Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 185

Thread: DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The principle is entirely different, immigration/invasion is not a GOD given Constitutionally protected Right.
    As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.
    Would you say the mass movement of individuals from south of the border to California has resulted in more liberty or less? That's always my hangup. The theory that people can walk around over borders is all well and good until they start changing our government for the worse and implementing more tyranny.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    A reasonable threat would be to withdraw that money, not to arrest local politicians for voting to tell their civil servants to refuse to enforce federal laws they have no obligation to enforce.
    That is one thing they are doing as I understand it. However, I think examples need to be set to send a clear message. You harbor ILLEGALS, by definition, you are breaking the law.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Would you say the mass movement of individuals from south of the border to California has resulted in more liberty or less?
    Probably less.

    But that doesn't tell me anything useful about who has violated anyone else's rights and what just actions may be taken against them. In order to take action against someone for violating someone else's rights, I have to treat each person as an individual and follow due process in finding them guilty of whatever crime we're talking about, and then, on the basis of their guilt of that crime, take whatever freedom-limiting actions against them are appropriate to the circumstance.

    I can't punish someone because they belong to a group or come from some geographical place, just because some other people from that group or place committed some crimes.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Probably less.
    OK.
    Last edited by William Tell; 01-18-2018 at 08:01 AM. Reason: misread.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    That is one thing they are doing as I understand it. However, I think examples need to be set to send a clear message. You harbor ILLEGALS, by definition, you are breaking the law.
    And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS [emphasis yours]?

    Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about?

    I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-18-2018 at 08:01 AM.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    But that doesn't tell me anything useful about who has violated anyone else's rights and what just actions may be taken against them. In order to take action against someone for violating someone else's rights, I have to treat each person as an individual and follow due process in finding them guilty of whatever crime we're talking about, and then, on the basis of their guilt of that crime, take whatever freedom-limiting actions against them are appropriate to the circumstance.

    I can't punish someone because they belong to a group or come from some geographical place, just because some other people from that group or place committed some crimes.
    So, when a battalion of foreign troops come into your neighborhood you will view them all as peaceful individuals except for the ones you actually see cause trouble. How nice. Here's the deal, I'd have a lot more respect for the open borders position if you all didn't seem so intent on saying that every single thing about having millions of foreigners coming here is great. I'm just sick of individuals contributing to the growth of the police state here, it's not about punishing anyone. It's that no one has offered a better solution than controlling immigration.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    OK.
    You disagree?

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    You disagree?
    No, I misread your response because I thought I had asked if it resulted in more tyranny. Sorry about that. It is my belief that mass migration has resulted in more tyranny and less liberty.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    So, when a battalion of foreign troops come into your neighborhood you will view them all as peaceful individuals except for the ones you actually see cause trouble.
    If they're not causing trouble, then why call them a "battalion of foreign troops"?

    Are you talking about actually peaceful people who violate no one's rights, who are welcomed on every property they set foot by the owners of that property, who pay their way wherever they go and work for their pay by voluntary mutual agreement with their employers, and so on?

    If so, then you are stretching the sense of "battalion of foreign troops' beyond recognition.

    Obviously, I would have no right to violate the rights of those people who are doing nothing other than harmlessly exercising their own rights, as well as the rights of the other Americans who want them on their properties which are rightfully theirs and not mine and with whom they're doing business.

    On the other hand, if you're talking about people concerning whom we have some evidence that they either have committed some crime, are in the process of committing some crime, or have conspired to commit some crime, then for any of these reasons we may justly take action as appropriate for whatever that circumstance is. And if we suspect that any of those are the case, and we lack the evidence, then the first step is to investigate the matter until we have the evidence we need.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-18-2018 at 08:08 AM.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    If they're not causing trouble, then why call them a "battalion of foreign troops"?
    I didn't. I am using the analogy of an actual battalion of foreign troops to make the point that sometimes one must consider the effects of a group and not just individuals.
    Are you talking about actually peaceful people who violate no one's rights, who are welcomed on every property they set foot by the owners of that property, who pay their way wherever they go and work for their pay by voluntary mutual agreement with their employers, and so on?

    If so, then you are stretching the sense of "battalion of foreign troops' beyond recognition.
    Handouts, supporting police state politicians are part of the problem. It's not about the construction crews or their nice families. I have no problem shaking the hand of an individual from any nation or having a conversation. I don't view illegal or mass immigration as the biggest problem in the world but it's affects are going to completely gut what is left of our Republic within a lifetime at this rate. I have a problem with that.

    Obviously, I would have no right to violate the rights of those people who are doing nothing other than harmlessly exercising their own rights, as well as the rights of the other Americans who want them here and with whom they're doing business.
    Well, they tend towards contributing to the violation of our rights.

    On the other hand, if you're talking about people concerning whom we have some evidence that they either have committed some crime, are in the process of committing some crime, or have conspired to commit some crime, then for any of these reasons we may justly take action as appropriate for whatever that circumstance is.
    Only thing that bothers me is their population seems intent on reversing all the good trends the liberty movement has started. To my knowledge virtually every one, at least 95% of the representatives from my state in districts with majority immigrant populations opposes gun rights, vaccine choice, and all other meaningful issues that we have made progress on except perhaps certain aspects of criminal justice reform. The last item won't mean much when they pass laws to make us all criminals though.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS [emphasis yours]?

    Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about?

    I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.
    As long as the American people have to pay for these illegals it becomes a problem in many ways. Giving sanctuary to people who are here illegally without consent of the people footing the bill, is breaking the law.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    ..
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 01-18-2018 at 08:39 AM. Reason: duplicate post

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I didn't. I am using the analogy of an actual battalion of foreign troops to make the point that sometimes one must consider the effects of a group and not just individuals.
    Then my question still applies. What is it that makes them "an actual battalion of troops"?

    Would it not be the case that an actual battalion of troops was involved in a conspiracy to commit crimes, even if they hadn't started committing them yet? If so, then that is the basis on which their actions can be addressed.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS [emphasis yours]?

    Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about?

    I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.
    I saw Judge Napolitano discussing this yesterday. He said we’re not going to see this happening, and made a statement somewhat similar to yours. He focused on the word “harbor” and (as I remember it) said something like, to “harbor” them would mean they’re keeping these aliens in their homes or housing them somewhere. He was viewing the word “harbor” as a noun. But I disagree.

    “Harbor” is also a verb meaning “to shelter", that is, “prevent (someone) from having to do or face something difficult or unpleasant.”

    harbor

    verb [with object]

    1 keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly: she started to harbor doubts about the wisdom of their journey.

    2 give a home or shelter to: woodlands that once harbored a colony of red deer.

    shelter or hide (a criminal or wanted person): he was suspected of harboring an escaped prisoner.

    • carry the germs of (a disease).

    3 [no object] archaic (of a ship or its crew) moor in a harbor: he might have harbored in San Francisco.
    shelter

    verb [with object]

    protect or shield from something harmful, especially bad weather: the hut sheltered him from the cold wind.

    • [no object] find refuge or take cover from bad weather or danger: people were sheltering under store canopies and trees.
    prevent (someone) from having to do or face something difficult or unpleasant.
    • protect (income) from taxation: only your rental income can be sheltered.
    State and local officials are certainly preventing illegal aliens from having to be deported. Worse, those who commit crimes are often ignored because officials don’t want to be forced to “know” that these persons are here illegally. They purposely choose to do this, in order to maintain an element of plausible deniability.

    Furthermore, even using the word “harbor” as a noun:
    Rather than keeping these persons in their own homes (where they could take care of these guests as lavishly as they choose!), these officials have simply dictated that their entire city/state is a "harbor", permitting illegal aliens to hide within them - at the expense of everyone else in that city or town.

    Unlike a pot smoker, the costs of maintaining each illegal alien, affects every citizen in that city/state by reducing the amount of tax money available to maintain that city or state for the legal citizens - none of whom has consented to supporting illegal aliens. Then, there is the overcrowding, the increased impact on local infrastructure, and the lax treatment - often totally ignoring - of those who commit serious crimes. I see this as a violation of the rights of the citizens.

    You can read 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
    Last edited by Valli6; 01-18-2018 at 11:20 AM.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Valli6 View Post
    I saw Judge Napolitano discussing this yesterday. He said we’re not going to see this happening, and made a statement somewhat similar to yours. He focused on the word “harbor” and (as I remember it) said something like, to “harbor” them would mean they’re keeping these aliens in their homes or housing them somewhere. He was viewing the word “harbor” as a noun. But I disagree.

    “Harbor” is also a verb meaning “to shelter", that is, “prevent (someone) from having to do or face something difficult or unpleasant.”



    State and local officials are certainly preventing illegal aliens from having to be deported. Worse, those who commit crimes are often ignored because officials don’t want to be forced to “know” that these persons are here illegally. They purposely choose to do this, in order to maintain an element of plausible deniability.

    Furthermore, even using the word “harbor” as a noun:
    Rather than keeping these persons in their own homes (where they could take care of these guests as lavishly as they choose!), these officials have simply dictated that their entire city/state is a "harbor", permitting illegal aliens to hide within them - at the expense of everyone else in that city or town.

    Unlike a pot smoker, the costs of maintaining each illegal alien, affects every citizen in that city/state by reducing the amount of tax money available to maintain that city or state for the legal citizens - none of whom has consented to supporting illegal aliens. Then, there is the overcrowding, the increased impact on local infrastructure, and the lax treatment - often totally ignoring - of those who commit serious crimes. I see this as a violation of the rights of the citizens.

    You can read 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
    Excellent explanation.

    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Valli6 again."
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Valli6 View Post
    State and local officials are certainly preventing illegal aliens from having to be deported.
    How?

    And if they are, then prosecute them for whatever it is they're doing to prevent them from being deported. Not for merely refusing to help the feds, and demanding the same from their employees.

