything anywhere to existing barriers since he became president exactly how?  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
7.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.2.2    5 years ago
While there are some barrier structures along the southern border, no new structures have been built since Trump took office.

The Scumbag lie that he's built any new wall and many more about the border and immigrants can be found here:

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8  It Is ME    5 years ago

"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.] 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @8    5 years ago

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 !

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @8.1    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.1    5 years ago
OK, I am going to make this as plain as possible. When you have a reply restriction,

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 ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.2    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.3    5 years ago

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 ! 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.4    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.5    5 years ago

Oh well.

Now I know the rules huh !

"One is not like the other" !

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @8    5 years ago

Interesting that you chose to edit the inconvenient truths from that quote. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @8.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @8.2    5 years ago
Interesting that you chose to edit the inconvenient truths from that quote. 

And that would be ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.3  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @8.2.2    5 years ago

Bye, Bye...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @8.2.2    5 years ago
And that would be?

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. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @8.2.4    5 years ago

So what are you trying to start by waiting two weeks to make that comment?  Stay on the topic of the seeed article.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.2.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.2.5    5 years ago
So what are you trying to start by waiting two weeks to make that comment?  

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. 

Stay on the topic of the seeed article.  

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. 

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
9  katrix    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
9.1  Raven Wing  replied to  katrix @9    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1    5 years ago

We were a shoo in in 2016?  Who knew?  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
9.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.1    5 years ago
Who knew?  

Trump and Putin.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.1    5 years ago
We were a shoo in in 2016? Who knew?

Why, certainly NOT the famous pollsters who all had Hillary winning the popular vote by a small margin.

LOL!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.1    5 years ago
Who knew?

Not all the folks on here usually trumpeting Hillary's popular vote "win"!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.4    5 years ago

Exactly.  Now let’s get to work on finishing that wall!  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.5    5 years ago

You've got to START on to finish one Xx. There is NO WALL. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.2    5 years ago

Simply ridiculous.....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.6    5 years ago

really?  What is that in El Paso and going into the sea south of San Diego?  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
9.1.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.8    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.8    5 years ago

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. 

384

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? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.10    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.9    5 years ago

Suing a public figure acting/speaking in the context of their job/campaign is impossible.  Dream on. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.13  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.11    5 years ago
It looks like a wall the President proposed.

It DOES? Let's see: 

"It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel."  “An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by the media,” Trump tweeted.

In Trump's '10 point plan for immigration' #1 was:

Build an " impenetrable physical wall on the southern border" that he says Mexico will pay for.

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. 

I have a fence around my back yard and a shorter one around the front. 

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? 

What is proposed is much more capable.

Capable of WHAT? Have you figured out how to package kilos to pass through that FENCE yet Xx? 

512

Some areas are guarded by an 18-foot bollard-style barricade; others have only Normandy vehicle barriers. Magoffin steps up to the more imposing fence, scales it in a matter of seconds, then jumps back to earth.

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...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.14  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.13    5 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.13    5 years ago

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/border_smugglers_now_ramming_down_corrugated_border_fences_with_trucks_in_san_diego.html

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.16  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.14    5 years ago

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.

 

 

 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
9.1.17  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.12    5 years ago

Yeah...I'm dreaming and reading facts...and you?

El Paso County lawsuit against President Trump filed in federal court

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
9.1.18  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.7    5 years ago
Simply ridiculous..

Not near as ridiculous as most of the stuff you post. So who are you to judge me?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.18    5 years ago

Your superior in every way shape, and form.  That’s who.  The stuff I post is pure  genius and sheer spectacular brilliance and wisdom. jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.1.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.19    5 years ago
Your superior in every way shape, and form.

believe you may ave possibly spelled           you're

wrong

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.1.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.19    5 years ago

You are nobody's superior so just flush that notion out of your head. You certainly aren't superior to Raven

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.22  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.21    5 years ago

The time has come....to finish the wall and double the size and funding of ICE.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
9.1.23  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.19    5 years ago
The stuff I post is pure  genius and sheer spectacular brilliance and wisdom.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.24  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.23    5 years ago

Did did you miss #10? Try to stay on topic as the post above yours is. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.25  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.24    5 years ago
Did did you miss #10?

Did you miss #5 thread? Not much about a WALL there...

Try to stay on topic as the post above yours is.

This seed has been off topic for over a week. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.26  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.25    5 years ago

Finish the wall!  We are facing a clear and present danger on our border and it is a national emergency.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.27  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.26    5 years ago

How many times do I have to tell you? You can't finish what's never been started Xx. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.28  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @9.1.27    5 years ago

It has been started and areas being repaired that have existed are being done to Trump standards instead of what it was.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.1.29  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.28    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 years ago

OK Everyone.. stop with the personal comments. 

 
 

Who is online

Igknorantzruls
Ozzwald
JBB


75 visitors