Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action.
@Raiders22
Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action.
Double speak , double usernames , double the trouble , doublemint gum is delicious and the flavor lasts a really long time , can I have a second username also ? And if you protest that I gotta ask , in all honesty , why the criticism ? What’s it to ya anyway ?
You probably can't have a second user name (neither do I).But you can have another person in your household have an account.Like I said Covers knows she has an account,and even has a photo of her from when she won a contest.If Covers decides to change that policy then we'll do something about it.I know people who have accounts through the same workplace,should they not be allowed to have different accounts because it's from the same place?
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
Double speak , double usernames , double the trouble , doublemint gum is delicious and the flavor lasts a really long time , can I have a second username also ? And if you protest that I gotta ask , in all honesty , why the criticism ? What’s it to ya anyway ?
You probably can't have a second user name (neither do I).But you can have another person in your household have an account.Like I said Covers knows she has an account,and even has a photo of her from when she won a contest.If Covers decides to change that policy then we'll do something about it.I know people who have accounts through the same workplace,should they not be allowed to have different accounts because it's from the same place?
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: You are your daughter , I mean your daughter posted in “ Obviously the True Face of the Republican Party “ thread ….. Post # 77 …… “ you gotta be a certain kind of pusssy to even say that to somebody. That’s all we need today in American politics, is another sniveling kiss ass . “ you sure about your story ? You feel like just being honest ? Do you want me to pick this apart ? My God . The travesty of it all . This thread just keeps getting better and better .No my daughter has an account also.You can check with Covers they have her picture cause she had to send it in when she won money.She uses this computer also,and left her account open.I just got back tonight and just figured it was my account open and started replying to the posts somebody had quoted me on.This has happened a couple times before so that quote you posted is probably me posting mistakenly under her account.You can pick as much as you want. um , it’s not like I’m having to go through the trouble of digging up Gobekli Tepe or anything brother . Just a small amount of digging reveals all that I need to know . In less than 5 minutes I can tell very easily that is you . The jig is up my friend . Own up to it .
Nobody said it wasn't me in those posts.Just like I didn't ever say it wasn't me in last nights post.I said my daughter left her account open,and I thought I was using my account,as has happened before.Imagine this Columbo,somebody in your household has another account on this site,could it be possible that if they left their account open,that somebody could post in that account by mistake.What do I have to gain from posting from a different account,responding directly to the person who I was originally talking about something with?Such a travesty for the "Covers Deep State" crowd,somebody posted from another family members account by mistake.Gee,I wonder if that's got anything to do with the election being rigged,it's got to,right?
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: You are your daughter , I mean your daughter posted in “ Obviously the True Face of the Republican Party “ thread ….. Post # 77 …… “ you gotta be a certain kind of pusssy to even say that to somebody. That’s all we need today in American politics, is another sniveling kiss ass . “ you sure about your story ? You feel like just being honest ? Do you want me to pick this apart ? My God . The travesty of it all . This thread just keeps getting better and better .No my daughter has an account also.You can check with Covers they have her picture cause she had to send it in when she won money.She uses this computer also,and left her account open.I just got back tonight and just figured it was my account open and started replying to the posts somebody had quoted me on.This has happened a couple times before so that quote you posted is probably me posting mistakenly under her account.You can pick as much as you want. um , it’s not like I’m having to go through the trouble of digging up Gobekli Tepe or anything brother . Just a small amount of digging reveals all that I need to know . In less than 5 minutes I can tell very easily that is you . The jig is up my friend . Own up to it .
Nobody said it wasn't me in those posts.Just like I didn't ever say it wasn't me in last nights post.I said my daughter left her account open,and I thought I was using my account,as has happened before.Imagine this Columbo,somebody in your household has another account on this site,could it be possible that if they left their account open,that somebody could post in that account by mistake.What do I have to gain from posting from a different account,responding directly to the person who I was originally talking about something with?Such a travesty for the "Covers Deep State" crowd,somebody posted from another family members account by mistake.Gee,I wonder if that's got anything to do with the election being rigged,it's got to,right?
@spockgato The "daughter" in this story sure does have a lot of anti-Trumper comments that sound the same as another "Mr." around these parts....
I've never said it wasn't me,I said I posted in another family members account by mistake,and it's happened before.And it happened before when I was talking directly to you.But now it's a big deal when the same mistake happens again.If you don't like that other "confirmed" family members can also have accounts with Covers,you are gonna have to take that up with them.
