Illegals Blindsided by Brutal Karma – Texas Just Pulled Off a Boss Maneuver

[Adam Curran]

Illegals Blindsided by Brutal Karma – Texas Just Pulled Off a Boss Maneuver

Illegals Blindsided by Brutal Karma – Texas Just Pulled Off a Boss Maneuver

...

conservativesnews.com

 

[TheResister]

While some of these politicians mean well, they don't have the requisite experience it takes to deal with the issue.

The immigration debacle begins with a United States Supreme Court decision in 1875 called Chy Lung v. Freeman. In that holding, the high Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all matters related to immigration (sic.) In that case the California Immigration officials nor the sheriff of San Francisco (the defendants) bothered to mount a defense or even reply to the charges. While the high Court was critical of what the Immigration officers and the sheriff did, they still granted the plenary powers to Congress. Having read the Constitution forward and back many times, I have failed to find any constitutional authority for the United States Supreme Court to grant to any branch of government any powers, plenary or otherwise.

It's time for the United States Supreme Court to revisit that mistake and admit that the states have control in protecting their border. There are two issues here that the courts aren't separating. Immigration is the coming into a country for the purpose of permanent residence (national citizenship.) That has nothing to do with trespassing on private and / or state property to effect an improper entry. If the politicians want to address the issue, THAT is the starting point.

The second mistake the courts made was to give broad powers to regulatory agencies under the pretext of enforcing the laws. The legal doctrine is known as the Chevron deference. Under this holding by the high Court, regulatory agencies pass their own laws and, when challenged, they point to this holding saying that the regulatory agency has more expertise in an area. But, what the regulatory agencies are doing are becoming a law unto themselves and not accountable to anyone. The United States Supreme Court is currently considering legislating from the bench and reversing the Chevron deference. If that is done, that will limit how liberal BICE can be toward the laws regarding foreigners. If it is overturned, it will give states a lot of room to argue in favor of protecting their border - and even more so if they can get the courts to revisit the Chy Lung decision. I have a couple more, but let those sink in.

 

[imprimis]

Overturning the Chevron deference will, hopefully, prevent agencies from twisting the law to use it in a manner it wasn't intended.

Like using the endangered species act to claim the buoys Gov. Abbott installed in the Rio Grande were a threat to a "endangered" mollusk and had to be removed. If anything it is illegal immigration that is harming mollusks. The buoys if left in the river would give the mollusks a substrate to attach to and increase in numbers as well as continue to restrain the illegals.

 

[CuriousFiend]

Y'all might wanna reconsider this whole narrative about what "Texas" is supposedly doing, and what the media is telling us.

Sure the vids/images show us sections of razor wire and soldiers doin' their thang....

....but if ya actually look further, guess what you'll discover?

Spoiler

•Checkpoint, where the media are filming.

Spoiler

•Half a mile down the road....

 

[Liquid Reigns]

While some of these politicians mean well, they don't have the requisite experience it takes to deal with the issue.

The immigration debacle begins with a United States Supreme Court decision in 1875 called Chy Lung v. Freeman. In that holding, the high Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all matters related to immigration (sic.) In that case the California Immigration officials nor the sheriff of San Francisco (the defendants) bothered to mount a defense or even reply to the charges. While the high Court was critical of what the Immigration officers and the sheriff did, they still granted the plenary powers to Congress. Having read the Constitution forward and back many times, I have failed to find any constitutional authority for the United States Supreme Court to grant to any branch of government any powers, plenary or otherwise.

It's time for the United States Supreme Court to revisit that mistake and admit that the states have control in protecting their border. There are two issues here that the courts aren't separating. Immigration is the coming into a country for the purpose of permanent residence (national citizenship.) That has nothing to do with trespassing on private and / or state property to effect an improper entry. If the politicians want to address the issue, THAT is the starting point.

The second mistake the courts made was to give broad powers to regulatory agencies under the pretext of enforcing the laws. The legal doctrine is known as the Chevron deference. Under this holding by the high Court, regulatory agencies pass their own laws and, when challenged, they point to this holding saying that the regulatory agency has more expertise in an area. But, what the regulatory agencies are doing are becoming a law unto themselves and not accountable to anyone. The United States Supreme Court is currently considering legislating from the bench and reversing the Chevron deference. If that is done, that will limit how liberal BICE can be toward the laws regarding foreigners. If it is overturned, it will give states a lot of room to argue in favor of protecting their border - and even more so if they can get the courts to revisit the Chy Lung decision. I have a couple more, but let those sink in.

