JDHillFan Posted Tuesday at 08:57 PM Posted Tuesday at 08:57 PM 5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: It's been predicted my whole life. Just remember. The 2026 midterms will be the most important vote of our lives. If Trump doesn’t cancel them! 🤦🏻🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♀️ 1 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 09:02 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 09:02 PM 21 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said: Attack and protect are much different. If the Guard/Marines wanted to or were ordered to attack, this would be over. False narratives are what has gotten the Democrats where they are now. The party that was once the party of the people is a shell of itself. You keep going down your silly rabbit hole. Ole Joe has always been rational in PPP land 😂 Does protect include use on chemical irritants. Where's the threshold for "support"?
sherpa Posted Tuesday at 09:06 PM Posted Tuesday at 09:06 PM 24 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said: Attack and protect are much different. If the Guard/Marines wanted to or were ordered to attack, this would be over. That would also be an illegal order, and they would be bound not to abide by it. Support of others or respond to threats against them is authorized. "Attack" is not. 1
Doc Brown Posted Tuesday at 09:12 PM Posted Tuesday at 09:12 PM 6 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: If Trump doesn’t cancel them! 🤦🏻🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♀️ Dude couldn't even get a wall built and people are worried about that?
yall Posted Tuesday at 09:13 PM Posted Tuesday at 09:13 PM (edited) 7 minutes ago, sherpa said: That would also be an illegal order, and they would be bound not to abide by it. Support of others or respond to threats against them is authorized. "Attack" is not. According to Newsome they aren't being fed or provided water. They might be in the early stages of delirium from dehydration and malnutrition. How will they be able to distinguish whether or an order is lawful or not? Edited Tuesday at 09:14 PM by yall
All_Pro_Bills Posted Tuesday at 09:14 PM Posted Tuesday at 09:14 PM 1 minute ago, sherpa said: That would also be an illegal order, and they would be bound not to abide by it. Support of others or respond to threats against them is authorized. "Attack" is not. The unfortunate thing is the guard would be completely unnecessary if Newsom and Bass would allow local and state law enforcement to cooperate with immigration. Repeal sanctuary laws. But they won't. Instead they support rioters. Trump has learned the lesson from the 2020 BLM riots. He's not going to dick around with these twerps this time. If they want to play hardball, hardball it is.
The Frankish Reich Posted Tuesday at 09:19 PM Posted Tuesday at 09:19 PM 2 hours ago, SCBills said: Obama was nicknamed the Deporter in Chief, so it would awesome if blue states and sanctuary cities would stop the bs because the President is a Republican and allow ICE to do their job. I agree with this. I'm assuming you mean a return to Obama's first term immigration enforcement policies. Those depended on cooperation by state and local law enforcement agencies. Illegal aliens stopped, found to be driving without a license, then turned over to ICE for removal. No need to raid private businesses or homes; let them come to us (and they will). That "Deporter in Chief" thing really got under his skin, and resulted in a lot of the bad decisions that got us to where we are today.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 09:26 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 09:26 PM (edited) 20 minutes ago, sherpa said: That would also be an illegal order, and they would be bound not to abide by it. Support of others or respond to threats against them is authorized. "Attack" is not. Define support. where's the line Edited Tuesday at 09:27 PM by Joe Ferguson forever
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted Tuesday at 09:36 PM Posted Tuesday at 09:36 PM 9 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Define support. where's the line If the marines were actually "attacking" you would know. 1 1 1
billsfan_34 Posted Tuesday at 10:18 PM Posted Tuesday at 10:18 PM 1 hour ago, sherpa said: That would also be an illegal order, and they would be bound not to abide by it. Support of others or respond to threats against them is authorized. "Attack" is not. Not necessarily but regardless its all ridiculous. Protesting peacefully is absolutely fine but attacking law enforcement/troops is disgraceful 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Does protect include use on chemical irritants. Where's the threshold for "support"? Yep if it prevents acts of crime- my guess you never served. We must be watching 2 separate things. In your world it’s peaceful protesters, antifa is a nice bunch, and illegal immigrants haven’t broken the law. You live in your own little world. Your screenname is fitting…I watched ole Joe F hang is head many a time because he was awful less a few years.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 10:41 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 10:41 PM (edited) 26 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said: Not necessarily but regardless its all ridiculous. Protesting peacefully is absolutely fine but attacking law enforcement/troops is disgraceful Yep if it prevents acts of crime- my guess you never served. We must be watching 2 separate things. In your world it’s peaceful protesters, antifa is a nice bunch, and illegal immigrants haven’t broken the law. You live in your own little world. Your screenname is fitting…I watched ole Joe F hang is head many a time because he was awful less a few years. never served. so what's the line where it's no longer support. shooting rubber bullets. shooting live ammo? Fergy played while we had season tix. he was no archie manning but he played for miserable teams too. Several years he was one of their best players. 29 minutes ago, SCBills said: https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2025/06/10/50147/3 Do you approve or disapprove of deploying National Guard soldiers to the Los Angeles area to respond to protests over the federal government's immigration enforcement? All adults Region Gender Politics Age Race Approve 38% Disapprove 45% Not sure 17% Edited Tuesday at 10:45 PM by Joe Ferguson forever 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 10:59 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 10:59 PM Looks like the national guard skipped several steps if they used any force at all. https://publicintelligence.net/usarmy-civil-disturbances/
JDHillFan Posted Tuesday at 11:01 PM Posted Tuesday at 11:01 PM 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Looks like the national guard skipped several steps if they used any force at all. https://publicintelligence.net/usarmy-civil-disturbances/ The essence of this post is “they might have done something bad if they did something”. Good heavens.