Quote Originally Posted by kcblitzkrieg:
@spockgato The "daughter" in this story sure does have a lot of anti-Trumper comments that sound the same as another "Mr." around these parts....
I've never said it wasn't me,I said I posted in another family members account by mistake,and it's happened before.And it happened before when I was talking directly to you.But now it's a big deal when the same mistake happens again.If you don't like that other "confirmed" family members can also have accounts with Covers,you are gonna have to take that up with them.
It was not found to be widespread voter fraud but there was found to be fraud....last I checked, fraud is fraud and is not gauged by the magnitude of the fraud....if there were voting irregularities, which there was found to be, then you cannot discredit the claim by adding the word "widespread" to favor your team...it's just the facts and so the claim that there were voting irregularities was spot on...it didn't have to change the election results for the claim to be valid...you would have to be naive to think that all votes that are cast are compiled accurately for the intended candidate...this is not a new revelation and needs to be fixed immediately...
drop the word "widespread" and you have a very accurate statement....any conclusion other than that after seeing what transpired with the vote count would be delusional because there was indeed miscounted or misrepresented votes for both sides...
truth hurts
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
It was not found to be widespread voter fraud but there was found to be fraud....last I checked, fraud is fraud and is not gauged by the magnitude of the fraud....if there were voting irregularities, which there was found to be, then you cannot discredit the claim by adding the word "widespread" to favor your team...it's just the facts and so the claim that there were voting irregularities was spot on...it didn't have to change the election results for the claim to be valid...you would have to be naive to think that all votes that are cast are compiled accurately for the intended candidate...this is not a new revelation and needs to be fixed immediately...
drop the word "widespread" and you have a very accurate statement....any conclusion other than that after seeing what transpired with the vote count would be delusional because there was indeed miscounted or misrepresented votes for both sides...
@Raiders22 Show me in the definition you quoted where it says sanctuary cities agreed to support illegal aliens,since it's pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.Limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities,is not "Agreeing to support" them.Most times nobody from the cities even meets the illegal immigrants,they just won't cooperate or give authorities the location of aliens or help with their removal.
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school.
I am not sure how much clearer you want it to be made. You can go look up individual cities and what and how they support them and encourage them to use the 'services'.
But when you want folks to come there to avoid Federal deportation and "use health and social services, and enroll their children inschool" -- it cannot be much plainer than that to me.
@MrWhatsItToYa
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
@Raiders22 Show me in the definition you quoted where it says sanctuary cities agreed to support illegal aliens,since it's pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.Limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities,is not "Agreeing to support" them.Most times nobody from the cities even meets the illegal immigrants,they just won't cooperate or give authorities the location of aliens or help with their removal.
A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.
Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school.
I am not sure how much clearer you want it to be made. You can go look up individual cities and what and how they support them and encourage them to use the 'services'.
But when you want folks to come there to avoid Federal deportation and "use health and social services, and enroll their children inschool" -- it cannot be much plainer than that to me.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Sanctuary cities have never agreed to support illegal aliens.All sanctuary cities do is limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding the location and removal of unauthorized immigrants, Mrwhatsittoya is right. Sanctuary cities are no more supportive of illegal immigrants as non-sanctuary cities that provide aid to the homeless. In sanctuary cities, police still help ICE. If immigrants commit serious crimes, police can still detain them for federal agents to deport. However illegal for police to arrest someone who hasn't been suspected of committing a crime. Simply being an illegal immigrant is an civil violation and not a crime. Sanctuary cities are legal under US constitution.
@thirdperson
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Sanctuary cities have never agreed to support illegal aliens.All sanctuary cities do is limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities regarding the location and removal of unauthorized immigrants, Mrwhatsittoya is right. Sanctuary cities are no more supportive of illegal immigrants as non-sanctuary cities that provide aid to the homeless. In sanctuary cities, police still help ICE. If immigrants commit serious crimes, police can still detain them for federal agents to deport. However illegal for police to arrest someone who hasn't been suspected of committing a crime. Simply being an illegal immigrant is an civil violation and not a crime. Sanctuary cities are legal under US constitution.
@Raiders22 Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action.
Who is saying this?
@MrWhatsItToYa
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
@Raiders22 Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action.
