PDA

View Full Version : Sorry to inform you...



KarlMarx
01-18-2019, 11:47 AM
Nancy Pelosi gets her comeuppance from the Donald... glad to see it.

For those who think that we NEED to elect a woman president, I have to ask .... why?

Sure, a female president like Margaret Thatcher, not a problem....

But one like Nancy Pelosi? Not a chance.

Despite what some people think... wearing a skirt does not qualify you to be the leader of the free world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jimnyc
01-18-2019, 12:05 PM
Pelosi: Due to the government shutdown, I think the state of the union address should be delayed

Trump: Due to the government shutdown, the trip you are about to leave on in a few hours - I have revoked the military plane usage for you and your entourage. Take commercial if you like.

:coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee:

Gunny
01-18-2019, 12:32 PM
You DO realize that we can never again have a Dem as President?

jimnyc
01-18-2019, 12:42 PM
You DO realize that we can never again have a Dem as President?

I don't think there has been any overreaches thus far, just threats of. I think stopping ANYTHING within the government, during a shutdown, is 100% appropriate. If others are being denied funding aka paychecks due to this, then IMO the congress scum shouldn't be getting theirs either, either side. But since they are - I think they should be keeping things at a minimum. Stopping non-needed trips on military aircraft is something non-essential. And if the Dems want to do similar in the future, if during a government shutdown, then I would agree with them.

The differences in the end are whether or not anything adversely done is supported by law/precedent or is a whole new avenue being opened, and one that could come back to haunt down the road. Now, the "emergency" payment, I can see being used in a different manner, or at least an attempt to do so - but IMO, both would likely end up in courts, and their "emergency" is either constitutional or not.

Gunny
01-18-2019, 01:43 PM
I don't think there has been any overreaches thus far, just threats of. I think stopping ANYTHING within the government, during a shutdown, is 100% appropriate. If others are being denied funding aka paychecks due to this, then IMO the congress scum shouldn't be getting theirs either, either side. But since they are - I think they should be keeping things at a minimum. Stopping non-needed trips on military aircraft is something non-essential. And if the Dems want to do similar in the future, if during a government shutdown, then I would agree with them.

The differences in the end are whether or not anything adversely done is supported by law/precedent or is a whole new avenue being opened, and one that could come back to haunt down the road. Now, the "emergency" payment, I can see being used in a different manner, or at least an attempt to do so - but IMO, both would likely end up in courts, and their "emergency" is either constitutional or not.I was thinking farther out than him booting Pelosi off a plane. For anyone with a functioning brain, the fact the Speaker of the House is planning a 3 week trip to start in the middle of a Government shutdown where Federal employees aren't getting paid speaks volumes. So is she saying the House functions perfectly fine without the Speaker even under extraordinary circumstances? Good. Send her home.

Not to the Dems. TO them, the shutdown is Trump's fault, and booting her off a military plane spiteful.

was looking at the big picture long term. This has just gotten uglier and uglier, and dumber and dumber. The next Dem President is going to completely wreck this country as we know it more out of infantile spite than anything else. And no, judging by the past few elections, I DON'T think "the American people" are smarter than that.

jimnyc
01-18-2019, 01:49 PM
I was thinking farther out than him booting Pelosi off a plane. For anyone with a functioning brain, the fact the Speaker of the House is planning a 3 week trip to start in the middle of a Government shutdown where Federal employees aren't getting paid speaks volumes. So is she saying the House functions perfectly fine without the Speaker even under extraordinary circumstances? Good. Send her home.

Not to the Dems. TO them, the shutdown is Trump's fault, and booting her off a military plane spiteful.

was looking at the big picture long term. This has just gotten uglier and uglier, and dumber and dumber. The next Dem President is going to completely wreck this country as we know it more out of infantile spite than anything else. And no, judging by the past few elections, I DON'T think "the American people" are smarter than that.

No doubt there, I agree. And I agree it's dumb and dumber. BUT, I also think we need border security, even if not a "big beautiful wall". A secure impenetrable fence/gating/barrier of some sort is cool with me - so long as it WORKS. If, as Acosta tried to point out, it's something that someone can easily cut through, and the area not manned - then that is NOT border security. We need something that works, that simple.

We are being slowly inundated and invaded by illegals that were more or less invited by bad policy and lack of enforcing the law for years and years. Fix it all at once, it's not that hard other than the labor for the wall/barrier. Fund it - which everyone agrees on. A barrier is agreed upon. Agents, cameras and all kinds of other technology is agreed upon. Put in EVERYTHING that is agreed upon, fund the amount necessary, and go forward from that point.

