grinreaper
-
Posts
1,914 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by grinreaper
-
-
For those of you hating on the wall because all the interdictions are happening at ports of entry, ponder this:
Walls will force a lot, most, nearly all people, drugs and sex slaves to try to gain entrance to our country through our ports of entry where we have a much higher chance of discovering them.
Can anyone argue (successfully) against this?
-
1
-
-
I came across this group of women who are presently protecting guys like you and me and The_Dude. I feel very safe in their arms.
https://thechive.com/2019/02/16/beautiful-badasses-in-and-out-of-uniform-7/
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, KRC said:
Did it have a lot of emojis?
No, but the judge referred to himself 1067 times.
-
10 minutes ago, row_33 said:
Amusing us, like a clown
You Canadians are not our hat anymore but our peanut gallery, where the cheap seats and people who shoot off their mouths reside.
-
48 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
He’s one of the most famous gay black men in America? I need to get out more often.
You're going to all the wrong bars.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, /dev/null said:
abby huntsman
the other 3 are heffers
You missed the one that was cut out of the picture on the right (our). The daughter of the person who shall not be named. A slender guy and her would make a threesome.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, KD in CA said:
Actually, I'll vote for him in '20 even though I did not in '16 as well. Nothing to do with whiny Evangelicals (they can abort all the future Democrats and welfare recipients they want IMO), but given the choice between a distasteful guy with generally sound and reasonable policy (98% of the crying from the left is completely manufactured bs), or the far-left whack-job show we will be offered as an alternative, I'd say it's a pretty easy choice.
There's no doubt about it, Trump's policies are the right ones. His bluster means nothing as it pertains to our individual lives, other than the comedy it brings.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Oh Jesus. Coffee first post second. ?
Just bustin' your balls.
-
12 minutes ago, Koko78 said:
I'm thinking AOC is going to go more along the lines of it being too expensive and we just don't have the money for it. She's that tone deaf and stupid.
Let's use the money NYS & NYC were going to give to Amazon.
Maybe we can get Amazon to pull out of a deal in say, Chicago and use that giveaway too.
Economics is easy.
-
33 minutes ago, Koko78 said:
Sure, you can tell with complete accuracy if someone is at least 1/1024th slave.
Yes, but can you be a "defendant" of slaves?
-
14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:
I support the wall and Trumps immigration policies. But on the other hand I’m also wondering what’s gonna happen to my dry wall crews.
How are they on steel walls?
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, BigMcD said:
You know they are monitoring you, right?
The game wardens up in Canada have had you on their watch list for some time. So far they've only seen evidence of petty offenses.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Foxx said:
did he issue a NE to do so?
Where was the appropriation?
-
Many people here are claiming that the majority of drugs and trafficked humans are found at the ports of entry rather than unprotected border areas. Thank you for making the case for border fences. Border fences are designed to force the people involved in drug/human smuggling to ply their trade at ports of entry. Just because more contraband is found at ports of entry does not mean that less contraband is coming across the border in unprotected areas. It means that it is easier to find drugs at ports of entry than in unprotected areas. So, who can argue the importance of forcing evil doers to come through out ports of entry?
-
27 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:
Do you only think with us verse them mind? I didn’t mention Obama. I didn’t mention if I thought it was constitutional (I have no idea and don’t care that much). I just asked if you could see the argument against it. You responding by talking about Obama says it all.
Did you object at the time?
-
2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:
Conservatives on the board, don’t you at least see the argument against this? it’s not that national emergencies are unconstitutional, but using a national emergency as a mask to allot funds, which is in congrss’s realm, might be.
im not predicting how it’s going to turn out, but it seems like a fair argument at least (I don’t even know the likelihood of this working)
also, this is the exact type of thing I would imagine would make their heads explode if a Democrat president did it. It goes to show both sides are okay with whatever depending on who does it.
So, Obama's reallocation of 1.5 billion dollars so he could send cash to Iran was ok? Did you object at the time?
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:
Anyone ask what NPC @WhitewalkerInPhilly thinks of this?
Who cares?
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Citizens are waking up.
Voter support for “Medicare for All” has collapsed by 50 percent over the last month, according to polling from Politico/Morning Consult.
Until this month, the Democrats’ single-payer “Medicare for All” scheme enjoyed majority support in this same poll going back months. But now that the ugly details of the program are actually being debated and publicized, net approval for the scheme has been cut in half.
“From January to February, net support for single-payer health system fell over 50% to 12 points,” the pollster reports.
Polling questions are important. People may think Medicare for all is a good idea until they're asked what they think of it when all private insurance is eliminated.
-
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Who's shocked?
For what it's worth:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-didn-160300976.html
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found herself at the center of another right-wing Twitter conspiracy Friday morning, after a Republican strategist falsely claimed that she had employed her longtime partner Riley Roberts as a paid congressional staffer. The New York congresswoman and her team corrected the record, saying this is not true.
Luke Thompson, vice president of the Republican analytics firm Applecart, first made the claims. Taking a screenshot from an unknown source, he tweeted: "While you were having a nice Valentine's Day, @AOC decided to put her boyfriend on staff - drawing a salary on the taxpayer's dime. Nice to see her adapting to the swamp so quickly." (The tweet has since been deleted because the screenshot, which included Roberts' email and phone number, was found in violation of Twitter's terms of service.)
Ocasio-Cortez was quick to debunk the claim, clarifying that Roberts obtained an official House email address in order to get access to her calendar. "Actually this cal designation is a permission so he can have access to my Google Cal. Congressional spouses get Gcal access all the time. Next time check your facts before you tweet nonsense," she tweeted.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, The_Dude said:
I got these cat boxes where they’re enclosed and you just turn me upside down and it all falls into a container. No scooping. Fantastic.
I presume I'd do this to shake the s h i t out of you?
47 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:Trump is hurting this country. His lying and ignorance of the issues, which so many have overlooked or claimed is harmless, is costing us and will soon be costing us all even more. If a wall fixed all the problems as he claims, everyone would be for it but nearly everyone knows that it won't really do what he claims. Humans are amazingly ingenious and will just attack the next weakest point. Certainly any major drug dealer or any terrorist with a brain will not be stopped. Halting demand from the US, just like with the drug problem, would be far more effective in deterring illegal immigration.
Got any other uses for $ billions? Supporters often imply that this is not a great deal of money and we should basically humor him. If we do that, then what is the next national emergency he concocts and from where does he re-appropriate that money? Soon we will be hearing how we can't afford Social Security but we can afford foolish spending to humor the fool, right?
The only thing that can stop him are his supporters, unfortunately, and they are in so deep they no longer seem to be able to tell right from wrong.
It's amazing how you can post so much without a single fact. All feelings.
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
Yes, and no on the next President declaring a willy-nilly national emergency... there already are a ton of national emergencies. Many presidents have previously declared them. Currently, there appear to be 28 (I know, I know, CNN... I probably should have used wiki as here cnn says 32 ). Declaring a national emergency on border security is within the purview of the executive branch. There are rules and guidelines within which any president can declare one, and the current president must sign to keep current ones going. A "gun" national emergency would end up in court faster than you can say "gun". Not saying it would not be tried, just saying it would end up in court.Declaring a national emergency is still just a political one when everything is added up.
-
27 minutes ago, BigMcD said:
Lame! Can’t wait for “I know you are, but what am I?”
You changed your name, but you still suck at this.
You're not very observant, are you?
-
1 hour ago, /dev/null said:
do all canadians refer to themselves in 3rd person, or just you?
Even they don't want to admit they are themselves.
-
20 minutes ago, The_Dude said:
bull####.
Your argument is to defund the military because something. I say you owe the military.
Confuse the issue much?
CNN losing credibility as each day passes... Its pure propaganda at this point
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Finally, Breaking News.