Bro I saw the thread where you caught him . You let him get off easy . I don’t want to have to “ bump and thump “ all of these threads , and I won’t , but something needs to be done about this or this forum will have lost any little shred of integrity that it even had left .
Ya,cause what integrity could possibly be left if another poster posted something from another family members account by mistake.And actually did it twice in one year,oh my god the travesty of it all.Maybe that's got something to do with how trump lost the election too.And thank God KC let me off easy,I don't know where I'd be if he had prosecuted me.
Quote Originally Posted by spockgato:
Bro I saw the thread where you caught him . You let him get off easy . I don’t want to have to “ bump and thump “ all of these threads , and I won’t , but something needs to be done about this or this forum will have lost any little shred of integrity that it even had left .
Ya,cause what integrity could possibly be left if another poster posted something from another family members account by mistake.And actually did it twice in one year,oh my god the travesty of it all.Maybe that's got something to do with how trump lost the election too.And thank God KC let me off easy,I don't know where I'd be if he had prosecuted me.
agreed, the whole purpose of a sanctuary city id for that purpose...they use their local laws to protect undocumented illegal immigrants to avoid things like prosecution or deportation despite federal law....and in doing so, they provide other local services to feed or house them...
Not sure that should be accepted under any occasion...it's like harboring terrorists, which quite frankly you don't know that you are not...human rights goes a bit to far when this happens and if you are the immigrant you are rolling the dice just to get the chance to make it to one of those cities and then what??? They wait it out until, what, they can become a citizen...they use local resources for these individuals that could be taking away from actual citizens...any resources dedicated to this effort is taking away money and resources to other services that in most cases are clearly lacking....
No sanctuary cities should be allowed....Federal government should step in if you are not here legally....never understood this concept and if you are a legal citizen in any of these areas you would have the right to be outraged for this taking place because not one city votes with its people on becoming a sanctuary city...this is regulated by that city itself in their own panel of voters which doesn't seem right...
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
@Raiders22
agreed, the whole purpose of a sanctuary city id for that purpose...they use their local laws to protect undocumented illegal immigrants to avoid things like prosecution or deportation despite federal law....and in doing so, they provide other local services to feed or house them...
Not sure that should be accepted under any occasion...it's like harboring terrorists, which quite frankly you don't know that you are not...human rights goes a bit to far when this happens and if you are the immigrant you are rolling the dice just to get the chance to make it to one of those cities and then what??? They wait it out until, what, they can become a citizen...they use local resources for these individuals that could be taking away from actual citizens...any resources dedicated to this effort is taking away money and resources to other services that in most cases are clearly lacking....
No sanctuary cities should be allowed....Federal government should step in if you are not here legally....never understood this concept and if you are a legal citizen in any of these areas you would have the right to be outraged for this taking place because not one city votes with its people on becoming a sanctuary city...this is regulated by that city itself in their own panel of voters which doesn't seem right...
Can you ever have a conversation without putting down Trump....even in a post about you having two accounts you still can't make a remark without somehow bringing Trump into it...seems to be a really big discord there...maybe try it for awhile...make a few posts without mentioning a guy that is occupying so much space in your head and you will see it gets easier as time goes by....before you know it, you will be posting shit without ever mentioning a guy from 3 years ago...the present is where it's at...
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
@MrWhatsItToYa
Can you ever have a conversation without putting down Trump....even in a post about you having two accounts you still can't make a remark without somehow bringing Trump into it...seems to be a really big discord there...maybe try it for awhile...make a few posts without mentioning a guy that is occupying so much space in your head and you will see it gets easier as time goes by....before you know it, you will be posting shit without ever mentioning a guy from 3 years ago...the present is where it's at...
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: Or just post as BuckFalls and let him take the heatTell me what I had to gain by posting on a different account on purpose.I was clearly responding to soup can and what we were talking about.It wasn't like I used my daughters account to back up something I was saying.On a account that hasn't made any posts in like a year,besides when she has left her account open before.So what "heat" was I looking to avoid? Stick with making up nursery rhymes. Well, I guess one could argue that if she hadn't used the account or made posts in a year, what was she doing logged in yesterday then, when looking at posts or threads does not require a login...that is what the people might say if there were people in these said forums...
She makes picks in the contest sometimes (so she has to be logged in,and that's how she won the money) and we sit in my office (where the computer is) and discuss certain games and the angles we are thinking about when we make our picks.That's why she was logged in.
