64 Times the Biden Administration Intentionally Undermined Border Security

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

LOL you never learn. Immigration goes through legal channels, applications and interviews with district consulates.

No. Immigration happens, and legal channels try to regulate it, to the best of their ability.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Are you threatening civil war now?

Stating facts.
You said that what the states say about supporting Texas and it's self defense doesn't matter.
I showed how it does.
You really should read what is posted and educate yourself.
With a broken Constitutional contract, states CAN declare war; CAN jail illegals; CAN shoot invaders, etc etc.
The fact that half the states say the Constitutional contract is broken ... MATTERS.
Because .. CONSEQUENCES.

a reply to: FlyersFan

With a broken Constitutional contract, states CAN declare war; CAN jail illegals;

Where are you getting your facts? Not from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The Constitution isn't suspended by a disgruntled governor's edicts. Even illegal immigrants have the right to due process in the USA.

Look. Russia is invading Ukraine. They're bombing schools, apartment building and hospitals, shopping malls and villages. That's an invasion. Desperate, displaced migrants showing up in numbers, asking for refuge isn't.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

h, and the answer to your question is 15 and 18.

You must show your work, if you want credit.

I don't need your credit.

My signature provides....

a reply to: JinMI

Sure, but nobody's gonna take your word for it, if you won't even show your work. I'm certainly not. You've proven nothing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Sure, but nobody's gonna take your word for it, if you won't even show your work. I'm certainly not. You've proven nothing.

I don't need nor require anyone to take my word for anything.


What I have (yet again) proven is your inability to be consistent. The hypocrisy and inability to apply logic is your forte`.

It gets better though, you can't even BS your way through this.

All of your arguments are reduced to "nuh-uh!"

But dont' mind me, I'm merely enjoying the popcorn.

a reply to: JinMI

I don't need nor require anyone to take my word for anything.

Then why did you post your answer in such a way, as to expect us to just take your word for it? Why did you even bother to answer me?

What I have (yet again) proven is your inability to be consistent.

Right, I consistently don't take your word for something, when you won't "show your work".

It gets better though, you can't even BS your way through this.

You're the one BSing us. You won't even tell us why you think x and y clauses have been violated. We're just supposed to believe your BS, why?

Nope.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then why did you post your answer in such a way, as to expect us to just take your word for it? Why did you even bother to answer me?

To expose your hypocrisy and double standards. Or where you're just blatantly wrong factually. Thanks for asking.

Right, I consistently don't take your word for something, when you won't "show your work".

I don't expect you to. Do you deny making claims that an insurrection happened? Then applying that to the 14th amendment arguments?

You're the one BSing us. You won't even tell us why you think x and y clauses have been violated. We're just supposed to believe your BS, why?

You're not supposed to believe anything. If your position is so solid and sound, why does the mere disagreement bother you so?

a reply to: JinMI

To expose your hypocrisy and double standards.

Well, You sure haven't done anything like that.

Or where you're just blatantly wrong factually

Nope, you haven't shown that to be true either.

If your position is so solid and sound, why does the mere disagreement bother you so?

If your position were sound and solid, you wouldn't have had a problem "showing your work". But you didn't, so it isn't, and there is no disagreement, because you haven't made your case and laid out the facts, as you see them.


FAIL

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, You sure haven't done anything like that.

Well, of course I disagree. But, no one need take my nor your word for it as we both have very prolific post histories......

Nope, you haven't shown that to be true either.

No? I guess you may deny and "uh-uh" all you want. It doesn't matter to me for the reasons stated above.

If your position were sound and solid, you wouldn't have had a problem "showing your work". But you didn't, so it isn't, and there is no disagreement, because you haven't made your case and laid out the facts, as you see them.

Same reply as above.


This is fairly redundant Sookie.

Alas, I am enjoying it however.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

States can do anything they want now just like blue states have been doing ignoring the constitution and bill of rights so much for years. You should be happy to see your own championed policies are being used everywhere, but you were warned

We'll see.

I say this is hyperbolic political theater that will result in nothing, no new laws, no new wars, no new funding and more fake outrage from Republicansand their "do nothing" House of Representatives.

WHY would ANY "Lawmaker" agree to keep allowing The Cartels to exploit Migrants for huge sums of money, and then keep Migrants in an endless loop of poverty? WHY would "lawmakers" allow Cartels to keep using the safe smuggling routes? 😀

a reply to: WingDingLuey

We could ask black folks how that works.

Seems the playbook doesn't change much over 150 years.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: WingDingLuey

We could ask black folks how that works.

Seems the playbook doesn't change much over 150 years.

There are many similarities. 😃

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Then why did you post your answer in such a way, as to expect us to just take your word for it?

Right, I consistently don't take your word for something, when you won't "show your work".

We're just supposed to believe your BS, why?

I have asked you twice to "show your work," yet you haven't complied.

And yet, you expect others to do what you won't do and "show their work?"

Do you not see something wrong with this picture?

a reply to: Station27

I answered you the first time you asked me to back up my claim "According to US law, everyone who claims asylum has a right to their case adjudicated in immigration court, by an immigration judge."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I ignored your demand that I prove the intention of any asylum seekers. There's a vetting process that has nothing to do with my opinion of anyone's intentions.

a reply to: JinMI

No? I guess you may deny and "uh-uh" all you want.

LINK

By all means, point out which posts are nothing but denial, regarding the subject at hand, and not just dismissals of your assertion that you've proven something, when you haven't. You've spent all your time and effort in this thread trying to convince me that you've said something worthwhile, when you haven't made a single point. Not one single point.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


You seem to be under the notion that I'm trying to convince you of something and that there is a win condition placed that hinges on you being convinced.

That's not what I'm here to do at all.


I'm here to get you yapping and talking. To show, for all to see, how vapid, willfully ignorant and hypocritical you (and those who share your point of view) are.


I don't know if you've noticed but when anyone has a discussion with you, you never cede ground. No matter the facts, no matter the double standards and certainly no matter the logic.



To put it plainly Sookie, you are the poster child for liberals. And you never cease to disappoint.


Back to my popcorn.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm here to get you yapping and talking. To show, for all to see, how vapid, willfully ignorant and hypocritical you (and those who share your point of view) are.

Big man!
You're here pretending that you proved something to me, when you didn't.

You haven't made any point, not one, and haven't proven anything. You haven't even addressed the topic of the thread, which isn't me, or people like me. You certainly haven't shown how any of the clauses in Article 1, Section 8 have been violated by the Biden Administration.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet you define "insurrection" quite often.......

Hilarious.

Oh, and the answer to your question is 15 and 18.

You're welcome.

Also, this:

You seem to be under the notion that I'm trying to convince you of something and that there is a win condition placed that hinges on you being convinced.

That's not what I'm here to do at all.