In Chy Lung, the California Commissioner of Immigration considered the 21 Chinese Women as Prostitutes and was trying to force them to pay $500 in Gold as a Bond, SCOTUS ordered their release from incarceration and held that the Federal Government had authority over deciding their status, not California. California failed to issue or furnish any documents in support of their authority to detain or demand bond of these 21 women from China.

It is hardly possible to conceive a statute more skillfully framed, to place in the hands of a single man the power to prevent entirely vessels engaged in a foreign trade, say with China, from carrying passengers, or to compel them to submit to systematic extortion of the grossest kind.

The commissioner has but to go aboard a vessel filled with passengers ignorant of our language and our laws, and without trial or hearing or evidence, but from the external appearances of persons with whose former habits he is unfamiliar, to point with his finger to twenty, as in this case, or a hundred if he chooses, and say to the master,

“These are idiots, these are paupers, these are convicted criminals, these are lewd women, and these others are debauched women. I have here a hundred blank forms of bonds, printed. I require you to fill me up and sign each of these for $500 in gold, and that you furnish me two hundred different men, residents of this state, and of sufficient means, as sureties on these bonds. I charge you five dollars in each case for preparing the bond and swearing your sureties, and I charge you seventy-five cents each for examining these passengers, and all others you have on board.” . . . .

While the occurrence of the hypothetical case just stated may be highly improbable, we venture the assertion, that, if citizens of our own government were treated by any foreign nation as subjects of the Emperor of China have been actually treated under this law, no administration could withstand the call for a demand on such government for redress….

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.

Chy Lung shows that the states do not have authority to distinguish nor to determine the status of foreigners entering at ports of entry, it is a foreign relations matter for which the Federal Government has dominion over, and always has.

 

[TheResister]

Overturning the Chevron deference will, hopefully, prevent agencies from twisting the law to use it in a manner it wasn't intended.

Like using the endangered species act to claim the buoys Gov. Abbott installed in the Rio Grande were a threat to a "endangered" mollusk and had to be removed. If anything it is illegal immigration that is harming mollusks. The buoys if left in the river would give the mollusks a substrate to attach to and increase in numbers as well as continue to restrain the illegals.

I agree. Regulatory agencies have become a law unto themselves. Furthermore, the courts were aiding all of this by granting more and more powers to those agencies.

The states get to decide who is qualified to vote and, that being the case, it is up to the states under a lawful / dejure rendering of the Constitution to decide who gets invited into the state. The federal government only has jurisdiction over who becomes a naturalized citizen.

If sanctuary cities / counties / states can allow undocumented foreigners the privilege of voting, it only stands to reason that states have the authority to decide who gets to breach their border. You've witnessed what has happened with almost a quarter of a century of only the federal government manning the border. First, they illegally claimed jurisdiction over foreigners on the grounds of immigration (and immigration applies to citizenship,, NOT the normal course of free enterprise.) Then, after being handed all the power over foreigners, the feds then deferred to regulatory agencies and the whole thing became a giant clusterfuck.

 

[TheResister]

Let's not forget the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. The whole process was unconstitutional:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Let's carry its application into how it affects this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice here that CITIZENS get privileges and immunities. PERSONS cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law and they get the "equal protection of the laws."

The pretext of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant some nonexistent right to vote to Black people. The cases brought before the court have disenfranchised the citizenry by incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. Whereas the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment implies that the government (not a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence) grants you all your rights (sic.)

Part of the fallout of this travesty is that foreigners (regardless of how they got here) have the same legal rights as you. And now they can vote. Every time we flip over a really screwed up court holding or statute we figure out how this ended in what we have today. You have to keep backtracking to understand the whole problem.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The states get to decide who is qualified to vote and, that being the case, it is up to the states under a lawful / dejure rendering of the Constitution to decide who gets invited into the state. The federal government only has jurisdiction over who becomes a naturalized citizen.

If sanctuary cities / counties / states can allow undocumented foreigners the privilege of voting, it only stands to reason that states have the authority to decide who gets to breach their border. You've witnessed what has happened with almost a quarter of a century of only the federal government manning the border. First, they illegally claimed jurisdiction over foreigners on the grounds of immigration (and immigration applies to citizenship,, NOT the normal course of free enterprise.) Then, after being handed all the power over foreigners, the feds then deferred to regulatory agencies and the whole thing became a giant clusterfuck.