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by spockgato: Or just post as BuckFalls and let him take the heatTell me what I had to gain by posting on a different account on purpose.I was clearly responding to soup can and what we were talking about.It wasn't like I used my daughters account to back up something I was saying.On a account that hasn't made any posts in like a year,besides when she has left her account open before.So what "heat" was I looking to avoid? Stick with making up nursery rhymes. Well, I guess one could argue that if she hadn't used the account or made posts in a year, what was she doing logged in yesterday then, when looking at posts or threads does not require a login...that is what the people might say if there were people in these said forums...
She makes picks in the contest sometimes (so she has to be logged in,and that's how she won the money) and we sit in my office (where the computer is) and discuss certain games and the angles we are thinking about when we make our picks.That's why she was logged in.
It was not found to be widespread voter fraud but there was found to be fraud....last I checked, fraud is fraud and is not gauged by the magnitude of the fraud....if there were voting irregularities, which there was found to be, then you cannot discredit the claim by adding the word "widespread" to favor your team...it's just the facts and so the claim that there were voting irregularities was spot on...it didn't have to change the election results for the claim to be valid...you would have to be naive to think that all votes that are cast are compiled accurately for the intended candidate...this is not a new revelation and needs to be fixed immediately... drop the word "widespread" and you have a very accurate statement....any conclusion other than that after seeing what transpired with the vote count would be delusional because there was indeed miscounted or misrepresented votes for both sides... truth hurts
Could the same of happened in 2016?
We do know there was fraud in 20,didn't Meadows commit voter fraud.So it's kind of hard to take a party's concern over election integrity seriously,when they themselves are doing it,no?You are right though,you can claim every election ever held has had fraud involved,where does that get us though.The republicans and trump were fine with the elections when they won,trump even said if he won the election it was legit,if he lost it was rigged.Arguing the old strategy of "heads I win, tails you lose" isn't gonna win to many court cases,as evidenced by trump losing over 60 cases,even cases where the presiding judge was somebody that he put into that position.
And you are also right that fraud is fraud,and is not gauged by the magnitude of the fraud.I believe the judge in the New York (trump fraud case) has also determined that to be the case.
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
It was not found to be widespread voter fraud but there was found to be fraud....last I checked, fraud is fraud and is not gauged by the magnitude of the fraud....if there were voting irregularities, which there was found to be, then you cannot discredit the claim by adding the word "widespread" to favor your team...it's just the facts and so the claim that there were voting irregularities was spot on...it didn't have to change the election results for the claim to be valid...you would have to be naive to think that all votes that are cast are compiled accurately for the intended candidate...this is not a new revelation and needs to be fixed immediately... drop the word "widespread" and you have a very accurate statement....any conclusion other than that after seeing what transpired with the vote count would be delusional because there was indeed miscounted or misrepresented votes for both sides... truth hurts
Could the same of happened in 2016?
We do know there was fraud in 20,didn't Meadows commit voter fraud.So it's kind of hard to take a party's concern over election integrity seriously,when they themselves are doing it,no?You are right though,you can claim every election ever held has had fraud involved,where does that get us though.The republicans and trump were fine with the elections when they won,trump even said if he won the election it was legit,if he lost it was rigged.Arguing the old strategy of "heads I win, tails you lose" isn't gonna win to many court cases,as evidenced by trump losing over 60 cases,even cases where the presiding judge was somebody that he put into that position.
And you are also right that fraud is fraud,and is not gauged by the magnitude of the fraud.I believe the judge in the New York (trump fraud case) has also determined that to be the case.
Republicans question House attempt to impeach Mayorkas the homeland security secretary. This includes Buck, Collins, Capito, McClintock and others. Murkowski criticizes House effort as a detour from congress important work. Impeachment sham is not based on evidence of impeachable offense but about politics. Legal experts and former officials say House evidence fails to meet the standard of high crime. Arguing that republicans are abusing impeachment by falsely accusing Mayorkas of failing standards that have never been met under past administrations. Republicans are angry that children aren't separated from parents and put in cages. They have no serious policy solutions to fix border issue except for cruelty. But policy disagreement is not a valid reason and Biden administration is entitled to wide authority under the law. Besides, Trump policies have been struck down by the courts.
It is 100% based on facts that lefties like yourself choose to ignore.
It's call dereliction of duty, and he is guilty.
