Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 10:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Surprisingly, not mine this time.

Well then whose? If you desire to slur me at least provide proof. 

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are the states stopping illegal immigration? 

Illegal immigration does not meat the definition of "lawlessness".  It is not causing any breakdown in public order or causing anyones rights to be denied.

There are laws broken in every city in the nation everyday.  It takes more than that to authorize military intervention.

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 10:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Illegal immigration does not meat the definition of "lawlessness".  It is not causing any breakdown in public order or causing anyones rights to be denied.

There are laws broken in every city in the nation everyday.  It takes more than that to authorize military intervention.

Are you just providing your opinion and writing it off as fact? 

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you just providing your opinion and writing it off as fact? 

If you want to contest my claims why not do so?  I'd be glad to have that discussion.

How do you define "lawlessness"?  

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 10:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you want to contest my claims why not do so?  I'd be glad to have that discussion.

How do you define "lawlessness"?  

I don't know how many more times I can contest them.

I'll go with Dictionairy.com and define it as contrary to or without regard to law. Illegal

Didn't see anything about breakdown in public order or rights being denied. 

[GMDino]

I can't wait until there's a "national emergency" and the military gets used EVERY place the law is broken.

I bet the GOP and all those Trump supporters will back that for sure! 

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2019, 11:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: I can't wait until there's a "national emergency" and the military gets used EVERY place the law is broken.

I bet the GOP and all those Trump supporters will back that for sure! 

In what way has the National Emergency affected anyone in this forum?

The only ones that are going to pay for this National emergency is the Military.

I don't know if they'll support it or not; but my guess is they will. But there will be those that have never laced up a pair of boots telling them how they are being used. 

I'm not even sure that I agree with the declaration of National Emergency, but admittedly; I've not been down to the border lately. All I have to go by is conflicting reports by those that have been. Anyone in this forum able to give me a first hand account?

As to the content of your post: It seems you are putting words in folks mouths, but I'll let Matt determine that. 

[GMDino]

(02-19-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In what way has the National Emergency affected anyone in this forum?

The only ones that are going to pay for this National emergency is the Military.

I don't know if they'll support it or not; but my guess is they will. But there will be those that have never laced up a pair of boots telling them how they are being used. 

I'm not even sure that I agree with the declaration of National Emergency, but admittedly; I've not been down to the border lately. All I have to go by is conflicting reports by those that have been. Anyone in this forum able to give me a first hand account?

As to the content of your post: It seems you are putting words in folks mouths, but I'll let Matt determine that. 

Interesting that I say "Trump supporters" will back it for sure and you jump in to say you "maybe" (wink wink) don't.

How do you define "lawlessness"?

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know how many more times I can contest them.

I'll go with Dictionairy.com and define it as contrary to or without regard to law. Illegal

Didn't see anything about breakdown in public order or rights being denied. 

I did not realize you hadcontested them at all before now.

Don't you agree that if we use your definition then the  President could call up the military to fight crime in any city at any time?  Is that the way you think it is intedned to work?

Don't you think we need a different definition when talking about justifying military intervention into police duties?  

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  All I have to go by is conflicting reports by those that have been. 

Link to the report that you think justifies calling in the military.

Perhaps this will help us understand the standard you are using that would justify military intervention.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the content of your post: It seems you are putting words in folks mouths, 

When a person refuses to put the words out of his own mouth then we have no choice but to make assumptions.

So far you have not given a clear definition of what exactly justifies military intervention into police powers.  All you have said is "laws were broken".  Since we have nothing else to go on we have to assume that you mean the military can be called in any time "laws are broken".

[jj22]

I think he made a huge misstep by attacking military funds. It turned his own party voters against his "National Emergency". Why he didn't take funds from things like Planned Parenthood (we know why, because they secretly support the cause and the abortion focus is fake news that rallies up their base) has his base scratching their heads.

Weird that he attacked the military over some of the other Budget items Republicans have claimed to have issues with over the years.

[GMDino]

What wonder what they have on him?  Other than it's an election year.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2019, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then whose? If you desire to slur me at least provide proof. 

You answered for someone else. The proof is right here in the thread.

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 10:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not realize you hadcontested them at all before now.

Don't you agree that if we use your definition then the  President could call up the military to fight crime in any city at any time?  Is that the way you think it is intedned to work?

Don't you think we need a different definition when talking about justifying military intervention into police duties?  

I suppose we could make up definitions however; unlike you I chose not to, I rolled with the dictionary's. Less that 24 hours ago you implored people to "call you out" if you ever passed off your opinion as fact. The very second it is done, you balk.

As I said these things are open to interpretation (hope that didn't put words in anyone's mouth)

Nowhere, not one place have I ever said calling the SOE and using the Military on the border was a good idea. I'm simply disagreeing with those that resolutely state he cannot do it. All while he's doing it. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 11:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You answered for someone else. The proof is right here in the thread.