The Federal Government has jurisdiction over foreigners entering into the US at ports of entry, the states don't have any authority over foreign relations. The States don't get to decide who can enter their state through a port or from an adjoining state. Texas has it right, by labeling this a "foreign invasion" into the US, and the federal government doing nothing to stop it, then the state would have authority to protect its border where it touches another country.

Local Governments do have the authority over allowing people who are not US Citizens the ability to vote in certain circumstances, i.e school board member, etc, just not governmental elections. Chy Lung has nothing to do with improper/illegal entry. Free Enterprise has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal wise. It's a giant clusterfuck do to Biden and the Democrats playing political football with the issue. The laws already on the books should be enforced, Mayorkas should be impeached along with Brandon for Dereliction of Duty and Treason for allowing an invasion into the US.

Your conclusions of the "rendering of the Constitution", is horrendous. Leave your "legal inanity" out of your arguments, comprehend the cases/phrases you cite before leveling them as relevant in some way.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Let's not forget the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. The whole process was unconstitutional:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Let's carry its application into how it affects this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice here that CITIZENS get privileges and immunities. PERSONS cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law and they get the "equal protection of the laws."

The pretext of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant some nonexistent right to vote to Black people. The cases brought before the court have disenfranchised the citizenry by incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. Whereas the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment implies that the government (not a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence) grants you all your rights (sic.)

Part of the fallout of this travesty is that foreigners (regardless of how they got here) have the same legal rights as you. And now they can vote. Every time we flip over a really screwed up court holding or statute we figure out how this ended in what we have today. You have to keep backtracking to understand the whole problem.

Please explain the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is what the 14th Amendment was modeled after.

Your "Sovereign Citizen" stupidity is now on full display.

If you don't understand the word person in the 14th Amendment to mean a foreigner (someone other than a US Citizen) here visiting, not yet naturalized, or who has illegally entered the US, having limited rights where as a US Citizen/Naturalized Citizen has all of our rights, then you truly are as ignorant and racist as you sound.

Foreigners do not have the same legal rights/privilege's as a Citizen. Foreigners can not purchase weapons here nor can they be in possession of one, unless they are permitted by the government to hunt here legally, no foreigner can vote in our elections of the local government, State, or the Federal Level, etc. Illegals are limited to being covered under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, nothing more. All persons/foreigners can be removed/not allowed entry from the US at the mere whim of the Federal Government.

 

[Rebarcock.]

While some of these politicians mean well, they don't have the requisite experience it takes to deal with the issue.

The immigration debacle begins with a United States Supreme Court decision in 1875 called Chy Lung v. Freeman. In that holding, the high Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all matters related to immigration (sic.) In that case the California Immigration officials nor the sheriff of San Francisco (the defendants) bothered to mount a defense or even reply to the charges. While the high Court was critical of what the Immigration officers and the sheriff did, they still granted the plenary powers to Congress. Having read the Constitution forward and back many times, I have failed to find any constitutional authority for the United States Supreme Court to grant to any branch of government any powers, plenary or otherwise.

It's time for the United States Supreme Court to revisit that mistake and admit that the states have control in protecting their border. There are two issues here that the courts aren't separating. Immigration is the coming into a country for the purpose of permanent residence (national citizenship.) That has nothing to do with trespassing on private and / or state property to effect an improper entry. If the politicians want to address the issue, THAT is the starting point.

The second mistake the courts made was to give broad powers to regulatory agencies under the pretext of enforcing the laws. The legal doctrine is known as the Chevron deference. Under this holding by the high Court, regulatory agencies pass their own laws and, when challenged, they point to this holding saying that the regulatory agency has more expertise in an area. But, what the regulatory agencies are doing are becoming a law unto themselves and not accountable to anyone. The United States Supreme Court is currently considering legislating from the bench and reversing the Chevron deference. If that is done, that will limit how liberal BICE can be toward the laws regarding foreigners. If it is overturned, it will give states a lot of room to argue in favor of protecting their border - and even more so if they can get the courts to revisit the Chy Lung decision. I have a couple more, but let those sink in.

I declare a mistrial thru malfeasance

 

[Rebarcock.]