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Republicans question House attempt to impeach Mayorkas the homeland security secretary. This includes Buck, Collins, Capito, McClintock and others. Murkowski criticizes House effort as a detour from congress important work. Impeachment sham is not based on evidence of impeachable offense but about politics. Legal experts and former officials say House evidence fails to meet the standard of high crime. Arguing that republicans are abusing impeachment by falsely accusing Mayorkas of failing standards that have never been met under past administrations. Republicans are angry that children aren't separated from parents and put in cages. They have no serious policy solutions to fix border issue except for cruelty. But policy disagreement is not a valid reason and Biden administration is entitled to wide authority under the law. Besides, Trump policies have been struck down by the courts.
It is 100% based on facts that lefties like yourself choose to ignore.
@MrWhatsItToYa Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Show me in the definition you quoted where it says sanctuary cities agreed to support illegal aliens,since it's pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.Limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities,is not "Agreeing to support" them.Most times nobody from the cities even meets the illegal immigrants,they just won't cooperate or give authorities the location of aliens or help with their removal. A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. I am not sure how much clearer you want it to be made. You can go look up individual cities and what and how they support them and encourage them to use the 'services'. But when you want folks to come there to avoid Federal deportation and "use health and social services, and enroll their children in school" -- it cannot be much plainer than that to me.
Then wouldn't Texas sending them into other cities also be "supporting them"?Is Texas wanting folks to come here (other cities) to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services and enroll their children in school?The migrants don't get here unless Texas "supports their efforts' by sending them here,so I guess by your definition Texas is also supporting the migrants efforts to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@MrWhatsItToYa Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Show me in the definition you quoted where it says sanctuary cities agreed to support illegal aliens,since it's pretty much the exact definition of what a sanctuary city is.Limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities,is not "Agreeing to support" them.Most times nobody from the cities even meets the illegal immigrants,they just won't cooperate or give authorities the location of aliens or help with their removal. A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. I am not sure how much clearer you want it to be made. You can go look up individual cities and what and how they support them and encourage them to use the 'services'. But when you want folks to come there to avoid Federal deportation and "use health and social services, and enroll their children in school" -- it cannot be much plainer than that to me.
Then wouldn't Texas sending them into other cities also be "supporting them"?Is Texas wanting folks to come here (other cities) to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services and enroll their children in school?The migrants don't get here unless Texas "supports their efforts' by sending them here,so I guess by your definition Texas is also supporting the migrants efforts to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services.
@MrWhatsItToYa Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action. Who is saying this?
Who is saying what?
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@MrWhatsItToYa Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action. Who is saying this?
Then wouldn't Texas sending them into other cities also be "supporting them"?
Maybe you can make the argument they are tacitly but only because they are not in charge of deporting them, the Federal government is in charge of that. So, if they do not want to support them they shift that to a state that wants to support them. So, overall, no, they are not; they are shifting that support to another state.
@MrWhatsItToYa
Then wouldn't Texas sending them into other cities also be "supporting them"?
Maybe you can make the argument they are tacitly but only because they are not in charge of deporting them, the Federal government is in charge of that. So, if they do not want to support them they shift that to a state that wants to support them. So, overall, no, they are not; they are shifting that support to another state.
Is Texas wanting folks to come here (other cities) to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services and enroll their children in school?
No.
@MrWhatsItToYa
Is Texas wanting folks to come here (other cities) to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services and enroll their children in school?
The migrants don't get here unless Texas "supports their efforts' by sending them here
Not, necessarily -- look back at what has happened before. When illegals realize that a state does not 'welcome' them as much as another to they cannot find work, etc. -- they will gravitate to other states by themselves. So, you can say Texas is accommodating them because they are all signing a waiver that they want to go to the other state. But, the main reason Texas is doing this part is because they do NOT want to support them, etc.
@MrWhatsItToYa
The migrants don't get here unless Texas "supports their efforts' by sending them here
Not, necessarily -- look back at what has happened before. When illegals realize that a state does not 'welcome' them as much as another to they cannot find work, etc. -- they will gravitate to other states by themselves. So, you can say Texas is accommodating them because they are all signing a waiver that they want to go to the other state. But, the main reason Texas is doing this part is because they do NOT want to support them, etc.
so I guess by your definition Texas is also supporting the migrants efforts to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services.
Again, no. The only 'support' they give them is to help them go somewhere else to be supported. They are making sure they do NOT have to continually support them.