It was a simple request. Whose mouth did I put words in.

You were bold enough to accuse me of something; yet when asked to provide proof of the offense you choose to hide behind innuendo.

All I did was provide a reasoned answer to a question posed by you in the forum. Apparently you didn't like the answer so you thought a personnel attack would be the way to go. This is why we can't have nice things. 

 

[GMDino]

(02-20-2019, 11:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose we could make up definitions however; unlike you I chose not to, I rolled with the dictionary's. Less that 24 hours ago you implored people to "call you out" if you ever passed off your opinion as fact. The very second it is done, you balk.

As I said these things are open to interpretation (hope that didn't put words in anyone's mouth)

Nowhere, not one place have I ever said calling the SOE and using the Military on the border was a good idea. I'm simply disagreeing with those that resolutely state he cannot do it. All while he's doing it. 

You used the dictionary definition to defend the use of "lawlessness" as an excuse to invoke the emergency.

(02-19-2019, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The one that is open to interpretation:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-10/posse-comitatus-law-can-t-stop-trump-from-using-troops-at-border

This is most likely why folks say it will be decided in court; most likely by SCOTUS. 

Doesn't the Insurrection Act give POTUS the power to deploy Federal Troops to stop lawlessness?

(02-19-2019, 08:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no "lawlessness" on the border that the state authorities can not control.  No rioting.  No mass violence. No break down in public order.  No citizens being denied their rights.

(02-19-2019, 10:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you want to contest my claims why not do so?  I'd be glad to have that discussion.

How do you define "lawlessness"?  

(02-19-2019, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know how many more times I can contest them.

I'll go with Dictionairy.com and define it as contrary to or without regard to law. Illegal

Didn't see anything about breakdown in public order or rights being denied. 

Now:

(02-20-2019, 11:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said these things are open to interpretation (hope that didn't put words in anyone's mouth)

Nowhere, not one place have I ever said calling the SOE and using the Military on the border was a good idea. I'm simply disagreeing with those that resolutely state he cannot do it. All while he's doing it. 

Make up your mind.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2019, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was a simple request. Whose mouth did I put words in.

You were bold enough to accuse me of something; yet when asked to provide proof of the offense you choose to hide behind innuendo.

All I did was provide a reasoned answer to a question posed by you in the forum. Apparently you didn't like the answer so you thought a personnel attack would be the way to go. This is why we can't have nice things. 

 

The question was posed to Mike M, whom you answered for. I didn't realize pointing out your actions was a "personnel [sic] attack." But I did actually respond to the content, which you have chosen to ignore in your responses.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-19-2019, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In what way has the National Emergency affected anyone in this forum?

Isn't that kind of the point?  How can this be a national emergency when 99.9% of the population isn't affected by said 'emergency'?

Quote:The only ones that are going to pay for this National emergency is the Military.

I'm pretty sure my tax dollars are going towards paying for said wall.  While I appreciate the hard work of our service members, I've always thought funding allocation is wasted when ~75% goes towards military spending.  Military industrial complex bloat, waste and leakage aside; I'd much rather see a larger portion of funds go towards other initiatives.

Can you imagine if Trump had merely gotten everyone all riled up about improving infrastructure or something?  Put some sort of nationalist slant on having better roads than mexico?  To be completely honest, I'm not sure I would be all that upset about a national emergency based on spending Billions repairing and upgrading our national highways.  Holly shit!  Aint that a novel idea.  Sure, there would be a lot of people that wouldn't benefit as much from better highways.  Those is very rural areas, further from a highway.  But the VAST majority WOULD benefit, and I would argue even some backwoods christian militia exclusionary types would see some lift from cheaper food/munition/sundries transportation costs down the line.  

You and others here are right when you say I and all my soft sjw eggplant-shoe wearing cuddle buddies let Trump's politics play a role in our assessment of the merits of the wall.  Ill grant you that.  But in reality, I'm skewed by the fact that this stunt is just an extension of the complete shit show his administration has been thus far.  He's the lowest form of con man, one who can only fool the most impressionable of the group.  In response to hard data on the issue, the only response he can muster is 'You have stats that are far worse than the ones I use'.  Thats some weak shit man.  If you're going to **** me, at least put a ***** suit on and take me out to drinks.  Don't just come at me like some nickle dick piss ant without preparing rhetorically whatsoever.


TLDR.  You're right.  The wall doesn't affect me.  That does not meet the bar of justification for its construction.  

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 12:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The question was posed to Mike M, whom you answered for. I didn't realize pointing out your actions was a "personnel [sic] attack." But I did actually respond to the content, which you have chosen to ignore in your responses.

That is not putting words in ones mouth and I hope you realize it. Of course it was a personal attack. At least you can own it.

I responded to you as well. I just didn't make it personal.