What happens when law fails?
It is happening now you pontificating creeps. Yall got /5//5

 

[Liquid Reigns]

What happens when law fails?
It is happening now you pontificating creeps. Yall got /5//5

The Law hasn't failed, what has failed is the President of the US in protecting the US and its people from foreign invasion, and Mayorkas dereliction of duty for following a Treasonous President.

 

[Rebarcock.]

The Law hasn't failed, what has failed is the President of the US in protecting the US and its people from foreign invasion, and Mayorkas for following a Treasonous President.

You are inspirational too deer leader

 

[TheRealJohnCooper]

What happens when law fails?
It is happening now you pontificating creeps. Yall got /5//5

Some weird fucks in here. Minus - @CuriousFiend i kind of like him a little.

 

[TheResister]

Some weird fucks in here. Minus - @CuriousFiend i kind of like him a little.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that think the same about you. Among those that like to troll, gaslight and make every post a gay reference to the dicks they suck or whose excrement they enjoy, you may find the guy that gives a flying fuck about his country.

I've been watching the right take one defeat after another and even the "wins" are carefully crafted long term defeats. Whenever I try to discuss it, we don't need to be having penis measuring contests and we don't need people making shit up because they feel a certain way.

I'm sick of the status quo. Y'all been losing this "immigration" battle for the better part of a quarter of a century. No rich dude that has hired undocumented foreigners, sent jobs overseas and still has interests in China is going to save your miserable asses from the foreigners. There is an end game and there are long term strategies. Case in point:

I worked a case wherein county sheriffs filed lawsuits against conducting background checks. I did at least 160 hours of legal research and much of it used by the litigating team. At the end of the day, the case went to the United States Supreme Court wherein it was won (Printz v. US) Anyway, in the course of that case, the Supreme Court held that local and state agencies could not be compelled to enforce federal laws.

When the attorneys for the undocumented fight back to save Sanctuary Cities, they use the precedent set in Printz:

The Looming Supreme Court Showdown Over Sanctuary Cities

The Trump administration has claimed the unilateral authority to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, jurisdictions whose officials refuse to

reason.com

I had a personal discussion with Richard Mack (the former sheriff who fought back against the feds) and he said that had he known how that case could be twisted into a precedent to help the undocumented, he wouldn't have started it to begin with. How short-sighted! When the gun lobby started Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities, they should have cited the Printz case AND the "immigration" cases that helped perpetuate those Sanctuary Cities. Sanctuary is sanctuary whether it is undocumented foreigners, firearms or anything else that deserves the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment.)

That may not fit into the conversation of watching the monkeys chase the ball on tv while yu fret over some guy's jock strap size, but I'm committed to finding a workable solution. You?

 

[CuriousFiend]

Y'all might wanna reconsider this whole narrative about what "Texas" is supposedly doing, and what the media is telling us.

Sure the vids/images show us sections of razor wire and soldiers doin' their thang....

....but if ya actually look further, guess what you'll discover?

Spoiler

•Checkpoint, where the media are filming.
View attachment 212101

Spoiler

•Half a mile down the road....
View attachment 212102View attachment 212103

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I'm sure there are a lot of people that think the same about you. Among those that like to troll, gaslight and make every post a gay reference to the dicks they suck or whose excrement they enjoy, you may find the guy that gives a flying fuck about his country.

I've been watching the right take one defeat after another and even the "wins" are carefully crafted long term defeats. Whenever I try to discuss it, we don't need to be having penis measuring contests and we don't need people making shit up because they feel a certain way.

I'm sick of the status quo. Y'all been losing this "immigration" battle for the better part of a quarter of a century. No rich dude that has hired undocumented foreigners, sent jobs overseas and still has interests in China is going to save your miserable asses from the foreigners. There is an end game and there are long term strategies. Case in point:

I worked a case wherein county sheriffs filed lawsuits against conducting background checks. I did at least 160 hours of legal research and much of it used by the litigating team. At the end of the day, the case went to the United States Supreme Court wherein it was won (Printz v. US) Anyway, in the course of that case, the Supreme Court held that local and state agencies could not be compelled to enforce federal laws.

