Joe Ferguson forever

From the police chief's presser, he told a major lie. but at least he's not a member of congress... https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/13/politics/andrew-clyde-january-6-riot/

Not thru authoritarianism. I guess you one of Americans who support that?

That's very definitive from an important source. But the NG is only authorized, by law, to offer support. The definition of that is of maximum importance

I had my dad's cleaned by a local jeweler. Looks brand new. It's over 50 years old. I think he charged me $50. You might try it.

They were stopping it. I thought you were a states rights proponent.

No, I have 2. My father's gold, US made automatic masterpiece retirement watch and a self winding, swiss made Jazzmaster. Love them, especially the old one. Considering getting a ventura.

The Assholocaust https://mattlabash.substack.com/p/the-assholocaust

Yes “Doc”, you are a joke. Keep on laughing.

Here’s the original article I quoted as saying scholars were almost unanimous on Hamilton opposing the alien act. There’s always a few outliers and this dude from middle Tennessee state apparently is one. Interesting his piece contains no citation. The one I cited has many to support the claim https://www.jstor.org/stable/i261237

Yes. The scum were attacking federal property and threatening federal employees. As I recall, the mayor of DC requested them as well. The mayor of LA and the governor of California did not. I read it. The author doesn’t definitively know that. How could he? Might not be known until California does a complete investigation. Reports like the PBS one you incorrectly read suggest this might not be true. So what if they did fire chemical irritants. Simple question, simple answer.

So you still say Hamilton (which are great watches, esp the Men in Black one) supported the Alien act. No where near 2 hours maybe a half hour in between bridge rubbers. Time well spent to prove, once again, that you are an ignorant liar. Cool story indeed.

So if they used chemical irritants would not be support! Your answers are clear as mud but it seems that’s what you are saying. My link was from pbs and did not say they were just there for support. It said what I quoted.

I’d like you to understand and heed his words. Start here and let’s go from there: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/alexander-hamilton-the-alien-law-and-seditious-libels/5DB64688EC0D94E80633CA011EFE4C37

Not what he said. Use his words as I did and stop paraphrasing to support your argument. "it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself, goes far towards a denial of that privilege. " trump is. the only immigrants he's recently allowed in are white South Africans. Oh, and those that pay $5 mil.

So without any evidence, you assume that they didn't? You also assume that they weren't ordered to. you avoided the question. If they did, would that be outside the parameters of "support"?

Why aren't you following up on you Hamilton citation? Seems pretty clear what he meant and it wasn't what your post concluded.

where several of the newly-arrived National Guard troops stood shoulder to shoulder behind plastic riot shields. Video showed uniformed officers shooting off the smoke-filled canisters as they advanced into the street, causing protesters to retreat. It was not immediately clear what prompted the use of chemical irritants or which law enforcement agency fired them. What if it's found that national Guard troops fired the chemical irritants? Define your understanding of "support".

No future foreign ally should ever trust us again...

the rest of the story... https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0282 "In the infancy of the country, with a boundless waste to people, it was politic to give a facility to naturalization;3 but our situation is now changed. It appears from the last census, that we have increased about one third in ten years;4 after allowing for what we have gained from abroad, it will be quite apparent that the natural progress of our own population is sufficiently rapid for strength, security and settlement. By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself, goes far towards a denial of that privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances and perhaps demands revision.5 But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of at least a probability of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of at least five years ought to be required."

Would he have died Jan 6 without being attacked?

And this is how you "win". cuz your life aint gonna get better. the basement will remain your abode.

?. Send more troops. Use rubber bullets? real bullets. What do you mean by raise your fists?

Does this sound like "support" to you? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/national-guard-troops-arrive-in-los-angeles-to-quell-protests-on-orders-from-trump The confrontation broke out as hundreds of people protested in front of the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, where several of the newly-arrived National Guard troops stood shoulder to shoulder behind plastic riot shields. Video showed uniformed officers shooting off the smoke-filled canisters as they advanced into the street, causing protesters to retreat. It was not immediately clear what prompted the use of chemical irritants or which law enforcement agency fired them.

see you in court. it'll probably end up in the rigged SC. Still, there may be some moral conservatives there.

3. no, they'd prefer to live here. And if they're here illegally deport them. Just don't invoke the military. 4. No. straw man. I don't know a soul who is against presenting to customs on entry. That's what passports are for. 5. No. The feds are turned into villains.