Absolutely they are NOT helping them avoid deportation -- they want them deported; BUT the Federal Government will not deport them. The Federal Government knows EXACTLY where they are if they ever want to deport them. Texas did not hide them; they tell everyone exactly where they are taking them.
@MrWhatsItToYa
so I guess by your definition Texas is also supporting the migrants efforts to avoid Federal deportation and use health and social services.
Again, no. The only 'support' they give them is to help them go somewhere else to be supported. They are making sure they do NOT have to continually support them.
Absolutely they are NOT helping them avoid deportation -- they want them deported; BUT the Federal Government will not deport them. The Federal Government knows EXACTLY where they are if they ever want to deport them. Texas did not hide them; they tell everyone exactly where they are taking them.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action. Who is saying this?Who is saying what?
Who is saying that?
@MrWhatsItToYa
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Again,I wasn't comparing an illegal immigration problem for a whole nation to one persons legal problems.I was comparing people justifying things in general.That Mugg thinks it's crazy how people can justify the issues going on with immigration.And that I think it's crazy that people can justify that 1 president supposedly should have absolute immunity,as those same people are looking for crimes a different president supposedly did.But the republican party is justifying this action. Who is saying this?Who is saying what?
@MrWhatsItToYa Can you ever have a conversation without putting down Trump....even in a post about you having two accounts you still can't make a remark without somehow bringing Trump into it...seems to be a really big discord there...maybe try it for awhile...make a few posts without mentioning a guy that is occupying so much space in your head and you will see it gets easier as time goes by....before you know it, you will be posting shit without ever mentioning a guy from 3 years ago...the present is where it's at...
So much for "When one is quick to point out other peoples flaws but they themselves are not able to accept their own flaws even when they are pointed out is a problem..so it makes you wonder why should everyone accept what they tell some of us when they themselves do not follow the same...seems rather one sided and therein lies the problem".So your the only one who gets to decide when people can point out other peoples flaws in a post?
If you just can't handle what I say about trump,then just don't read my posts.Maybe try it for awhile,don't read a post from someone occupying so much space in your head,and you will see it will get easier as time goes by.
The present is where it's at.That's why I'm here in the present trying not to let a (***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** I'm about to say something putting trump down) traitor get back in our highest office.
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:
@MrWhatsItToYa Can you ever have a conversation without putting down Trump....even in a post about you having two accounts you still can't make a remark without somehow bringing Trump into it...seems to be a really big discord there...maybe try it for awhile...make a few posts without mentioning a guy that is occupying so much space in your head and you will see it gets easier as time goes by....before you know it, you will be posting shit without ever mentioning a guy from 3 years ago...the present is where it's at...
So much for "When one is quick to point out other peoples flaws but they themselves are not able to accept their own flaws even when they are pointed out is a problem..so it makes you wonder why should everyone accept what they tell some of us when they themselves do not follow the same...seems rather one sided and therein lies the problem".So your the only one who gets to decide when people can point out other peoples flaws in a post?
If you just can't handle what I say about trump,then just don't read my posts.Maybe try it for awhile,don't read a post from someone occupying so much space in your head,and you will see it will get easier as time goes by.
The present is where it's at.That's why I'm here in the present trying not to let a (***WARNING*** ***WARNING*** I'm about to say something putting trump down) traitor get back in our highest office.
@MrWhatsItToYa Then wouldn't Texas sending them into other cities also be "supporting them"? Maybe you can make the argument they are tacitly but only because they are not in charge of deporting them, the Federal government is in charge of that. So, if they do not want to support them they shift that to a state that wants to support them. So, overall, no, they are not; they are shifting that support to another state.
It's not "maybe" you can make that argument.That's exactly what it is,they are "supporting" the migrants efforts to not get deported and to use social services",just in other states.The other states aren't in charge of deporting them either.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@MrWhatsItToYa Then wouldn't Texas sending them into other cities also be "supporting them"? Maybe you can make the argument they are tacitly but only because they are not in charge of deporting them, the Federal government is in charge of that. So, if they do not want to support them they shift that to a state that wants to support them. So, overall, no, they are not; they are shifting that support to another state.
It's not "maybe" you can make that argument.That's exactly what it is,they are "supporting" the migrants efforts to not get deported and to use social services",just in other states.The other states aren't in charge of deporting them either.
Hot Forum Topics