When the attorneys for the undocumented fight back to save Sanctuary Cities, they use the precedent set in Printz:

The Looming Supreme Court Showdown Over Sanctuary Cities

The Trump administration has claimed the unilateral authority to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, jurisdictions whose officials refuse to

reason.com

I had a personal discussion with Richard Mack (the former sheriff who fought back against the feds) and he said that had he known how that case could be twisted into a precedent to help the undocumented, he wouldn't have started it to begin with. How short-sighted! When the gun lobby started Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities, they should have cited the Printz case AND the "immigration" cases that helped perpetuate those Sanctuary Cities. Sanctuary is sanctuary whether it is undocumented foreigners, firearms or anything else that deserves the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment.)

That may not fit into the conversation of watching the monkeys chase the ball on tv while yu fret over some guy's jock strap size, but I'm committed to finding a workable solution. You?

Your Reason article is over 4 years old, it makes assumptions just as you do. Why not link to the 9th Circuits ruling on it since SCOTUS has yet to do anything on it.

Your appeal to authority is very telling, you didn't work any case, and you were not part of any litigating team for Printz. Buy not linking to the 9th Circuits ruling on US V California 2018, you show your ability to do research as very limited.

It's good to hear you are sick of the status quo, just like many others in Sanctuary Cities that are standing up to their local Governments for their idiocy in "welcoming illegals" as many things for citizens get shut down to accommodate the illegals. Why is it that you think many truckers have headed to the border? How about other States sending the NG Troops to the border to help Texas? Why is it so hard to understand why Trump is so popular? It's all a BIG F'U to the elites. You seem to be more of an ideological clown when both parties are nothing more then the same coin. The good thing is, at least the R's are getting new blood in them and changing to what the people want verse the D's sticking to the tired same ol' same ol' crap.

 

[CuriousFiend]

Your Reason article is over 4 years old, it makes assumptions just as you do. Why not link to the 9th Circuits ruling on it since SCOTUS has yet to do anything on it.

Your appeal to authority is very telling, you didn't work any case, and you were not part of any litigating team for Printz. Buy not linking to the 9th Circuits ruling on US V California 2018, you show your ability to do research as very limited.

It's good to hear you are sick of the status quo, just like many others in Sanctuary Cities that are standing up to their local Governments for their idiocy in "welcoming illegals" as many things for citizens get shut down to accommodate the illegals. Why is it that you think many truckers have headed to the border? How about other States sending the NG Troops to the border to help Texas? Why is it so hard to understand why Trump is so popular? It's all a BIG F'U to the elites. You seem to be more of an ideological clown when both parties are nothing more then the same coin. The good thing is, at least the R's are getting new blood in them and changing to what the people want verse the D's sticking to the tired same ol' same ol' crap.

Are they? The "Rs"? And this "BIG FU"......"to the elites"......really?

Sounds like clown speak...

Spoiler

 

[TheResister]

Are they? The "Rs"? And this "BIG FU"......"to the elites"......really?

Sounds like clown speak...

Spoiler

View attachment 212141View attachment 212142View attachment 212140

I'm sure there are a lot of people that think the same about you. Among those that like to troll, gaslight and make every post a gay reference to the dicks they suck or whose excrement they enjoy, you may find the guy that gives a flying fuck about his country.

I've been watching the right take one defeat after another and even the "wins" are carefully crafted long term defeats. Whenever I try to discuss it, we don't need to be having penis measuring contests and we don't need people making shit up because they feel a certain way.

I'm sick of the status quo. Y'all been losing this "immigration" battle for the better part of a quarter of a century. No rich dude that has hired undocumented foreigners, sent jobs overseas and still has interests in China is going to save your miserable asses from the foreigners. There is an end game and there are long term strategies. Case in point:

I worked a case wherein county sheriffs filed lawsuits against conducting background checks. I did at least 160 hours of legal research and much of it used by the litigating team. At the end of the day, the case went to the United States Supreme Court wherein it was won (Printz v. US) Anyway, in the course of that case, the Supreme Court held that local and state agencies could not be compelled to enforce federal laws.

When the attorneys for the undocumented fight back to save Sanctuary Cities, they use the precedent set in Printz:

The Looming Supreme Court Showdown Over Sanctuary Cities

The Trump administration has claimed the unilateral authority to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, jurisdictions whose officials refuse to

reason.com

I had a personal discussion with Richard Mack (the former sheriff who fought back against the feds) and he said that had he known how that case could be twisted into a precedent to help the undocumented, he wouldn't have started it to begin with. How short-sighted! When the gun lobby started Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities, they should have cited the Printz case AND the "immigration" cases that helped perpetuate those Sanctuary Cities. Sanctuary is sanctuary whether it is undocumented foreigners, firearms or anything else that deserves the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment.)