Gunny
01-18-2019, 02:10 PM
No doubt there, I agree. And I agree it's dumb and dumber. BUT, I also think we need border security, even if not a "big beautiful wall". A secure impenetrable fence/gating/barrier of some sort is cool with me - so long as it WORKS. If, as Acosta tried to point out, it's something that someone can easily cut through, and the area not manned - then that is NOT border security. We need something that works, that simple.

We are being slowly inundated and invaded by illegals that were more or less invited by bad policy and lack of enforcing the law for years and years. Fix it all at once, it's not that hard other than the labor for the wall/barrier. Fund it - which everyone agrees on. A barrier is agreed upon. Agents, cameras and all kinds of other technology is agreed upon. Put in EVERYTHING that is agreed upon, fund the amount necessary, and go forward from that point.I live on the border. They could build the Berlin Wall on it and I'd be happy.

The people that don't want border security either have an agenda (political or financial) or are ideological morons.

jimnyc
01-18-2019, 02:14 PM
I live on the border. They could build the Berlin Wall on it and I'd be happy.

The people that don't want border security either have an agenda (political or financial) or are ideological morons.

The only argument that the Dems have is "Asylum" and then cry and whine about it. They know they cannot say "just let everyone climb the shitty fence and do whatever they please". So they cry that these are "women and children" and we're being mean. And then I say:

"Since the funding isn't the issue - why can't they fund the wall - and EVERY person that wants to claim asylum should be directed to the appropriate places to file, and that EVERY person will be heard." These folks should also be a little more responsible about what it takes to qualify before doing something stupid like walking a thousand or 2 miles.

So build a wall, and don't stop them from doing what it is they want, which is claiming asylum. Why can't this be done? What is preventing these folks from doing what their objective is anyway?

Gunny
01-18-2019, 02:30 PM
The only argument that the Dems have is "Asylum" and then cry and whine about it. They know they cannot say "just let everyone climb the shitty fence and do whatever they please". So they cry that these are "women and children" and we're being mean. And then I say:

"Since the funding isn't the issue - why can't they fund the wall - and EVERY person that wants to claim asylum should be directed to the appropriate places to file, and that EVERY person will be heard." These folks should also be a little more responsible about what it takes to qualify before doing something stupid like walking a thousand or 2 miles.

So build a wall, and don't stop them from doing what it is they want, which is claiming asylum. Why can't this be done? What is preventing these folks from doing what their objective is anyway?I look at asylum about the same as anchor babies. Go somewhere else. Asylum should have a LOT stricter parameters than it does.

We have women and children already. That may sound cut throat but a lesson I learned the hard way is I am no good to anyone else if I can't take care of myself first. Matter of fact, that's one of the first things they teach you in water safety/survival. You can't save someone if you let them drown you.

If the so-called "poor" in our country have it so rough, seems to me the Dems would be more concerned with them than letting them wallow in poverty while feigning concern for the rest of the World to get some cheap votes.

jimnyc
01-18-2019, 02:35 PM
I look at asylum about the same as anchor babies. Go somewhere else. Asylum should have a LOT stricter parameters than it does.

We have women and children already. That may sound cut throat but a lesson I learned the hard way is I am no good to anyone else if I can't take care of myself first. Matter of fact, that's one of the first things they teach you in water safety/survival. You can't save someone if you let them drown you.

If the so-called "poor" in our country have it so rough, seems to me the Dems would be more concerned with them than letting them wallow in poverty while feigning concern for the rest of the World to get some cheap votes.

Fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of these folks will not qualify under most circumstances. If their desire is simply to leave a poor area, and come here for a better life, they won't qualify for asylum. And THAT is why the overwhelming majority couldn't care less about coming in and filing for asylum - it was never their intent, most likely for many of them. And they're gaining traction and picking up numbers - because laws haven't been enforced in so long, it's very easy to sneak in in certain areas, they get SO much help in staying, they get "rights" and freebies and welfare assistance.... why wouldn't they sneak in? :rolleyes:

jimnyc
01-18-2019, 02:37 PM
Asylum

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Gunny
01-18-2019, 03:56 PM
You aren't escaping a poorer lifestyle if you bring it with you as a LOT of Mexicans do. You can tell who lives in which neighborhoods by it here.