Orlando Buffalo Posted Tuesday at 11:04 PM Posted Tuesday at 11:04 PM 22 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: never served. so what's the line where it's no longer support. shooting rubber bullets. shooting live ammo? Fergy played while we had season tix. he was no archie manning but he played for miserable teams too. Several years he was one of their best players. https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2025/06/10/50147/3 Do you approve or disapprove of deploying National Guard soldiers to the Los Angeles area to respond to protests over the federal government's immigration enforcement? All adults Region Gender Politics Age Race Approve 38% Disapprove 45% Not sure 17% Not sure how yougov does there polling but right now they have Newsome as more popular that Trump by a large margin and even CNN knows that is not true.
billsfan_34 Posted Tuesday at 11:16 PM Posted Tuesday at 11:16 PM 31 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: never served. so what's the line where it's no longer support. shooting rubber bullets. shooting live ammo? Fergy played while we had season tix. he was no archie manning but he played for miserable teams too. Several years he was one of their best players. https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2025/06/10/50147/3 Do you approve or disapprove of deploying National Guard soldiers to the Los Angeles area to respond to protests over the federal government's immigration enforcement? All adults Region Gender Politics Age Race Approve 38% Disapprove 45% Not sure 17% All enemies foreign or domestic. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If law enforcement or military is assaulted in an official capacity one can get dead, it’s that simple. It is obvious you never served. The world is a rough place. Had seasons also during his time…lousy teams sure but he sucked 80 percent of the time. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Tuesday at 11:25 PM Posted Tuesday at 11:25 PM 3 hours ago, Mikie2times said: I was very harsh in that response and I'm sorry about that. I have a lot of good friends who are religious, most my family is, most people I know are. I don't care that they pick that path and never disparage it as it's very personal to them. To answer your question of course it is needed but morality comes from a lot of places. If you require religion to provide it or think that is the only path to it I think that is a mistake (not saying you feel this way). I have met completely immoral people who believe in god or say they do (without showing any indication that is the case). Who use religion to manipulate or pursue self fulfilling agendas (sound like anybody we know?). I see very limited connectivity between somebody who is moral and somebody who says they're religious. Some are, some aren't. I generally accept all of them. Even the immoral ones as who am I to judge how they arrive at such a place. You can only hope they improve as people. All of this aligns more with the left even if I don't fully identify with them. I never saw the left as trying to limit who people were or minimize others. They try and impose the acceptance of people on the fringe of society and the right doesn't want that. Religion often tells them not to or at least the interpretation they have of it does. Which I often think is just a justifiable way to be a bigoted. You never saw the left minimize or target others? Never heard anything about cult members, Putin supporters, about authoritarianism, about failure to tolerate, about white privileged, and most recently, about educated voters v uneducated? The general rule of thumb for a leftists is that whatever income level a leftist is taxed at, the people north paying their fair share starts roughly at the next higher income bracket. Deplorables. Irredeemables. Garbage. You never heard of cancel culture? Fascinating.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Tuesday at 11:32 PM Author Posted Tuesday at 11:32 PM (edited) 23 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said: The world is a rough place. This isn't the world. It's domestic. The rules are different per my link above very conservative on use of force especially for nonviolent protesters. 14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The general rule of thumb for a leftists is that whatever income level a leftist is taxed at, the people north paying their fair share starts roughly at the next higher income bracket. No. A 1 million dollar income threshold was proposed for higher taxes and rejected by the R's. I'll look it up but that income level must be the 2% and possibly the 1%. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ How many people made $1,000,000 or more in 2024? Somewhere around 462,544 people made a seven figure income in 2024. That's less than .3% of the workforce. $430000 is the 99th percentile The proposal was actually only for those making 2.5 mil or more. And they still axed it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-considers-tax-hike-americans-making-2-5-million-more-per-year Edited Tuesday at 11:40 PM by Joe Ferguson forever
billsfan_34 Posted Tuesday at 11:49 PM Posted Tuesday at 11:49 PM 15 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: This isn't the world. It's domestic. The rules are different per my link above very conservative on use of force especially for nonviolent protesters. No. A 1 million dollar income threshold was proposed for higher taxes and rejected by the R's. I'll look it up but that income level must be the 2% and possibly the 1%. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ How many people made $1,000,000 or more in 2024? Somewhere around 462,544 people made a seven figure income in 2024. That's less than .3% of the workforce. $430000 is the 99th percentile The proposal was actually only for those making 2.5 mil or more. And they still axed it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-considers-tax-hike-americans-making-2-5-million-more-per-year Non violent? Get a grip. Its a riot. Oh, and we are part of the world after sleepy joe let in 10 million ILLEGALS. Your full blown tard 😂 1
4th&long Posted yesterday at 12:29 AM Posted yesterday at 12:29 AM Hitler Used a Bogus Crisis of ‘Public Order’ to Make Himself Dictator https://flip.it/BFFATO 1
Recommended Posts