That may not fit into the conversation of watching the monkeys chase the ball on tv while yu fret over some guy's jock strap size, but I'm committed to finding a workable solution. You?

I see that the RealJohnCooper found my reply to him funny.

After many years of developing strategies, starting out working for John Tanton back in about 1979, I've been exposed to most aspects of this subject. If he has a different approach; if he knows someone working harder on the issue, he should post it.

I've told you about the many hours of legal research that I did on a pro bono basis on that one issue; that is not inclusive of the hours spent on issues related to immigration related subject matter. If he has something, let's see it. Memes don't count.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Are they? The "Rs"? And this "BIG FU"......"to the elites"......really?

Sounds like clown speak...

Spoiler

View attachment 212141View attachment 212142View attachment 212140

You must be the head (Sovereign Citizen) clown, Kiwi, since you offer nothing more then clownish memes. imjusayn SHRUG

You really should stick to Aussie politics and issues.

 

[CuriousFiend]

I see that the RealJohnCooper found my reply to him funny.

After many years of developing strategies, starting out working for John Tanton back in about 1979, I've been exposed to most aspects of this subject. If he has a different approach; if he knows someone working harder on the issue, he should post it.

I've told you about the many hours of legal research that I did on a pro bono basis on that one issue; that is not inclusive of the hours spent on issues related to immigration related subject matter. If he has something, let's see it. Memes don't count.

Oh......."I've told you about the many hours of blah blah blah"...well yeah, I would agree in that ya certainly do-do that self-aggrandizement shite pretty much ceaselessly, and to be completely frank with ya mate, it is just completely downright fuckin' laughable.

Spoiler

"Self-Aggrandizement - A pattern of pompous behavior, boasting, narcissism or competitiveness designed to create an appearance of superiority. Self-aggrandizement is a colloquial term which broadly describes Narcissism, the most defining trait of people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder."

 

[CuriousFiend]

You must be the head (Sovereign Citizen) clown, Kiwi, since you offer nothing more then clownish memes. imjusayn SHRUG

You really should stick to Aussie politics and issues.

Gfc Liq, that is a weak attempt, butt at least ya tried aye. Good on ya!

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[TheRealJohnCooper]

Gfc Liq, that is a weak attempt, butt at least ya tried aye. Good on ya!

Spoiler

View attachment 212163

Spoiler

View attachment 212164

Spoiler

View attachment 212159

Spoiler

View attachment 212160

Spoiler

View attachment 212161

Spoiler

View attachment 212162

Spoiler

Your Trump derangement concerns me.

 

[CuriousFiend]

Your Trump derangement concerns me.

 

[TheResister]

Oh......."I've told you about the many hours of blah blah blah"...well yeah, I would agree in that ya certainly do-do that self-aggrandizement shite pretty much ceaselessly, and to be completely frank with ya mate, it is just completely downright fuckin' laughable.

Spoiler

"Self-Aggrandizement - A pattern of pompous behavior, boasting, narcissism or competitiveness designed to create an appearance of superiority. Self-aggrandizement is a colloquial term which broadly describes Narcissism, the most defining trait of people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder."
View attachment 212158

If anyone is laughable, it's you. You are in a foreign country attempting to tell Americans about their legal system and political woes. And let's be honest. You post here and you post on that board that you built. You back up trolls on that site that have the same issues with me that you have. I believe that is what you call sockpuppets.

So, if I sit back and don't tell the people what qualifications I have, I settle for being judged by a full time Internet troll. Self aggrandizement? If that were true I would run for public office. You, on the other hand, have NO qualifications and by attacking me it makes you feel good that your ONLY contribution to any discussion are memes and bullshit attacks.

 

[CuriousFiend]

If anyone is laughable, it's you. You are in a foreign country attempting to tell Americans about their legal system and political woes. And let's be honest. You post here and you post on that board that you built. You back up trolls on that site that have the same issues with me that you have. I believe that is what you call sockpuppets.

So, if I sit back and don't tell the people what qualifications I have, I settle for being judged by a full time Internet troll. Self aggrandizement? If that were true I would run for public office. You, on the other hand, have NO qualifications and by attacking me it makes you feel good that your ONLY contribution to any discussion are memes and bullshit attacks.

 

[TheResister]

View attachment 212207

Memes? That's all you got? Stay in mommy's basement. You couldn't deal with the real world.

 

[Rebarcock.]

Ill burn him something special he would pay the freight

Some weird fucks in here. Minus - @CuriousFiend i kind of like him a little.

You meant me or not him?

 

[Rebarcock.]

Your Reason article is over 4 years old, it makes assumptions just as you do. Why not link to the 9th Circuits ruling on it since SCOTUS has yet to do anything on it.

Your appeal to authority is very telling, you didn't work any case, and you were not part of any litigating team for Printz. Buy not linking to the 9th Circuits ruling on US V California 2018, you show your ability to do research as very limited.

It's good to hear you are sick of the status quo, just like many others in Sanctuary Cities that are standing up to their local Governments for their idiocy in "welcoming illegals" as many things for citizens get shut down to accommodate the illegals. Why is it that you think many truckers have headed to the border? How about other States sending the NG Troops to the border to help Texas? Why is it so hard to understand why Trump is so popular? It's all a BIG F'U to the elites. You seem to be more of an ideological clown when both parties are nothing more then the same coin. The good thing is, at least the R's are getting new blood in them and changing to what the people want verse the D's sticking to the tired same ol' same ol' crap.

I concur

 

[Rebarcock.]

Memes? That's all you got? Stay in mommy's basement. You couldn't deal with the real world.

I'll meet you just North of Odessa right there by Fredrickso'boro Street

 

[Rebarcock.]

Fredericksburg Street

 

[Rebarcock.]

If anyone is laughable, it's you. You are in a foreign country attempting to tell Americans about their legal system and political woes. And let's be honest. You post here and you post on that board that you built. You back up trolls on that site that have the same issues with me that you have. I believe that is what you call sockpuppets.

So, if I sit back and don't tell the people what qualifications I have, I settle for being judged by a full time Internet troll. Self aggrandizement? If that were true I would run for public office. You, on the other hand, have NO qualifications and by attacking me it makes you feel good that your ONLY contribution to any discussion are memes and bullshit attacks.

How do you doing resisting yeast infections and UTIs you no working cunt

 

[TheResister]

How do you doing resisting yeast infections and UTIs you no working cunt

Most non-English speaking Hispanics have a better handle on the English language compared to that gobbledygook that you post. If you intend to insult me, you're going to have to try a Hell of a lot harder.

All you do is joke about homosexuality. Are you that hung up on sucking dicks that you can't afford to be serious once in a while? Faggots seem to flock around you and your ability to engage in public discourse is limited to gay humor. You're another one of those that sound like a dumb ass trolls that should sue their brain for non-support.

Work? I do more work by accident than you do on purpose. That is why I'm more concerned about the way the world operates compared to how big another man's dick is. Go back to flogging your monkey and don't bother me with that childish bullshit of dick sucking. Grow the Hell up. Act your age. Pretend that your mother may someday stumble across the sick ass shit that you post.

 

[TheResister]

I'll meet you just North of Odessa right there by Fredrickso'boro Street

Very funny. Where is that? The place you pick up other faggots?

 

[Rebarcock.]

Most non-English speaking Hispanics have a better handle on the English language compared to that gobbledygook that you post. If you intend to insult me, you're going to have to try a Hell of a lot harder.

All you do is joke about homosexuality. Are you that hung up on sucking dicks that you can't afford to be serious once in a while? Faggots seem to flock around you and your ability to engage in public discourse is limited to gay humor. You're another one of those that sound like a dumb ass trolls that should sue their brain for non-support.

Work? I do more work by accident than you do on purpose. That is why I'm more concerned about the way the world operates compared to how big another man's dick is. Go back to flogging your monkey and don't bother me with that childish bullshit of dick sucking. Grow the Hell up. Act your age. Pretend that your mother may someday stumble across the sick ass shit that you post.

I am an English speaking person. I speak w disdain. Want to digitally talk? I'll spin you kid

 

[TheRealJohnCooper]

Ill burn him something special he would pay the freight

You meant me or not him?

Naw, you’re good.

 

[TheResister]

I am an English speaking person. I speak w disdain. Want to digitally talk? I'll spin you kid

You write like an illiterate trying to learn Ebonics and failing at it

 

[Rebarcock.]

You write like an illiterate trying to learn Ebonics and failing at it

I'll give you a shiner

 

[Rebarcock.]

You write like an illiterate trying to learn Ebonics and failing at it

Lol