    If they're actively impeding the feds, that's a different story.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Of course, but some would say the same about cannabis although I believe it is a God given thing. But Nullification is. the principle of nullification is a question of whether the feds can tell the states what to do, the feds don't have a blank check to do whatever they want, see 9th and 10th amendments. Constitutionalists debate how immigration should work according to original intent. I already said I am not for open borders, but that doesn't mean I would support arresting Pierz if he was a sheriff who refused to enforce immigration laws.


    I guess I would be. But that's not what I think. The point is if we bounce back and forth between decrying federal overreach as tyranny to demanding it to arrest our political opponents we lose the moral high ground and are creating another point of view opposed to the will of the founders.
    “…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” Thomas Jefferson

    Nullification was never intended to allow state and local governments to ignore valid federal laws.Would you support arresting state or local officials who invited a foreign government to build a military base on our soil?There is not a fundamental difference between that and the illegal alien invasion.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    If we adopt a definition of crime as any violation of any arbitrary law that politicians make up, grounded in no higher authority than their own, which stands on a might makes right mentality, then there's no limit to what could be a crime.

    But if we step back and consider justice itself, as a universal law that is above those politicians (and above the Constitution), that determines the rightness or wrongness of what they do as well as us, then a crime is something a person does that harms the person or property of another. In this true sense, illegal immigration is not a crime.

    But even within the make believe law that politicians invented, a lot of people make false assumptions about illegal immigration. It's true that US law does declare illegal border crossing to be a misdemeanor. It's been awhile since I went through what the law actually says, but I believe that overstaying a Visa is probably in the same category. So that's considered a minor criminal matter. And punishments like jail time and deportation are legislated for that (unjustly so, of course, but I'm only talking about what US law is). Those are discreet actions that are performed at a point in time, and once committed, the misdemeanor in its entirety has been committed. But what I often hear people mistakenly say is something like, "They're illegal immigrants! They're committing a crime just by being here!" as if their mere presence in the USA is an ongoing commission of a crime. This view is not in accordance with US Law. They may have a status as unlawful aliens, but this does not imply that their mere presence is an ongoing violation of any law. The word "unlawful" is different than "illegal." "Illegal" would imply that their presence was a positive violation of a law. But "unlawful" only means that their presence lacks any positive legal endorsement. The only crime (as defined by US law) they're guilty of is that crime that they had already committed in the past whenever they illegally crossed a border or overstayed a Visa. Now that they are in the USA, the law does not say they have to leave lest they be continuously violating a law. As a matter of fact, there are even circumstances where US Law requires them not to leave (in which cases it would be absurd to pretend that they were continuously committing crime just by being here).

    If you think about it this makes sense. Can you imagine telling someone who ran a red light, "You're committing a crime right now just by being on this side of the red light, and this will be an ongoing crime you commit until you finally go back to the side you were on before you ran it."?
    It is not like running a red light, it is more like breaking and entering, every moment they stay here is part of the original ongoing crime.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Judge Napolitano?
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Definitely for AG or Supreme Court.
    Judge Swamp is part of the Russiagate mob, so NO.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.
    It does violate the right of American citizens to control their territory.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Judge Swamp is part of the Russiagate mob, so NO.
    Huh?
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Excellent explanation.

    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Valli6 again."
    Covered.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Huh?
    He keeps saying that Trump did or might have done something wrong about Russiagate or firing Comey etc. when it is obviously all garbage.

    I therefore have decided he is controlled opposition.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He keeps saying that Trump did or might have done something wrong about Russiagate or firing Comey etc when it is obviously all garbage.

    I therefore have decided he is controlled opposition.
    I am not there yet. I think the Judge is a good guy and I am not quite sure he is controlled opposition since he was thrown off FOX for speaking the truth.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He keeps saying that Trump did or might have done something wrong about Russiagate or firing Comey etc. when it is obviously all garbage.

    I therefore have decided he is controlled opposition.
    Anyone who says something negative about Trump is controlled opposition, Ron Paul is controlled opposition then?

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Anyone who says something negative about Trump is controlled opposition, Ron Paul is controlled opposition then?
    Anyone who jumps on the false Russiagate band wagon is bad.

    Ron hasn't jumped on that bandwagon.

    You have..............
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Anyone who jumps on the false Russiagate band wagon is bad.

    Ron hasn't jumped on that bandwagon.

    You have..............
    You guys called me crazy when I said the democrats worked with the Russians 6 months before anyone was talking about it.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Covered.
    Thank you.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    ..
    I was hoping you would reveal to us what the benefits of mass, low skilled immigration are for the population at large. Would it be too much to ask you to stop trolling for a second and provide us with the pertinent info? i am sure everybody is excited to learn something new. You can ask your superiors if you don't have it handy.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. DHS Is Planning To Arrest Sanctuary City Leaders
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-30-2018, 08:17 PM
  2. Amash Votes Against Sanctuary City Law
    By AuH20 in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 06:01 PM
  3. Anon Hacks UK in Response to David Miranda Arrest
    By presence in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2013, 07:01 AM
  4. Robert Gibbs can't answer 'sanctuary city' question
    By Deborah K in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 11:13 AM
  5. Will this filth grow under Paul if elected?
    By Steve Hunt in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 10-06-2007, 11:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •