View Full Version : The Left are lighting Reichstag Fires again
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 08:18
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suspicious-package-found-at-clintons-home-police-say
Apparently "suspicious packages" sent to Clinton, Obama and Soros.
Yeah, right ... evil right wing Trumpers.
I guarantee you if we ever learn the truth about these it'll be leftists that sent them trying to deflect leftist violence and gain sympathy for the Democrats right before the mid-terms. Unless they're able to serve up some poor Republican patsy.
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 08:26
Oop ... another one "found" at CNN Headquarters
https://www.yahoo.com/news/secret-intercepts-bomb-devices-mailed-135612676.html
Communists never have any new ideas, they just repeat the old failed ones and call them progressive.
BPTactical
10-24-2018, 09:14
Communists never have any new ideas, they just repeat the old failed ones and call them progressive.
in?san?i?ty
/inˈsanədē/Submit
noun
noun: insanity
the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
Example- repeating ones actions expecting different results.
"he suffered from bouts of insanity"
synonyms: mental illness, madness, dementia; More
extreme foolishness or irrationality.
plural noun: insanities
"it might be pure insanity to take this loan"
synonyms: folly, foolishness, madness, idiocy, stupidity, lunacy, silliness; informalcraziness
"it would be insanity to take this loan"
Origin
late 16th century: from Latin insanitas, from insanus (see insane).
beast556
10-24-2018, 09:15
Communists never have any new ideas, they just repeat the old failed ones and call them progressive.
+1 same bullshit tactics. Sad how the sheep eat this crap up.
This was my first thought at reading the news blurbs today. Sorta suspicious when the bomb dropped off to Soros was hand delivered to his mailbox, considering there’s probably video surveillance for blocks around any house Soros owns.
But why weren't Beta, Gollum, or Occasional-Cortex targeted? Just the has-beens?
Display of right wing violence without anyone meaningful being harmed.
Good play.
The pedestrian Leftist is too stupid to get away with this. The more professional globalists, I don't know.
This was my first thought at reading the news blurbs today. Sorta suspicious when the bomb dropped off to Soros was hand delivered to his mailbox, considering there’s probably video surveillance for blocks around any house Soros owns.
Soros probably had his secretary do it.
Circuits
10-24-2018, 10:22
I like to think that if it were actually right-wing Trumpists deploying those "bombs" they'd have actually worked.
Not sure if it's actually leftists with sincere but defective false-flag operations, or merely leftist virtue-signalling like the fake right-wing graffiti or leftists reporting imagined attacks or slights.
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 11:03
Another one https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/24/kamala-harris-san-diego-office-building-evacuated-over-suspicious-package/
The fact that none of these has detonated says to me its clearly a false flag.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1055141156277964803
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqSdOfSW4AAhs9-.jpg:small
ETA: Does not look professional at all, not that I'm an expert. And unless that package was assembled in a clean room it will have plenty of evidence.
Twitter is saying all the packages are linked by device config and return address (Debbie Wasserman-Shultz). So it's likely one person or a small group that coordinated this.
No cancellation stamps on the postage?
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 12:20
Does not look professional at all...
Ahmed Mohamed? [ROFL2]
So it's likely one person or a small group that coordinated this.
Yeah, its called the DNC.
[snip]
Yeah, its called the DNC.
I actually doubt this. Many have been dreading a massive distraction but this is soooooo amateur. The person(s) who did it is/are going to get caught and probably before the election.
Assuming a Dim, it's going to blow up in their face. Unlike these mail bombs.
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 12:34
Assuming a Dim, it's going to blow up in their face.
If its a Dim, you'll see this whole thing memory-holed so fast it'll make your head spin. OR they'll dig up a Republican patsy (or more likely they'll do like they have done with Las Vegas and just stonewall).
Circuits
10-24-2018, 12:37
If its a Dim, you'll see this whole thing memory-holed so fast it'll make your head spin. OR they'll dig up a Republican patsy (or more likely they'll do like they have done with Las Vegas and just stonewall).
We have ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia.
If its a Dim, you'll see this whole thing memory-holed so fast it'll make your head spin. OR they'll dig up a Republican patsy (or more likely they'll do like they have done with Las Vegas and just stonewall).
Oh they'll try but they aren't going to live it down. Ever.
Just like Kavanaugh... Every sex based political hit from now and people will say "Remember that strange Dr. and Justice Kavanaugh?"
They really needed something to distract from the caravan after calling for open borders and an end to ICE. But this is so desperate. Look at the sophistication and collaboration on the Steele Dossier/FISA scandal and compare to this.
I'm guessing it's a Dim but not DNC coordinated. I think we'll know in a week either way! [LOL]
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 12:56
Oh FFS Ben, STFU you goofy little munchkin.
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1055135806648537089
Can't see twitter at present location. What does Mr. Shapiro have to say?
Can't see twitter at present location. What does Mr. Shapiro have to say?
Here's Shapiro's with another great take...
https://imgur.com/8FMmCKb.jpg
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1055145782200987648.html
(I think #4 was added as an afterthought which is why they appear out of order)
A few observations from a former bomb disposal officer (i.e. Me):
1. Proper pipe bombs don't have wires connected to both ends. That's dumb.
2. You can find timers / remote control receivers WAY smaller than whatever that white box is. A proper timer would best be stored inside the pipe, making it fully encapsulated. That thing is just silly looking.
4. "Hoax Devices" are FAR more common than real ones. In which case, we should ask ourselves what the motives of the "bomber" are and "who benefits?"
Go ahead. Think deeply and critically.
3. Bottom Line: Whoever made that wanted it to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone that it's a "bomb."
This is nearly the same as a bundle of road flares wrapped together with an old-timey alarm clock ticking away.
Circuits
10-24-2018, 13:28
Here's Shapiro's with another great take...
https://imgur.com/8FMmCKb.jpg
Ben would be right, if they were actually bombs.
They weren't... so...
Here's Shapiro's with another great take...
https://imgur.com/8FMmCKb.jpg
No imgur either. I can see attachments, though :)
No imgur either. I can see attachments, though :)
You're going to make me fill up my account with bad takes from RINOs!
76444
BushMasterBoy
10-24-2018, 14:11
I just checked the mail and I didn't get a bomb. I feel left out.
You're going to make me fill up my account with bad takes from RINOs!
76444
I'm officially deranged! Wonderful. Now I can get away with anything.
RblDiver
10-24-2018, 15:03
I just checked the mail and I didn't get a bomb. I feel left out.
Does this mean that you were or you were not triggered? >.>
thedave1164
10-24-2018, 15:05
Shapiro is really starting to annoy me, as is Mark Walsh.
Clinton & Soros: "Hey, if we send fake bombs to each other, perhaps it will take away the media attention from the caravan of people we paid that are on the way to America."
BushMasterBoy
10-24-2018, 15:55
Does this mean that you were or you were not triggered? >.>
I wanted a Jager bomb!
Zundfolge
10-24-2018, 15:58
https://f002.backblazeb2.com/file/files-gab/image/bb-5bd0dc5c912e5.jpeg
[ROFL2] That NPC meme!!!
Wouldn't it be funny if that's exactly how it went down?
---
Trump's fault! And CNN milking it for all they can...
https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1055183653351972864
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqTD70WUcAAv-lO.jpg:small
Bailey Guns
10-24-2018, 17:07
Who's been in charge of watching Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn?
In all seriousness, there's really no positive outcome that I can see. Not in terms of big picture, good for the country. Sure...there may be some short term political gain for one side or the other but at what cost? Ultimately the divide between left and right grows wider and wider regardless of who did this and it just raises the bar for the next wacko.
If it was some right-wing nutjob we'll NEVER hear the end of it from the left and any conservative who supports Trump = potential bomber.
If it was some left-wing nutjob we'll NEVER hear the end of how the violent rhetoric from Trump and the right was responsible for sending them over the edge.
This just has cluster-fuck written all over it in some form or the other. Or not. Hell, I don't even know any longer.
That's too bad................
The low information voters will take it, hook, line, and sinker.
This short opinion piece sums it up nicely, I think.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pipe-bombs-story-why-no-one-trusts-media/
https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1055191784618307584
More packages today, for Robert DeNiero and Joe Biden.
This has a real stink to it.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
BPTactical
10-25-2018, 07:40
Watch where the investigation goes.
If it drags out with no suspect .....You know they sent it to themselves.
hollohas
10-25-2018, 07:41
They look completely fake and purposefully so, not just because the person didn't know what they were doing.
UK Dailymail is reporting the PVC tubes were filled with sulfur and glass. In the X-ray pictures you can see a big, long coil of wire inside the tubes in the sulfur (if that's what it is). No caps or ignitors or anything. And are we expected to believe that a long coiled wire attached to a clock with a tiny battery is going to heat up enough to initiate an explosion in sulfur, especially without an oxidizer? Yeah, I don't think so. And whoever built these probably didn't think so either.
GilpinGuy
10-25-2018, 07:54
If a looney right winger did this, can the tired, old "it was a lone wolf" excuse be used?
68Charger
10-25-2018, 07:58
And of course 4chan is having their own party
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59252
GilpinGuy
10-25-2018, 08:05
https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1055191784618307584
LOL [LOL]
2 choices here:
1. False flag.
2. Someone wanted to see how serious the left is about encouraging political violence.
It's funny how all of a sudden they want civility and Maxine is nowhere to be found.
BushMasterBoy
10-25-2018, 09:05
kEEPING SECURITY AGENTS BUSY WHILE RIPPING OFF SOMETHING? WALL STREET DOWN, CREATE CRISIS....blah blah
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/investing/stock-market-today-dow/index.html
68Charger
10-25-2018, 09:36
76451
Zundfolge
10-25-2018, 09:36
Styx's analysis is probably right on the money with who's behind all this (dammit boy, wear a shirt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLpelK3ZsbE
the TL;DW version is that its likely a mentally ill, way left progressive (Bernie Bro) who's unhappy with both the Republican party (of course) but also with the Corporate Neo-Liberals that seem to be running the Democrat Party (note that all the "targets" are Neo-Liberals, not true far-left Progressives like Bernie or Cortez). They think they're helping the left with this while at the same time warning the Neo-Liberals that like AntiFa has said on many occasions "Liberals get the bullet too".
If a looney right winger did this, can the tired, old "it was a lone wolf" excuse be used?
No. That's not how the left "thinks".
If a liberal/progressive did it, its a response to Trump's violent rhetoric. So it's the Right and Trump's fault.
If a conservative did it, its a result of Trump's violent rhetoric. So it's the Right and Trump's fault.
If an apolitical nutter did it, its a result of the "toxic environment" created by Trump's violent rhetoric. So it's the Right and Trump's fault.
If an Islamist did it, its a result of Trumps racist rhetoric. So it's the Right and Trump's fault.
UrbanWolf
10-25-2018, 11:33
It will likely help Dems win an election they are likely to win anyways.
And of course 4chan is having their own party
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59252
[ROFL2]
Best one...
Brittney Spears and look at that envelope!
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/meme11540446085097.jpg
If it's a Righty, he might have well gone all the way because his life is over and the perception of these fake bombs is being made to be just as bad as actual bombs in the media. And, again, no critical Dim candidates were "attacked" making this all risk, zero reward for a Righty. When caught, the Right will insist the book be thrown at him (Trump has already said as much) to create distance ("remember Tim McVeigh?").
If it's a Lefty, he succeeded in upholding the narrative that the Right is violent and must be taken from power in the upcoming elections. He made a demonstration of violence without actual violence that didn't harm his people. When he is caught, the Left will view the fake bombs as desperate but necessary ORANGEMANBAN, change narrative, but always have a soft spot for Lefty just like they do for Weather Underground (Bill Ayers & Co).
Which is more likely?
I (again) think they'll have this guy(s) in a couple of weeks.
ETA: Here is a sampling of narrative...
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1055542407830351874
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYIc1dXcAAhlrG.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYIvIzX4AADxdy.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYJF1PXcAUZyV5.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYJquYX0AUoyqM.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYKsu7XgAABQc0.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYO13XWkAAOIHj.jpg:small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqYPeNCWwAEq49K.jpg:small
DAMMIT TRUMP!!! WHY DID YOU BUILD THOSE BOMBS AND MAIL THEM TO DEMOCRATS!!!!!
Wonder if Shapiro would be willing to tell a retired FBI profiler w/ experience on the Unabomber case that he is deranged.
76452
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-profiler-linguist-false-flag-operation/2018/10/24/id/887835/
I sure hope Don Lemon has his generator and bottled water ready to go already.
I sure hope Don Lemon has his generator and bottled water ready to go already.
Me too, I'll need that stuff.
Look at the first picture again.
You're right, he needs a better hair person more than water and a generator.
GilpinGuy
10-25-2018, 16:52
Safe explosive device. LOL
hollohas
10-25-2018, 18:34
And of course 4chan is having their own party
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59252Best one.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181026/9145529fa39072146cdfbf7b04fa0549.jpg
BushMasterBoy
10-25-2018, 18:42
Grab it by the pussy?
Great-Kazoo
10-25-2018, 18:52
Grab it by the pussy?
You're meout of here >
76453
[panic]
Didn't realize I had a bomb above my desk.
Cristero war vintage?
hollohas
10-26-2018, 09:39
Sounds like they've made an arrest.
Grant H.
10-26-2018, 10:10
Wonder if Shapiro would be willing to tell a retired FBI profiler w/ experience on the Unabomber case that he is deranged.
76452
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-profiler-linguist-false-flag-operation/2018/10/24/id/887835/
The dude, by his own statement, believes the BS of the russians interfering with the 2016 election.
He is deranged...
Zundfolge
10-26-2018, 10:24
Looks like they got their patsy ... probably took them a couple extra days sourcing all the decals they put on his van.
https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/1055841448560599042/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwte rm%5E1055841448560599042&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fheavy.com%2Fnews%2F2018%2F10 %2Fsuspicious-packages-suspect-arrested-plantation-florida%2F
https://imgur.com/qLxLlD3.jpg:small
Conflicting info... Maybe he's changed his affiliation?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqcqFYxXgAIDMmJ.jpg:small
Just a POC trying to rid his land of invaders.
Twitter presence starts in mid-2016. Some weird memes, QAnon stuff, and lots of Conservative-ish stuff.
https://imgur.com/IU2jnWE.jpg:small
It's going to be some bumpkin with a truck covered in MAGA and Q stickers.
Should have refreshed before posting.
Still, it's like I'm psychic.
https://voterrecords.com/voter/71255404/cesar-sayoc
Registration Date: 03/04/2016
I'm a little curious why there isn't much defining this guy's ideology prior to 2016.
https://imgur.com/msFBtmn.jpg
Arrested Package Bomber Cesar Sayoc Jr. Has a EXTENSIVE Rap Sheet – Includes Conviction for Dealing Steroids, Terroristic Threats
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/arrested-package-bomber-cesar-sayoc-jr-has-a-extensive-rap-sheet-includes-conviction-for-dealing-steroids-terroristic-threats/
Zundfolge
10-26-2018, 10:55
Registration Date: 03/04/2016
I'm a little curious why there isn't much defining this guy's ideology prior to 2016.]
Patsy.
Elizabeth Warren's cousin? :D
Patsy.
Seems convenient, that's for sure.
I'd like to hear more facts but nothing major coming out now. We'd been hearing some of the packages were hand delivered in the NY area so I'm not sure how this all fits with a guy in FL unless he hired couriers.
It's hard to piece together why a pro-Trump person would do this. But the implication, associations, and images are going to give Dims a big boost in the election.
Seems convenient, that's for sure.
I'd like to hear more facts but nothing major coming out now. We'd been hearing some of the packages were hand delivered in the NY area so I'm not sure how this all fits with a guy in FL unless he hired couriers.
It's hard to piece together why a pro-Trump person would do this. But the implication, associations, and images are going to give Dims a big boost in the election.
Convenient, no?
Zundfolge
10-26-2018, 11:24
But the implication, associations, and images are going to give Dims a big boost in the election.
That's clearly the goal, but I don't know that it'll matter. People already have their minds made up and millions of Americans have already voted.
That's clearly the goal, but I don't know that it'll matter. People already have their minds made up and millions of Americans have already voted.
In our state because of mail-in, but not all states are the same.
Convenient, no?
These mid-terms are a referendum on Trump. The Dims have promised impeachment (how that happens I don't know). And once every narrative gets busted they fall back on "unstable" or "dangerous" along with "racist" "xenophobic" etc, etc, etc...
So being able to frame Trump for political violence is very convenient and important the more I think about it. Even if that violence is committed by Libs it's "Another day in Trump's America." It doesn't make sense to rational thinkers, but there are many who feel that if negative acts can't be linked to a person's behavior, if he creates a climate in which it happens, that he is to blame.
Zundfolge
10-26-2018, 11:44
Every time a liberal posts about how these "bombings" prove Republicans and Trumpers are violent I reply with "James Hodgkinson".
Martinjmpr
10-26-2018, 11:59
Elizabeth Warren's cousin? :D
So he's 1/1028th Native American too?
These mid-terms are a referendum on Trump. The Dims have promised impeachment (how that happens I don't know).
As I'm sure we all recall, there are 2 parts to an impeachment: The impeachment which happens in the House, and trial which happens in the senate. In order to be removed he has to be convicted by the senate.
So even if Democrats DO take the house (which was considered a "foregone conclusion" six months ago but is now questionable, at least according to some experts), there is zero chance they take the senate. Which means that no matter WHAT happens, even if Trump is impeached by the house he will not be convicted by the senate which means he stays in office.
I actually hope the dems DO try to impeach Trump. They will expend all their political capital (and MONEY) on something that ultimately is not going to do anything but energize the Republican base for the 2020 elections. And since that will likely consume all their time and effort, that means they WON'T be doing things that are much more destructive to the country.
https://voterrecords.com/voter/71255404/cesar-sayoc
Registration Date: 03/04/2016
I'm a little curious why there isn't much defining this guy's ideology prior to 2016.
Being a Trump supporter wasn't a thing before 2016, therefore it is not relevant.
Trump really did expand the tent and capture a record amount of crazy people, which is sad but unavoidable.
So he's 1/1028th Native American too?
As I'm sure we all recall, there are 2 parts to an impeachment: The impeachment which happens in the House, and trial which happens in the senate. In order to be removed he has to be convicted by the senate.
So even if Democrats DO take the house (which was considered a "foregone conclusion" six months ago but is now questionable, at least according to some experts), there is zero chance they take the senate. Which means that no matter WHAT happens, even if Trump is impeached by the house he will not be convicted by the senate which means he stays in office.
Not to mention they need 67 votes in the Senate to convict. Ain't gonna happen
Being a Trump supporter wasn't a thing before 2016, therefore it is not relevant.
Trump really did expand the tent and capture a record amount of crazy people, which is sad but unavoidable.
Registration date indicates a change or registration. I don't think we know what he was/was not prior to that date. His record indicates he was a felon and not eligible to vote in FL.
And no social footprint prior to that? Did Trump also encourage people to get on the socials? Many pro-Trump people can be traced back before 2016.
I'm supposed to believe this guy was so politically motivated he just fake bombed opposition but a complete blank slate prior to Trump's campaign? Does that pass your sniff test?
I think you may be reading the tone of my post incorrectly.
I think you may be reading the tone of my post incorrectly.
Oh, I understand the other possibility.
I just don't understand how a nutter, of any persuasion, has no footprint prior to Trump. He sat silent through eight years of Obama? Look at this board for reference! :)
"Hey, Skip just got caught sending dog poo to DeGette."
"Well, that makes sense, Skip hates Dims and mocked her frequently. Here's all his posts going back to 2013..."
Zundfolge
10-26-2018, 13:28
Best coverage of the whole bomb thing.
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-45991867
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suspicious-package-found-at-clintons-home-police-say
Apparently "suspicious packages" sent to Clinton, Obama and Soros.
Yeah, right ... evil right wing Trumpers.
I guarantee you if we ever learn the truth about these it'll be leftists that sent them trying to deflect leftist violence and gain sympathy for the Democrats right before the mid-terms. Unless they're able to serve up some poor Republican patsy.
These types of posts are incredibly ignorant and really only up the vile rhetoric. How about waiting for information? There are crazy people on both sides, neither side is directly responsible for their actions but thinking the other side is so evil that they would knowingly fuel these types of people is what got us to where we are.
Delfuego
10-26-2018, 13:39
These types of posts are incredibly ignorant and really only up the vile rhetoric. How about waiting for information? There are crazy people on both sides, neither side is directly responsible for their actions but thinking the other side is so evil that they would knowingly fuel these types of people is what got us to where we are.
Well said [Beer]
These types of posts are incredibly ignorant and really only up the vile rhetoric. How about waiting for information? There are crazy people on both sides, neither side is directly responsible for their actions but thinking the other side is so evil that they would knowingly fuel these types of people is what got us to where we are.
1. You'll never have all the information. Too much narrative in place of truth. Reference the post I made of this being Trump's fault before a suspect was even known.
Slightly OT: Look at the Kavanaugh hoax. MSBNC just admitted they had info that contradicted Swetnick and HELD ONTO IT UNTIL NOW (after the confirmation).
I was just researching the OKC bombing on wiki and was surprised to see how much vandalism and changes there were even recently. So it's not just media. Even formerly respected sources are shifting to narrative.
Also, I read just this morning that Matthew Shepard was the victim of an anti-gay hate crime. How many times has this been debunked?!?
2. Some critical thinking on current events is always going to involve filling in the blanks. Don't like it? Don't read it. No one here claimed God gave them this info as 100% fact. I too commented and hypothesized that this would only give one side an advantage because it was so immoral, overtly offensive to both sides (democracy, law and order), and so completely stupid.
Sending Obama a fake (or real) bomb doesn't do anything for Trump/Republicans even if he got away with it!
---
Some insight on exactly how stupid this was... Prints + DNA = crime of the century
https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1055895237342699520
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqdLDa5XQAEhZNF.jpg:small
DavieD55
10-26-2018, 13:55
If it wasn't reported by the mainstream establishment media it couldn't be possible.
These types of posts are incredibly ignorant and really only up the vile rhetoric. How about waiting for information? There are crazy people on both sides, neither side is directly responsible for their actions but thinking the other side is so evil that they would knowingly fuel these types of people is what got us to where we are.
There is in fact overwhelming evidence that Dem leadership has intentionally and "knowingly [fueled] these types of people"
And yes, they are "evil"
68Charger
10-26-2018, 14:20
Best coverage of the whole bomb thing.
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-45991867
That link led me to this one: https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-44891314
Idiot: Why Donald Trump face dey show wen you type 'idiot' for internet?
Before you enta dis tori well well, quick quick go Google and type 'idiot', and you go see say na US President Donald Trump face go comot pass.
For internet dem dey call dis strategy, 'Google bombing'.
Even though supporters of Trump no go like dis kain tin, Google no send.
Di reason be say e dey Google bible make dem no dey form God for di mata of di pipo wey dey try control dia setting.
[ROFL3]
Lord knows, it's so difficult to have a registered party affiliation. I know the test I had to take was grueling. If I would have screwed up 1 of the 2 clicks I had to make on the website, it might never have happened.
Bailey Guns
10-26-2018, 17:48
https://i.imgur.com/Md9P7bd.jpg
A window sticker like that doesn't get made without someone noticing it. I'd like to see a receipt and date of purchase. Will it change anything? No, but I'd still like to see it.
I've seen stuff similar to that for sale at Tanner back when Obama was in office.
I've definitely seen trucks driving around like that in the Denver metro area, but they usually look homemade.
hurley842002
10-26-2018, 20:06
https://i.imgur.com/Md9P7bd.jpgYup, pretty sure if I saw a car that had stickers of prominent political figures with crosshairs on them, my "nutter" alert would be going off, kind of the same way as if I saw someone shooting targets with the same political figures....
DavieD55
10-26-2018, 20:29
Yeah, the MSM "news" is completely honest and they would never lie or attempt to deceive the public about anything. The establishment media doesn't have a political agenda or anything.
(((Sarcasm Alert)))
Is child pron mysteriously going to appear on his computer too?
Bailey Guns
10-26-2018, 21:01
He was probably at the rape parties with Brett Kavanaugh.
BPTactical
10-27-2018, 08:42
So....homeless dude living out of a van brews up these devices.
Homeless dude drives all over the country dropping these devices off within 1-2 days of each other.
Homeless dudes van has Trumpy stickers all over the windows.
Q- why wasn't the van treated as a potential explosive risk upon discovery? One would think LE would clear a considerable radius, send in the robot . Remember how the Aurora Shooters apartment was dealt with?
Q- with no postal cancelations on the packaging apparent how did they get delivered? Where would a homeless guy get the cash to have them delivered?
Q- look at the "stickers" carefully, they are too perfect. They are only in the windows, I didn't see any slapped on the van itself. Think about what you see driving down the street, most people that are adamant about their "cause" slap stickers all over their vehicle, they aren't in perfect alignment or straight either.
None of the "stickers" are sun faded. Think about it, in the Florida sun they would fade quickly. They are very recently placed.
Notice how clean the exterior of the van was. How new it was.
Every "homeless" vehicle I have seen is an old shit box that is filthy, dented etc.
It's too simple of a solution.
He's a patsy.
Great-Kazoo
10-27-2018, 09:08
So....homeless dude living out of a van brews up these devices.
Homeless dude drives all over the country dropping these devices off within 1-2 days of each other.
Homeless dudes van has Trumpy stickers all over the windows.
Q- why wasn't the van treated as a potential explosive risk upon discovery? One would think LE would clear a considerable radius, send in the robot . Remember how the Aurora Shooters apartment was dealt with?
Q- with no postal cancelations on the packaging apparent how did they get delivered? Where would a homeless guy get the cash to have them delivered?
Q- look at the "stickers" carefully, they are too perfect. They are only in the windows, I didn't see any slapped on the van itself. Think about what you see driving down the street, most people that are adamant about their "cause" slap stickers all over their vehicle, they aren't in perfect alignment or straight either.
None of the "stickers" are sun faded. Think about it, in the Florida sun they would fade quickly. They are very recently placed.
Notice how clean the exterior of the van was. How new it was.
Every "homeless" vehicle I have seen is an old shit box that is filthy, dented etc.
It's too simple of a solution.
He's a patsy.
Another
Parallax View (still relevant today)
https://www.amazon.com/Parallax-View-Warren-Beatty/dp/B00AEFYTMQ
So....homeless dude living out of a van brews up these devices.
Homeless dude drives all over the country dropping these devices off within 1-2 days of each other.
Homeless dudes van has Trumpy stickers all over the windows.
Q- why wasn't the van treated as a potential explosive risk upon discovery? One would think LE would clear a considerable radius, send in the robot . Remember how the Aurora Shooters apartment was dealt with?
Q- with no postal cancelations on the packaging apparent how did they get delivered? Where would a homeless guy get the cash to have them delivered?
Q- look at the "stickers" carefully, they are too perfect. They are only in the windows, I didn't see any slapped on the van itself. Think about what you see driving down the street, most people that are adamant about their "cause" slap stickers all over their vehicle, they aren't in perfect alignment or straight either.
None of the "stickers" are sun faded. Think about it, in the Florida sun they would fade quickly. They are very recently placed.
Notice how clean the exterior of the van was. How new it was.
Every "homeless" vehicle I have seen is an old shit box that is filthy, dented etc.
It's too simple of a solution.
He's a patsy.
Careful, Agent Nick Memphis, they'll pump you full of the same stuff the Agency uses. LOL
Interesting, I heard he was from New York and was living with his mom in Florida.
Funny how the communists didn't raise this much hell when real ricin was mailed to GOP figures.
...and now a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. 8 dead, 3 officers shot. Coincidence?
UrbanWolf
10-27-2018, 10:26
Also the police arrested a potential mass shooter in Kentucky recently, the police say his search history contains information about how to commit mass shootings. The guy also sent out threats to people on Facebook which is why the police started looking.
...and now a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. 8 dead, 3 officers shot. Coincidence?
Yes.
Careful, Agent Nick Memphis, they'll pump you full of the same stuff the Agency uses. LOL
I've noticed a trend... People have IQs under 80 or serious cognitive issues. I think most of us are safe! Unless you drink tap water.
[panic]
I only drink Brawndo.
But is interesting there are a lot of unanswered questions and the beat goes on. Wray was definite in his assertion that the bombs were real ("not hoax devices") in the presser yesterday and the DoJ charges do reflect that (transporting explosives across state lines, illegally mailing explosives, assaulting federal officials)...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/26/suspected-explosive-devices-addressed-cory-booker-james-clapper-probe-expands-packages/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.06b11a80f7ce
The timers that people found on Amazon that matched the appearance of the timers in the pics didn't have an alarm feature. Glass + sulfur <> explosion, but I concede it's possible he thought these would explode and thus serious intent to harm is demonstrated.
From what we know at this moment, these were not bombs.
...and now a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. 8 dead, 3 officers shot. Coincidence?
It's spooky.
Funny how the communists didn't raise this much hell when real ricin was mailed to GOP figures.
It wasn't real ricin. It was the base materials that can be converted into ricin.
...and now a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. 8 dead, 3 officers shot. Coincidence?
It's not like mass shootings are unheard of in this country.
It wasn't real ricin. It was the base materials that can be converted into ricin.
I couldn't find anything definitive on whether or not the substance was ricin, so the article I was reading may be incorrect. I did find another article stating that the envelopes contained castor beans which isn't ricin but certainly is the base material.
Great-Kazoo
10-27-2018, 16:18
...and now a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. 8 dead, 3 officers shot. Coincidence?
Unfortunately i expect 1 if not 2 more "incidents" between now & the elections. ALL done by white "extremist" with ties of leanings towards "hate groups"
ALL have some MAGA items in their possession. I find it interesting the bomber has no voting history or even registered until 16. Just saying..
Grant H.
10-27-2018, 20:31
Unfortunately i expect 1 if not 2 more "incidents" between now & the elections. ALL done by white "extremist" with ties of leanings towards "hate groups"
ALL have some MAGA items in their possession. I find it interesting the bomber has no voting history or even registered until 16. Just saying..
As sad as it is, I completely agree.
And it'll all be funded through Soros or Clinton foundations in some form or another.
All in an effort to derail the election into favor of the Libtards.
Coincidence is one thing. Repeatedly going through basically the same scenario and it's outcomes, and still saying "Meh, coincidence" is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.
Scanker19
10-27-2018, 21:31
As sad as it is, I completely agree.
And it'll all be funded through Soros or Clinton foundations in some form or another.
All in an effort to derail the election into favor of the Libtards.
Coincidence is one thing. Repeatedly going through basically the same scenario and it's outcomes, and still saying "Meh, coincidence" is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.
Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a conspiracy....
Great-Kazoo
10-27-2018, 23:48
Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a conspiracy....
Is it C: Coincidence
OR
C: Conspiracy ;)
I lean towards the latter. No way in hell these are just isolated incidences. Like those pesky terrorist (OOPS) work place violence shootings under O's watch.
So....homeless dude living out of a van brews up these devices.
Homeless dude drives all over the country dropping these devices off within 1-2 days of each other.
Homeless dudes van has Trumpy stickers all over the windows.
Q- why wasn't the van treated as a potential explosive risk upon discovery? One would think LE would clear a considerable radius, send in the robot . Remember how the Aurora Shooters apartment was dealt with?
Q- with no postal cancelations on the packaging apparent how did they get delivered? Where would a homeless guy get the cash to have them delivered?
Q- look at the "stickers" carefully, they are too perfect. They are only in the windows, I didn't see any slapped on the van itself. Think about what you see driving down the street, most people that are adamant about their "cause" slap stickers all over their vehicle, they aren't in perfect alignment or straight either.
None of the "stickers" are sun faded. Think about it, in the Florida sun they would fade quickly. They are very recently placed.
Notice how clean the exterior of the van was. How new it was.
Every "homeless" vehicle I have seen is an old shit box that is filthy, dented etc.
It's too simple of a solution.
He's a patsy.
Interesting thing about the window stickers. They all appear to be one big sheet, which implies that they were fabricated for the vehicle.
It's notable that the stickers appear to have been professionally laid out and printed. Usually when someone who isn't a graphic designer undertakes something like this, the results are underwhelming because they end up sourcing low-resolution images from Google Image Search, Reddit, IMGR, etc. The result is that when printed, the images will be blurry or pixelated.
This isn't the case here. All of the images in the collage appear to be high resolution, and the sheets were professionally printed, cut, and mounted. In order to do this, he would have had to have access to Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign, and the requisite knowledge to be able to use that software. He also would have needed access to a plotter capable of printing large adhesive labels.
I've got a hard time believing that this guy has the requisite skill set to have sourced high-resolution imagery, laid those images out in a desktop publishing program, generated a useable PDF, printed it, and then gone to the process of trimming and applying the adhesive printouts (a process that's probably similar to applying window tinting.
"Yeah, well, he could have had them printed at Kinkos" I hear you say.
Sure, he could have presumably gone to Kinkos, but the thing is, as soon as a Kinkos employee would have seen the photos he wanted in the collage, they would have flat out refused to print them out because they contain photos and images he didn't take/create, and Kinkos won't print anything for you if they even suspect that you're using imagery that you don't hold the copyright for.
Interesting thing about the window stickers. They all appear to be one big sheet, which implies that they were fabricated for the vehicle.
[snip]
Aren't there companies that do this for professional vehicle advertising?
That's one thing I thought of when everyone brought up the stickers look brand new after sitting in the FL sun... If they are professionally printed (vinyl?), they might be more durable than something you run through an inkjet printer at home.
There are companies that do that, but that would still run into the issue I articulated with possible copyright infringement. Most print shops are pretty gunshy about printing anything where it's clear that the person asking for the print job doesn't hold copyright to the images they want printed lest they get caught up in a copyright infringement lawsuit. I would assume this would apply to places that do vinyl vehicle wraps as well.
Denninger has an interesting theory:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=234445
...
Let's do the probability stack shall we?
Let's start with the probability of mailing a dozen+ envelopes containing devices and not being questioned in any way, and them getting to their destinations "as we've been sold."
1. You mail them.
2. You don't take them to the counter, because if you did you'd be busted instantly. So you drop them in a box.
3. None have sufficient postage and it's grossly insufficient. This is ignored.
4. The stamps aren't canceled, despite being protocol to do so.
5. The packages do not have a barcode routing label added to them (which is also protocol for a stamped package) -- not one of them.
6. They then pass through multiple mail handling facilities and nobody flags them for any of the above, nor do any of the automated machines (including the postage insufficiency .vs. weight)
7. Finally, a courier is said to have delivered the one to CNN -- not the mailman. How'd he get it?
So you want to know what happened? Here's the most likely probability stack-up.
Nutbag mails the packages. They are caught immediately at the origin PO and, since none have adequate postage, they're not sent onward -- nor is the postage canceled. At this point someone gets very suspicious (gee, you think?) and one of them is opened. The authorities are contacted.
Now you'd think the immediate next act is to trace the sender via whatever means you can and arrest him. Nope, because that wouldn't fit the FBI's narrative and their desire to destroy the Administration -- Trump is bad, Trump is evil, Trump is a Nazi, Trump is inspiring people to violence, etc.
So they hand-deliver the packages instead, having inspected them and knowing they are harmless.
This explains the courier at CNN, it explains none of them have canceled stamps, and it explains how they traveled through the system without having tracking barcodes added to the non-machine addresses and postage. They didn't travel through the system -- the FBI transported them instead, by hand and on purpose knowing full well what they were.
They thus got their optics.
It also explains who nobody went bananas at CNN and instead took a picture of the damn thing. The courier knew it wasn't a bomb and so did all the LEOs involved. Since they knew it wasn't dangerous they were not in any way concerned about standing next to it taking pictures for the media. Nobody in their right effing mind stands next to what they believe is an active and armed explosive device.
There is evidence that the alleged perpetrator also is not being honestly presented to us. He allegedly changed voter registration and registered as a Republican in 2016. As a resident of Florida with a felony record he couldn't register and vote at all. But he (allegedly) did. Did he? If so exactly how did that happen and why wasn't he busted in the intervening two years?
Then there's his history. Nothing you do on the Internet ever really goes away, despite the authority's efforts. There is evidence that I am evaluating that this nutbag claimed prominent Republicans were jackwads in the past and that various far-left feminist groups were "the only true women." Does that sound like a Trump supporter -- or, if he really did say those things too is he just plain psychotic? Being psychotic matches well with making bomb threats, which he was arrested for 15 years ago, so that seems to be a reasonable assumption -- no? Isn't it interesting that the media is only interested in one side?
Might that be because that's the media's inclination and the government's via their own actions -- they are simply interested in partisanship to the extent of attempting to provoke an actual Civil War if they cannot get what they want at the ballot box?
The sender will be (and should be) prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But there is zero probability that those packages all traveled through the USPS without any of the protocols for such a package being followed for all of them. For one? Yes, I believe it. For all of them? No. Especially not the postage amount which was short by more than half.
I'll lay odds the "courier" at the CNN building was either an FBI agent or someone they hired -- and if so the entire FBI must be disbanded right here and now with everyone involved being indicted -- if the only logical conclusion is in fact true this series of acts amount to intentional, institutional misconduct and attempted election tampering which is a serious criminal offense.
...
Is than an article from The Onion?
Per Justin's post, that's what I was getting at. While those companies may have policies against printing certain images, they may not be adhered to all of the time. My wife printed a bunch of large format photos that she clearly got from Google and they didn't even batt an eye.
Is than an article from The Onion?
Not even close.
Though Karl is a bit extreme in his suggested reactions to what is going on in our govt, he does provide a lot of insight into where we are, and backs it up with facts and figures.
His site (https://market-ticker.org/) is updated daily and worth a read. However, don't post an opposing view in the comment section, or you will be immediately banned for life (thin skin).
I feel like he has a good base for his argument, but he loses me with the FBI hand delivering packages to make the case bigger just because they hate Trump.
Zundfolge
10-29-2018, 12:59
I feel like he has a good base for his argument, but he loses me with the FBI hand delivering packages to make the case bigger just because they hate Trump.
Really? After the whole Peter Strzok & Lisa Page thing along with the clearly crooked behavior by James Comey (not to mention embarrassments like Agent Chase Bishop dropping a gun while dancing in Denver) you can't buy the idea that people inside the FBI might be motivated by something other than the purest of intentions? You do realize that the Trump Administration is currently investigating the FBI looking for more scalps.
Plus law enforcement in general has a history of allowing criminal activities to go further after they've discovered them just to get a bigger score. Ages ago I worked for a movie theater owned by General Cinemas. One of their theaters in Texas had discovered one of their cashiers embezzling (by reselling tickets that were taken and not torn by the doormen ... this is back when theaters were 100% cash business). The local PD was alerted and they told the theater to let her keep going until she had stolen enough to get into grand larceny range and THEN they'd arrest her. Which they did. Had they arrested her when she was first discovered she'd have been charged with a misdemeanor theft. Instead they let her get into big felony range.
Grant H.
10-29-2018, 13:14
I feel like he has a good base for his argument, but he loses me with the FBI hand delivering packages to make the case bigger just because they hate Trump.
So, do you think Comey was honest and just in his dealing with the Trump/Russia situation and the accusations against Clinton?
No offense, but you seem unwilling to believe that the power elites in this country will go far beyond the realm of legal action to protect their power.
I'm not saying I agree with the theory that the FBI hand delivered the packages, but the idea that these bombs were legitimately sent by some wackjob/patsy is almost as fanciful.
Zundfolge
10-29-2018, 13:29
Look, I understand that one has to be cautious with theories about government actions that may be somewhat "conspiratorial", but to automatically dismiss ALL "conspiracy theories" merely because they are conspiratorial is foolishness. Keep in mind our government DID infect black men with syphilis just to see what would happen. Members of the Nixon administration DID break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Ollie North DID sell weapons to Iran to fund rebels in Central America and the Obama DOJ DID run guns into Mexico just to create a pretext for more gun control in the US.
At any rate, this theory about the FBI intercepting the "bomb" packages and then allowing them to be hand delivered just so the political impact would be greater is entirely plausible and makes a hell of a lot more sense than some guy successfully mailed bombs with not enough postage on them to these powerful Democrats (and when some were discovered to be lacking enough postage they were handed off to private couriers to continue their journey). These "bombs" looked almost identical to the "bombs" used in the training programs for postal employees so I don't believe for a moment that all, or most (or for that matter any) of these packages would make it to their destination before being discovered, and discovered by the first postal employees that handled them.
I think that the theory Denninger has posited is entirely plausible. These people think they're covered for any activity, they watch their party leaders lie to Congress, they watch the media cover-up those lies, they watch the (R) sit on its hands, why wouldn't they try this. If they get caught they'll walk into a promotion or nice book deal. As far as I can tell there are no short term consequences for illegal activity IF the offending party is a communist.
The ends justify the means.
I'll clarify my response when I'm at a computer.
68Charger
10-29-2018, 14:00
Pff you know all the FBI agents are far-left-wing ANTIFA liberals, there's not a single conservative working inside the FBI. Why is it so hard to believe hundreds of FBI agents and their associates couldn't cohesively plan this out in secret and keep it under wraps thereafter?
Why would it have to be hundreds? couldn't a few agents who were on the original case let it go forward, maybe even help it along.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but I also don't believe there would have to be hundreds that knew.
I'll clarify my response when I'm at a computer.
While we wait. What are the suggested ends? I think that's what I'm going to touch on.
The end game is to unseat President Trump and install someone more malleable to the deep state. Nevermind all that stuff about the VP getting the job and the rules of succession, those rules will go right out the window and land in the same bonfire they set for The Constitution.
Great-Kazoo
10-29-2018, 15:41
While we wait. What are the suggested ends? I think that's what I'm going to touch on.
The overt overthrow of the current administration. Go to usatoday.com as an example.
Since Day WON! They have blatantly advocated for any means possible to oppose as well as remove trump. You can't tell the news from their Hit (oops) opinion pieces.
Day after day the same old drivel with click bait headlines such as
Trump RUMORED to be getting ready to fire Rosenstein!
Hell they (media) literally had the WH entrance mobbed to see what happened after Rosenstein met with trump. Unfortunately for them he still has a job.
On & On it goes, with a vitriol that has become more than unsettling. People mob a R .gov at dinner and they excuse the rhetoric and aggressive posturing as 1st amendment rights. A R confronts a D and it's borderline Hate crimes personally supported by the white house.
How many days of KAVANAUGH'S A SERIAL RAPIST were we subject to ?
How much airtime did the Kieth Ellison accusations get?
Who was it that said, To not Accept the Election Results was UnAmerican?
http://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45066157_10155977652663036_4580419098894139392_n.j pg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent.fapa1-2.fna&oh=fdc97cdaf0fc6a3b64cdf1e1dc775f7d&oe=5C80272D
The end game is to unseat President Trump and install someone more malleable to the deep state. Nevermind all that stuff about the VP getting the job and the rules of succession, those rules will go right out the window and land in the same bonfire they set for The Constitution.
The overt overthrow of the current administration.
Okay, this is easy and is the exact reason that I check out of this conspiracy completely. Presidents are only in office for 8 years max. If there were really a long game, deep state entity (maybe there is) then 8 years is nothing. If one thing one government agency (FBI) understands above all else is just how slow and cumbersome the government is. If the FBI stopped everything it was doing and focused solely on removing Trump from office, he'd be out of office and probably dead of natural causes by the time they got anywhere. If the FBI is so infiltrated that any of this is even plausible at all, he would have just been assassinated the second he bucked his handlers. I just don't buy this conspiracy for a second. Might as well conspire to legalize prostitution by infiltrating the post office and sending out lots of propaganda.
[QUOTE=Irving;2170254]Okay, this is easy and is the exact reason that I check out of this conspiracy completely. Presidents are only in office for 8 years max. If there were really a long game, deep state entity (maybe there is) then 8 years is nothing. If one thing one government agency (FBI) understands above all else is just how slow and cumbersome the government is. If the FBI stopped everything it was doing and focused solely on removing Trump from office, he'd be out of office and probably dead of natural causes by the time they got anywhere. If the FBI is so infiltrated that any of this is even plausible at all, he would have just been assassinated the second he bucked his handlers. I just don't buy this conspiracy for a second. Might as well conspire to legalize prostitution by infiltrating the p
This isn't the beginning of the long game, this is the middle of a long game, and now their long game has been interrupted by President Trump who is dismantling alot of the work they've done to this point, they've been set back and they don't like it.
They are really, really pissed off about losing the presidency, the presidency was theirs, it was Hillary's turn, she was and still is entitled to the presidency according to her and her voters. The Clintons have all their friends in high government office and the media to help them, and these groups are helping them.
I don't think most people understand exactly how pissed off the Clintons and their voters are, they're pissed off enough to attack a senator at his own house, pissed off enough to attack people for wearing Trump gear in public, pissed off enough to call their mayoral friends in towns like Portland, OR and have him tell his police to stand down when their antifa goons decide to deny the citizens their natural right to travel.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I observe current events, sometimes I can tie currents events to other historical events, and I interpret these events according to my own filters.
Really? After the whole Peter Strzok & Lisa Page thing along with the clearly crooked behavior by James Comey (not to mention embarrassments like Agent Chase Bishop dropping a gun while dancing in Denver) you can't buy the idea that people inside the FBI might be motivated by something other than the purest of intentions? You do realize that the Trump Administration is currently investigating the FBI looking for more scalps.
Plus law enforcement in general has a history of allowing criminal activities to go further after they've discovered them just to get a bigger score. Ages ago I worked for a movie theater owned by General Cinemas. One of their theaters in Texas had discovered one of their cashiers embezzling (by reselling tickets that were taken and not torn by the doormen ... this is back when theaters were 100% cash business). The local PD was alerted and they told the theater to let her keep going until she had stolen enough to get into grand larceny range and THEN they'd arrest her. Which they did. Had they arrested her when she was first discovered she'd have been charged with a misdemeanor theft. Instead they let her get into big felony range.
You'll never see me declare that organizations, or individuals are pure of heart, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm not sure what dropping a gun has to do with a deep state conspiracy to unseat the president though.
So, do you think Comey was honest and just in his dealing with the Trump/Russia situation and the accusations against Clinton?
No offense, but you seem unwilling to believe that the power elites in this country will go far beyond the realm of legal action to protect their power.
I'm not saying I agree with the theory that the FBI hand delivered the packages, but the idea that these bombs were legitimately sent by some wackjob/patsy is almost as fanciful.
I didn't follow the Comey thing much and I always assume that there is going to be some amount of lying. However, I generally assume that people are looking out for their own personal interests over the interests of some backroom organization. The long game interests of an organization that might have started before you were around, and plans on being around after you are gone, don't hold a candle to the immediate needs of paying your mortgage.
Look, I understand that one has to be cautious with theories about government actions that may be somewhat "conspiratorial", but to automatically dismiss ALL "conspiracy theories" merely because they are conspiratorial is foolishness. Keep in mind our government DID infect black men with syphilis just to see what would happen. Members of the Nixon administration DID break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Ollie North DID sell weapons to Iran to fund rebels in Central America and the Obama DOJ DID run guns into Mexico just to create a pretext for more gun control in the US.
At any rate, this theory about the FBI intercepting the "bomb" packages and then allowing them to be hand delivered just so the political impact would be greater is entirely plausible and makes a hell of a lot more sense than some guy successfully mailed bombs with not enough postage on them to these powerful Democrats (and when some were discovered to be lacking enough postage they were handed off to private couriers to continue their journey). These "bombs" looked almost identical to the "bombs" used in the training programs for postal employees so I don't believe for a moment that all, or most (or for that matter any) of these packages would make it to their destination before being discovered, and discovered by the first postal employees that handled them.
First paragraph, I understand there are real conspiracies, there are a ton more than the ones you mentioned. I think you're using a little artistic license about the running guns into Mexico thing. Maybe you're right. I always assumed they were doing something like your theater example and it backfired in their face.
I think that the theory Denninger has posited is entirely plausible. These people think they're covered for any activity, they watch their party leaders lie to Congress, they watch the media cover-up those lies, they watch the (R) sit on its hands, why wouldn't they try this. If they get caught they'll walk into a promotion or nice book deal. As far as I can tell there are no short term consequences for illegal activity IF the offending party is a communist.
The ends justify the means.
If any of these individuals or organizations are as powerful as you often suggest, why use such subtle means to reach their goals? How many people are on the Clinton's kill list? Further, if they can get away with anything they want, and they know it, what else exactly are they looking to accomplish? If you can do anything you want, why be so shy about it? What else are you going for?
[QUOTE=Irving;2170254]Okay, this is easy and is the exact reason that I check out of this conspiracy completely. Presidents are only in office for 8 years max. If there were really a long game, deep state entity (maybe there is) then 8 years is nothing. If one thing one government agency (FBI) understands above all else is just how slow and cumbersome the government is. If the FBI stopped everything it was doing and focused solely on removing Trump from office, he'd be out of office and probably dead of natural causes by the time they got anywhere. If the FBI is so infiltrated that any of this is even plausible at all, he would have just been assassinated the second he bucked his handlers. I just don't buy this conspiracy for a second. Might as well conspire to legalize prostitution by infiltrating the p
This isn't the beginning of the long game, this is the middle of a long game, and now their long game has been interrupted by President Trump who is dismantling alot of the work they've done to this point, they've been set back and they don't like it.
They are really, really pissed off about losing the presidency, the presidency was theirs, it was Hillary's turn, she was and still is entitled to the presidency according to her and her voters. The Clintons have all their friends in high government office and the media to help them, and these groups are helping them.
I don't think most people understand exactly how pissed off the Clintons and their voters are, they're pissed off enough to attack a senator at his own house, pissed off enough to attack people for wearing Trump gear in public, pissed off enough to call their mayoral friends in towns like Portland, OR and have him tell his police to stand down when their antifa goons decide to deny the citizens their natural right to travel.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I observe current events, sometimes I can tie currents events to other historical events, and I interpret these events according to my own filters.
Great-Kazoo
10-29-2018, 21:22
explain how all those Hondurans just happen to get together and decide America was the place they wanted to be. Who's footing their food, clothing and cell phone expenses?
Don't know. Haven't put any thought into it. America has been a hub for migrants since we first named it that. Why is the assumption that no one can organize something without rich democrats to help them out? There has been a stream of immigrants trying to get here since we started. I don't know about you, but if I was planning to travel through all of Central America to get here, I sure as hell would want to do it with as many people as I could. I'm not sure where you're going with that. All those people would have to spend all those same costs to get here regardless of if they went in a caravan or not. Why is there even an assumption that they are being paid? I'll tell you right now that no one has enough money to pay people to pick up their entire life and move along into uncertainty with a strong possibility of death along the way. I don't understand why you'd even bother to mention cell phones either. Not sure if you've looked around at all, but the poorest of the poor have cell phones, it's not like it's a caravan of Ferraris.
GilpinGuy
10-30-2018, 02:27
Someone told me a few hours ago that these "caravans" of wanna-be illegal immigrants happen every year. I haven't had a chance to look into it.
Just do it the right way FFS and we welcome you with open arms.
DavieD55
10-30-2018, 02:49
This guy makes some interesting points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WQwAXymShE
Someone told me a few hours ago that these "caravans" of wanna-be illegal immigrants happen every year. I haven't had a chance to look into it.
Just do it the right way FFS and we welcome you with open arms.
I think the first one was during Obama. Once a precedent is set, it'll probably continue for a while.
I was under the impression that the people are seeking asylum. When you think you and you're whole family is going to be killed, the decade it takes to do it the right way is not an option. I'm sure once a caravan gets started, it has to pick up all kinds of riff raff.
I wonder what the immigration numbers are to other countries. The US is clearly the biggest and most well known in the area, but it's still not the only place. People must try and go to South America as well I'd think.
Aloha_Shooter
10-30-2018, 07:33
I was under the impression that the people are seeking asylum. When you think you and you're whole family is going to be killed, the decade it takes to do it the right way is not an option. I'm sure once a caravan gets started, it has to pick up all kinds of riff raff.
That will be the excuse provided to CBP on advice of the immigration lawyers waiting at the border but not one of the people I've seen interviewed has given that as a reason for their migration. Almost all of the ones I've seen interviewed have said they are hoping for better economic opportunities. That's not asylum.
Sure, asylum isn't the only reason to move.
Alegedly asylum needs to be asked of the first coutry you enter that is not your own. If this is the case then all asylum claims should be considered lying on a fed form, and lawyers advising folks to do so should be disbared.
Rucker61
10-30-2018, 08:33
Alegedly asylum needs to be asked of the first coutry you enter that is not your own. If this is the case then all asylum claims should be considered lying on a fed form, and lawyers advising folks to do so should be disbared.
US asylum law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
RblDiver
10-30-2018, 08:35
So, this morning, it's reported that he plans to remove the idea of anchor babies (something I totally agree with, in no small part due to the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion of the 14th). Someone had a fantastic quote explaining this: "If a cat has her kittens in an oven, it doesn't make them biscuits."
Bailey Guns
10-30-2018, 08:44
Does it make them biskits?
Does it make them biskits?
Only if you turn the oven on.
Lots of people getting hard ons thinking about repealing the birth thing. I don't think for a second that it'll happen.
I'm curious what people thinks makes someone an American though.
Delfuego
10-30-2018, 09:36
Lots of people getting hard ons thinking about repealing the birth thing. I don't think for a second that it'll happen. We should absolutely do this and make it retroactive.
Lots of people getting hard ons thinking about repealing the birth thing. I don't think for a second that it'll happen.
I'm curious what people thinks makes someone an American though.
However anyone else here chooses to define it, I'm sure you'll dicker pedantically and at great length about it.
We should absolutely do this and make it retroactive.
So then no one would be Americans?
However anyone else here chooses to define it, I'm sure you'll dicker pedantically and at great length about it.
I'm sure you'll be waiting with baited breath to put me in my place. I'm positive that no one is interested in my opinion on the subject, but I'll save you the suspense and put it out there now, then it won't look like I'm targeting anyone else's opinion directly.
There is NOTHING that makes someone more "American" than being raised in America.
I don't know whether to include being born here or not, because the difference between a baby born somewhere, and a baby that was raised there since they were 1 year old is almost nill.
So then no one would be Americans?
I'm sure you'll be waiting with baited breath to put me in my place.
*bated
*bated
Strong tactic. Very convincing of your stance.
Unfortunately, I'm not particularly interested in arguing with someone who's biggest signifier in any given situation is staking out a ridiculous position so they can demonstrate what an edgelord they are.
Zundfolge
10-30-2018, 10:25
I'm curious what people thinks makes someone an American though.
Its simple, we should use the system most of the world uses.
If one of a child's parents is an American citizen at the time of the child's birth, than the child is an American citizen, regardless of where they're born (but since the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship, if the parent(s) register the child as a citizen of a foreign country it loses its US Citizenship at that time).
If neither of the child's parents are American Citizens than the child is not an American citizen even if they're born on the floor of the US Senate.
Unfortunately, I'm not particularly interested in arguing with someone who's biggest signifier in any given situation is staking out a ridiculous position so they can demonstrate what an edgelord they are.
That's fine, cause you lost me.
Its simple, we should use the system most of the world uses.
If one of a child's parents is an American citizen at the time of the child's birth, than the child is an American citizen, regardless of where they're born (but since the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship, if the parent(s) register the child as a citizen of a foreign country it loses its US Citizenship at that time).
If neither of the child's parents are American Citizens than the child is not an American citizen even if they're born on the floor of the US Senate.
That's a strong argument, probably the strongest. No matter how people feel about the issue, there HAS to be an agreed upon legal definition.
Obviously my earlier post is not relevant to the actual written law.
Its simple, we should use the system most of the world uses.
If one of a child's parents is an American citizen at the time of the child's birth, than the child is an American citizen, regardless of where they're born (but since the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship, if the parent(s) register the child as a citizen of a foreign country it loses its US Citizenship at that time).
If neither of the child's parents are American Citizens than the child is not an American citizen even if they're born on the floor of the US Senate.
I think I agree mostly with this statement. There was a time when as an emerging, un-established country, we NEEDED immigration for the skills, talents, bodies, etc that made us great. I believe that day has passed us by. America has become a world superpower (I know that's debatable) and is recognized as a sovereign nation. I do believe we can now become very picky on who we allow in. I know that sounds isolationist and elitist, and all the other "-ist's" out there, but America cannot afford to be the worlds hotel.
Obviously, there would be several caveats in relation to those seeking proven asylum, etc...
Delfuego
10-30-2018, 11:14
So then no one would be Americans?Sure there would! Elizabeth Warren would still be American ;)
Honestly people have transitioned to "I got mine, screw the next guy". Just because your ancestors came here by boat and not on foot doesn't make you special.
Sure there would! Elizabeth Warren would still be American ;)
Honestly people have transitioned to "I got mine, screw the next guy". Just because your ancestors came here by boat and not on foot doesn't make you special.
Those who came here by boat and helped build this country when it was a wild wasteland earned their status far above those who are coming here on foot from the south and sucking on the country's teets.
Lots of people getting hard ons thinking about repealing the birth thing. I don't think for a second that it'll happen.
I'm curious what people thinks makes someone an American though.
Denninger weighed in on this one today:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=234449
Cut The Rode
Trump has announced he intends to cut the rode on anchor babies, letting the ship drift off.
It's about damn time.
But -- whether he can do it by executive order is an open question.
The 14th Amendment is not settled when it comes to the question of whether someone born here to illegal immigrant parent(s) is a citizen. It contains the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
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.
The problem is that a child of illegal immigrant parents has parents that are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, not the US. Further they have denied the jurisdiction of US law by their very action of being here.
So is a child of such person(s) a citizen? That people have interpreted it to mean yes absent actual court cases doesn't mean it's true. It just hasn't been litigated yet.
There are two cases that potentially bear on this at the USSC; one held that a child of legal permanent residents was a citizen. Note, however, that such is distinct from someone born to illegal invaders; said child was born to person who were here legally on a permanent basis but not citizens. It thus does not apply.
The other dealt with whether public education could be withheld from illegal invaders; the court answered no, but that doesn't deal with the question of birthright citizenship at all due to the last clause in the 14th Amendment which does not limit equal protection to citizens.
Such a move would result in immediate litigation, of course - but this is a question to be brought before the courts. The litigation will clarify immediately whether (1) we are indeed still in any way a nation of laws, in that someone who thumbs their nose at the jurisdiction of the United States can then preferentially claim "jurisdiction" only when it suits them to pop out an anchor baby, using said child to immediately steal funds (including for the birth itself!) from taxpaying citizens and (2) if the courts answer yes then we can both demand a Constitutional Amendment to stop that and until it is passed it has been clarified by the courts that each of us can also choose when the jurisdiction of the United States applies to us -- such as whether we recognize a duty to pay taxes, to comply with demands of law enforcement, to obtain a license to drive, to comply with laws relating to firearms, to obtain car insurance and similar. After all if being subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is a choice rather than an obligation then such choice applies to all of it in all matters, from the most-petty to the most-serious.
Martinjmpr
10-30-2018, 12:30
Denninger weighed in on this one today:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=234449
Going to have to throw the BS flag here because he's wrong. He's trying to use some clever and specious reasoning to get around the very plain, simple language of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal aliens ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's why they get arrested for committing crimes here.
If they "weren't subject to US jurisdiction" they couldn't be arrested or charged in US courts because that's what it means to be under the jurisdiction of US law.
People who are "not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is short hand for diplomats and their families (who are, in fact, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Nor are US diplomats in other countries subject to the jurisdiction of those countries.) Anyone who is physically present in the US and not on a diplomatic passport or otherwise exempted from US law (like a military member who is here under a SOFA) is subject to US jurisdiction.
Martinjmpr
10-30-2018, 12:39
BTW I'm the mirror image of the illegal: A US citizen by birth who was not born in the United States. I was born in Germany where my parents were stationed with the Army. At the time I was born, my parents were not subject to German law (except under very specific circumstances that were spelled out in the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA.) They were subject to American law and therefore as a child of American parents who were both subject to American law, I am American by birth, even though my place of birth is in Germany.
I actually have a German birth certificate (Geburtsurkunde) but I also have US State Department and US Army Hospital birth certificates. Were I to try and claim German citizenship, it would depend on whether Germany conveys birthright citizenship (which I don't think it does, but honestly I've never checked because I'm not German, I'm American.)
My point is that there are people in the US who are not subject to US jurisdiction but illegal aliens are not in that category. Regardless of where they came from they can be arrested and charged in US courts and can avail themselves of US civil rights and that is what it means to be under US jurisdiction.
Going to have to throw the BS flag here because he's wrong. He's trying to use some clever and specious reasoning to get around the very plain, simple language of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal aliens ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That's why they get arrested for committing crimes here.
If they "weren't subject to US jurisdiction" they couldn't be arrested or charged in US courts because that's what it means to be under the jurisdiction of US law.
People who are "not subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is short hand for diplomats and their families (who are, in fact, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Nor are US diplomats in other countries subject to the jurisdiction of those countries.) Anyone who is physically present in the US and not on a diplomatic passport or otherwise exempted from US law (like a military member who is here under a SOFA) is subject to US jurisdiction.
Not according to the original intent of the term:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/should-the-children-illegal-aliens-be-us-citizens
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (overturning, in part, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that no black could be a U.S. citizen) clarified the conditions of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."
Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."
It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).
But it is the principle of the matter that is most problematic. The broad claim of automatic birthright citizenship traces its roots more to the feudal concept of perpetual allegiance of subjects to kings, rather than equal rights and the consent of the governed. It violates bedrock American principles and undermines the rule of law.
Martinjmpr
10-30-2018, 13:17
Not according to the original intent of the term:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/should-the-children-illegal-aliens-be-us-citizens
I think that's a weak argument that is unlikely to be successful.
This part jumped out at me:
While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
Has the Supreme Court ever held that it DIDN'T? I can't help but think that if there was a SCOTUS decision on point that said, plainly, that the children of temporary or even illegal immigrants are NOT US citizens under the plain language of the 14th Amendment they would have quoted THAT case. Since they haven't quoted such a case I think it can be reasonably concluded that the SCOTUS has never said specifically that the 14th Amendment does NOT convey automatic citizenship on children born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents. They simply have not yet said that it HAS.
That's the kind of argument that might work if you're "preaching to the choir" but it is not likely to prevail in any appellate court when the plain meaning of "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is so evident.
Wong Kim Ark (the case you mentioned) held as follows:
the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
There is also the Slaughter House cases in which SCOTUS said in Dicta* that
that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".
*(in Dicta means that this part of the decision is not binding on lower courts but it is persuasive in showing what the court's understanding of the 14th amendment was.)
Since Wong Kim Ark is the current law, SCOTUS would have to specifically overturn that decision in order to deny the notion of automatic birthright citizenship even for illegal immigrants.
Perhaps this more conservative SCOTUS might accept a limited definition of "subject to the jurisdiction of" for purposes of birthright citizenship and overturn Wong Kim Ark, but we won't really know until it gets to that level. I think it's a long shot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Indian _Citizenship_Act_of_1924
Rucker61
10-30-2018, 13:19
Not according to the original intent of the term:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/should-the-children-illegal-aliens-be-us-citizens
The Heritage Foundation is hardly an unbiased source. "the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents." Nor has it held that it doesn't.
If the Federal Govt. prevented illegals from getting into the country (like they're supposed to), this conversation doesn't even take place. But again, due to the Feds not doing one of the few things they're obligated to do under the Constitution, here we are.
I'm married to a legal immigrant, and if you want to see someone go ballistic, just bring up allowing illegals to get away with not following the process.
hurley842002
10-30-2018, 14:57
I'm married to a legal immigrant, and if you want to see someone go ballistic, just bring up allowing illegals to get away with not following the process.
I've not talked with a legal immigrant to date, that doesn't get wound up (rightfully so) over the topic of illegal immigration. I have friends from Poland, Scotland, Peru, Mexico, all immigrated legally, and they cannot stand illegals.
Catching up...
There are companies that do that, but that would still run into the issue I articulated with possible copyright infringement. Most print shops are pretty gunshy about printing anything where it's clear that the person asking for the print job doesn't hold copyright to the images they want printed lest they get caught up in a copyright infringement lawsuit. I would assume this would apply to places that do vinyl vehicle wraps as well.
I knew some guys who worked in a local print shop in school. A six pack = IDGAK. They did all sorts of "custom" stationary and stuff for me. Even did another friend's CD inserts for him while moonlighting--he just had to pay for costs.
I don't think copyright concerns are a barrier to one-off jobs and most of those images are in the public domain as memes and such. Although they are the absolute worst memes I've seen (we have much better) which only makes me doubt some aspects of this even more.
For example, a Lib might have a problem using a meme of Robert Byrd and Clinton smooching (that's horrible [because it's true]). But not a problem putting crosshairs over Clinton (this is exactly what a Con would do, teehee!). Good memes sting and can't be easily explained away. He used bad ones that preferred overt violence to intellectual arguments.
I think that the theory Denninger has posited is entirely plausible. These people think they're covered for any activity, they watch their party leaders lie to Congress, they watch the media cover-up those lies, they watch the (R) sit on its hands, why wouldn't they try this. If they get caught they'll walk into a promotion or nice book deal. As far as I can tell there are no short term consequences for illegal activity IF the offending party is a communist.
The ends justify the means.
That was interesting. And yes, we know some agents constructed the "insurance policy" and didn't care much about the law while doing it.
But... Wow! That would end the FBI. And if not, it would necessitate a Federal Bureau of Federal Bureau of Investigation Investigation (FBFBII).
The Heritage Foundation is hardly an unbiased source. "the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents." Nor has it held that it doesn't.
In Politics and Law, there is not such thing as an "unbiased" source.
"It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens."
The case often cited does not pertain to illegal immigrants.
Hopefully, Trump will force a hearing - for or against.
Martinjmpr
10-30-2018, 15:56
In Politics and Law, there is not such thing as an "unbiased" source.
"It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens."
The case often cited does not pertain to illegal immigrants.
Hopefully, Trump will force a hearing - for or against.
So you're not worried about the precedent of narrowing the scope of a Constitutional Right based on reading the tea leaves to analyze the "original intent" of the people who wrote it?
On a gun message board?
Think about it.
;)
So you're not worried about the precedent of narrowing the scope of a Constitutional Right based on reading the tea leaves to analyze the "original intent" of the people who wrote it?
On a gun message board?
Think about it.
;)
Absolutely not worried at all.
The 14th Amendment does not use the word "Right," and it is a word thrown about way to often these days. Mostly by liberals.
Comparing the 14th to the 2nd is ridiculous.
Yes, I would love to see the Constitution applied in it's "original intent" - front to back. If that is "tea leaves" to you, then so-be-it. Most liberals will agree with you.
I'm detecting a pattern here.
hollohas
10-30-2018, 19:13
But... Wow! That would end the FBI. And if not, it would necessitate a Federal Bureau of Federal Bureau of Investigation Investigation (FBFBII).
Agreed. No way in hell the FBI delivered those fakes.
However, the FBI has a LOOOONG history of using informants to goad people into doing things that they might not otherwise do or even offer help.
Here's just a single example of the FBI persuading some folks of the other side of the political spectrum to do something similar.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-244905/ [Ignore the obvious super leftwing tone of the article, it's was just the first link I found describing the bridge bomb plot]
There are tons and tons more examples.
Real bombers have historically made devices that actually function. It's not that hard.
But someone who is not too bright, blindly following plans that someone else may have given them and even using materials that may have been provided by someone they got setup with... All I can say, is it's happened before, more than once, when the FBI had their hands in it. So it leaves open some room to wonder in this case too.
GilpinGuy
10-31-2018, 00:03
I'm married to a legal immigrant, and if you want to see someone go ballistic, just bring up allowing illegals to get away with not following the process.
Ditto. My wife was brought here when her family fled the communists in Laos. Bring up illegal immigration and fur flies.
Is there some genocide or horrific war going on in Honduras that I don't know about? I don't think "living in poverty" is a reason for "asylum", but I could be wrong.
Rucker61
10-31-2018, 05:53
If the Federal Govt. prevented illegals from getting into the country (like they're supposed to), this conversation doesn't even take place. But again, due to the Feds not doing one of the few things they're obligated to do under the Constitution, here we are.
I'm married to a legal immigrant, and if you want to see someone go ballistic, just bring up allowing illegals to get away with not following the process.
Can you point out the part in the Constitution that gives the federal government the specific enumerated power over immigration?
Pertinent:
https://i.imgur.com/RlQf8KX.png
Martinjmpr
10-31-2018, 08:44
Can you point out the part in the Constitution that gives the federal government the specific enumerated power over immigration?
Article 1 Section 8 clause 4. Specified powers of Congress include "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" (why they put naturalization and bankruptcy in the same clause I don't know, but there it is.)
Aloha_Shooter
10-31-2018, 08:50
Can you point out the part in the Constitution that gives the federal government the specific enumerated power over immigration?
Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
Article 2 Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
These are umbrella powers that encompass the ability to define who gets to cross the border and the ability to defend the border.
Delfuego
10-31-2018, 09:34
Those who came here by boat and helped build this country when it was a wild wasteland earned their status far above those who are coming here on foot from the south and sucking on the country's teets.Is this what you tell yourself to make you feel better about being the descendant of immigrants? You have a distorted view of your dirty immigrant ancestors. They were boat people fleeing war, famine and plague from shithole countries (just like mine). Get real.
[snip]
Real bombers have historically made devices that actually function. It's not that hard.
But someone who is not too bright, blindly following plans that someone else may have given them and even using materials that may have been provided by someone they got setup with... All I can say, is it's happened before, more than once, when the FBI had their hands in it. So it leaves open some room to wonder in this case too.
Yes! Also why when the news broke, every "former investigator/EOD tech" said it was significant that the devices didn't detonate.
It's like the history of actual mail bombings in the US/world have been erased from memory to turn the volume up on this as a legitimate threat. Act of terror (political fear), sure! Actual threat? No.
Like I said pages ago, this is the dumbest crime a person can commit in 2018. He might as well have mailed a copy of his ID with the "bombs." It is also a bad political crime because mail bombs often injure/kill unintended targets; mailroom employees, secretaries, etc...
As for running low-IQ "assets..." Yes, we've seen them do that. If (big IF) they have participated in the loss of life, I highly doubt anyone would talk.
RblDiver
10-31-2018, 10:29
I wouldn't worry as much about illegal immigration and anchor babies if we didn't have all the entitlements. Get rid of all that and I'd be a lot more OK with loosening immigration procedures. Since that'll never happen...
hollohas
10-31-2018, 12:05
Is this a thread about a dumb terrorist making fake bombs or immigration now?
Is this a thread about a dumb terrorist making fake bombs or immigration now?
yes
I wouldn't worry as much about illegal immigration and anchor babies if we didn't have all the entitlements. Get rid of all that and I'd be a lot more OK with loosening immigration procedures. Since that'll never happen...
If we didn't have entitlements but allowed free-flowing immigration, we'd soon have entitlements too.
Rucker61
10-31-2018, 14:41
Article 1 Section 8 clause 4. Specified powers of Congress include "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" (why they put naturalization and bankruptcy in the same clause I don't know, but there it is.)
Naturilization =/= immigration.
If ya'll wanna know about 14th amendment intention of the proposer and those who passed it, you can read here:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
It's the debate from when it was proposed.
More here for some historical context: https://spectator.org/63860_what-did-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/
Now, the Congressional Globe does mention immigrants, but it's seemingly taken for granted that they are legal immigrants.
I find the portion about the Indians more compelling, in that a foreign national is more akin to the Indians, legally speaking, than a resident or citizen. That is not to argue that Indians are illegal immigrants.
Whether or not our steaming pile of a legal system and legislative body would see it as such, I dunno. Probably not since it would violate the feelz.
Martinjmpr
10-31-2018, 15:50
Naturilization =/= immigration.
SCOTUS has held that it is. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012)
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/26/john-eastman/congress-has-both-textual-inherent-authority-regulate-immigration-good
Excerpts (emphasis added)
First, there is the power over naturalization contained in Article I, Section 8. Granted, the power to ?naturalize??that is, to confer citizenship?is not the same thing as the power to regulate immigration. But the notion that the power to regulate immigration is not subsumed within the power of naturalization is an anachronistic view of the latter power that understands naturalization merely to confer citizenship and not as having anything to do with who can immigrate into this country in order to obtain citizenship. As James Pfander and Theresa Wardon correctly noted in a 2010 article published in the Virginia Law Review, the Framers ?regarded the formation of naturalization rules as tantamount to the construction of an immigration policy for the new nation.? Reclaiming the Immigration Constitution of the Early Republic: Prospectivity, Uniformity, and Transparency, 96 Va. L. Rev. 359, 393 (2010).
That is why, when it confronted these issues a century after America?s founding, the Supreme Court concluded that immigration restrictions are inherent in sovereignty. Moreover, the Court recognized that this kind of policy judgment is best crafted by the political branches, not by judicial interposition. The Court thus recognized that Congress has, under the Constitution, almost unfettered plenary authority to make such judgments. The kinds of arguments that Somin makes, therefore, are more properly submitted to Congress, not to the courts. If you think lawmakers got the policy judgment wrong, then argue for a change in the law, because what the proper immigration policy should be is inherently a political decision that the legislative branch is entitled to make.
Thanks guys for answering the questions regarding the Constitution. A sovereign nation cannot exist without defined borders, and immigration is a component of this. The US has no obligation to allow immigration. It has historically been granted to those that could provide some sort of value to the country and its interests. There were also obligations for assimilation into society.
Rucker61
10-31-2018, 17:28
If ya'll wanna know about 14th amendment intention of the proposer and those who passed it, you can read here:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
It's the debate from when it was proposed.
More here for some historical context: https://spectator.org/63860_what-did-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/
Now, the Congressional Globe does mention immigrants, but it's seemingly taken for granted that they are legal immigrants.
I find the portion about the Indians more compelling, in that a foreign national is more akin to the Indians, legally speaking, than a resident or citizen. That is not to argue that Indians are illegal immigrants.
Whether or not our steaming pile of a legal system and legislative body would see it as such, I dunno. Probably not since it would violate the feelz.
I'm not sure when legal vs illegal immigration was established formally in the law.
Aloha_Shooter
10-31-2018, 19:22
I'm not sure when legal vs illegal immigration was established formally in the law.
It was established when the first laws regarding immigration quotas and procedures were passed. At a minimum, the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 made it harder for immigrants to become citizens and gave the president the power to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed "dangerous".
http://images1.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED5/5068bb56aff04.jpeg
Rucker61
11-01-2018, 05:03
SCOTUS has held that it is. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012)
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/26/john-eastman/congress-has-both-textual-inherent-authority-regulate-immigration-good
Excerpts (emphasis added)
Thanks for the inout. Working my way through "Reclaiming the Immigration Constitution of the Early Republic: Prospectivity, Uniformity, and Transparency" right now.
Rucker61
11-01-2018, 05:04
It was established when the first laws regarding immigration quotas and procedures were passed. At a minimum, the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 made it harder for immigrants to become citizens and gave the president the power to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed "dangerous".
Hardly a good precedent.
Aloha_Shooter
11-01-2018, 07:42
Hardly a good precedent.
How do you say that? Legally, it was a very good precedent. The acts themselves established criteria for naturalization and defined citizenry. If you'd actually read some history instead of knee-jerk repeating liberal talking points, you'd 1) learn something, 2) understand why things are the way they are, 3) not ask so many questions that can be answered in 15 seconds (or less) with a simple Internet search.
Rucker61
11-01-2018, 20:32
How do you say that? Legally, it was a very good precedent. The acts themselves established criteria for naturalization and defined citizenry. If you'd actually read some history instead of knee-jerk repeating liberal talking points, you'd 1) learn something, 2) understand why things are the way they are, 3) not ask so many questions that can be answered in 15 seconds (or less) with a simple Internet search.
The Sedition part of the Acts attempted to toss the 1st Amendment out on it's ear. I have read some history, and likely know as much about gun control as you do.
Ann Coulter explains:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-31.html
THE TRUE HISTORY OF MILLSTONE BABIES
October 31, 2018
Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.
In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.
Such is the case today with "anchor babies" and "birthright citizenship." People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.
If you'd like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!
Of course the president can end the citizenship of "anchor babies" by executive order -- for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.
It's just something everyone believes to be true.
How could anyone -- even a not-very-bright person -- imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?
The first question would be: Why would they do that? It's like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?
The Supreme Court has stated -- repeatedly! -- that the "main object" of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment "was to settle the question ... as to the citizenship of free negroes," making them "citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."
Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!
You know what's really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!
YOU MEAN THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.
You can make it up. It doesn't have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!
As the court has explained again and again and again:
"(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."
That's why the amendment refers to people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren't citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.
The 14th Amendment fixed that.
The amendment didn't even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.
Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It's easy to miss -- the law is titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.") Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.
But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about "civil rights," you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.
Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans -- the very people the amendments were written to protect!
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there's a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That's "birthright citizenship."
It's something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a "citizen."
This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. "Dicta" means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.
Left-wing activists seized on Brennan's aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.
No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It's a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan's 1982 footnote.
Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won't be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.
It's often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.
COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER
Martinjmpr
11-06-2018, 11:05
Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.
You know that's the exact same argument that gun controllers use to justify gutting the 2nd amendment, right? The whole "sure, the founding fathers gave us the second amendment, but that was in the days of muzzle-loading muskets, not rapid firing semi automatics."
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
That's because those children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Just like it says in the 14th amendment.
You'd think that gun owners, of all people, would be worried about trying to "weasel out" of the plain language of a Constitutional amendment.
"Some men, you just can't reach."
You know that's the exact same argument that gun controllers use to justify gutting the 2nd amendment, right? The whole "sure, the founding fathers gave us the second amendment, but that was in the days of muzzle-loading muskets, not rapid firing semi automatics."
That's because those children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Just like it says in the 14th amendment.
You'd think that gun owners, of all people, would be worried about trying to "weasel out" of the plain language of a Constitutional amendment.
I see this as an apples to oranges argument. This is from Senator Howard when explaining the intent of the 14th:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
I’ve always found the use of the 14th ammenndment to justify birthright citizenship to be a slap in the face of Freedmen and their descendants.
Bailey Guns
11-06-2018, 16:12
The intent of the 14th is actually pretty clear if one takes about 5 mins to educate themselves. And it sure as hell wasn't to give citizenship to anchor babies. That's a right fabricated by the left just like abortion.
Aloha_Shooter
11-06-2018, 23:13
You know that's the exact same argument that gun controllers use to justify gutting the 2nd amendment, right? The whole "sure, the founding fathers gave us the second amendment, but that was in the days of muzzle-loading muskets, not rapid firing semi automatics."
Not even close to the same analogy. In the late 18th century, the Pennsylvania and Kentucky long rifles used by American militia were equal or superior to the Brown Bess muskets used by the British Army. The 21st century equivalent to recognizing the inherent citizenship and rights of former American slaves is ... what? The 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats; it didn't even recognize the citizenship of Native Americans. I don't think citizenship is something that can or should be addressed by Executive Order but I would hope a constructionist Supreme Court would realize and state that the 14th Amendment is not as all-encompassing as liberals want it to be.
I see this as an apples to oranges argument. This is from Senator Howard when explaining the intent of the 14th:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
I hold politicians of all divisions in low regard. What matters is what the Supreme Court justices say it means.
You know that's the exact same argument that gun controllers use to justify gutting the 2nd amendment, right? The whole "sure, the founding fathers gave us the second amendment, but that was in the days of muzzle-loading muskets, not rapid firing semi automatics."
That's because those children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Just like it says in the 14th amendment.
You'd think that gun owners, of all people, would be worried about trying to "weasel out" of the plain language of a Constitutional amendment.
We have plenty of extra-Constitutional writings and reports on what the Founding Fathers meant by and for the 2nd Amendment -- those writings do not fall within the vision of the left (or even the RINOs).
We also have the transcript of the congressional session in which the 14th Amendment was introduced, and know what they meant by it due to the long conversation they had on it. They did not intend for anchor babies.
I dunno why that's such a hard concept to figure out.
The US wasn't a hugely popular immigration destination like it is now. Does the 14th Amendment specifically exclude children of illegal immigrants?
Bailey Guns
11-07-2018, 20:12
We have plenty of extra-Constitutional writings and reports on what the Founding Fathers meant by and for the 2nd Amendment -- those writings do not fall within the vision of the left (or even the RINOs).
We also have the transcript of the congressional session in which the 14th Amendment was introduced, and know what they meant by it due to the long conversation they had on it. They did not intend for anchor babies.
I dunno why that's such a hard concept to figure out.
It's not hard. However, it doesn't fit with the progressive agenda, so progressives want to lie about it. Weak conservatives want to be liked by progressives so they lie about it.
If people were swayed by fact and logic this wouldn't even be a conversation anyone would be having.
It's not hard.
You're right.
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.
So either persons born within our borders are citizens, or they are not held accountable by our laws.
Bailey Guns
11-07-2018, 20:34
Language changes over time, Ridge. You actually have to read more than that to understand. Background on what the language means has been posted in this thread several times. It's not conjecture or speculation. It's right from the people that wrote and discussed the amendment.
Language might have changed from the 1770s to now by a wide margin, but not as much from the 1868.
But could you link me to the post explaining how the language of the law has changed?
Bailey Guns
11-07-2018, 21:18
Seriously? You wanna argue and you haven't even been paying attention? OK...let me take you by the hand and lead you back to posts 167, 170 and 202.
And I'd highly recommend taking some FREE online courses thru HILLSDALE COLLEGE (https://www.hillsdale.edu/). But be warned... You won't be spoonfed the progressive pablum you've likely grown accustomed to digesting. You'll actually be taught the truth about what the Constitution means and what it represents. That's probably a deal-killer for you.
167 says
The problem is that a child of illegal immigrant parents has parents that are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, not the US.
But we're not talking about the parents. We're talking about the child born within the United States, who, according to the 14th, is subject to it's laws. He then goes on to argue that a court says that throws the whole thing into question is because a judge said schooling could not be witheld from the child of an illegal, and that somehow that ruling goes against the amendment which states that you cannot limit equal protection (which the court already agreed was the case).
Nevermind who the hell looks to a stock market pundit for Constitutional law advice? That's like asking me to look at a fungus on your foot.
On to post 170.
The argument here is that kids born here do not count because they have allegiance to another country. How is that so? Does saying the pledge in school mean they are suddenly citizens? If so that seems like quite the loophole. You can't say it's because the parents might, because the Constitution specifically prohibits punishing people for sins of the father. You can't judicially charge a child for a crime their parent committed. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
On to post 202.
Fuck Ann Coulter. She's a talking head, a pundit. Not a scholar.
Bailey Guns
11-07-2018, 21:46
She's also an attorney. You know...someone who actually studied law, passed a bar exam, was licensed by a state to practice law, clerked for an Eighth Circuit judge, worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee and helped to author legislation that allowed for deportation of aliens convicted of certain crimes. She's also published probably a dozen books, most of which were NYT bestsellers.
But, hey...
Fuck Ann Coulter. She's a talking head, a pundit. Not a scholar.
...is a really compelling argument.
Oh, wait. No, it's not. It's stupid and ill-informed.
As stupid and ill informed as twisting the Constitution to suit an argument?
Man, I agree that birthright citizenship is being abused by foreigners, but going against 140 years of legal precedent isn't going to stop it. The law needs to be changed or clarified to have a lasting effect instead of just something that can be undone by the next administration. Trying to remove an amendment is going to trigger a constitutional convention. Look at the map
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-governor-elections.html
Do you really want to put everything else at risk? The 2nd amendment? Because Democrats are gaining ground across the country and we've been daring them for years to just go ahead and remove the 2nd amendment if they really want to. States like Massachusetts have a "Republican" governor, but that guy would remove the 2nd in a heartbeat, because that's what Massholes want.
You're right.
So either persons born within our borders are citizens, or they are not held accountable by our laws.
The 14th Amendment was for former slaves after the Civil War. It's not for illegals.
The 14th Amendment was for former slaves after the Civil War. It's not for illegals.
That's the opinion of a bunch of folks in here, but that's not expressly stated nor implied by the wording in the 14th Amendment. That's why it is up to the Supreme Court to make the call.
Bailey Guns
11-08-2018, 17:58
Sometimes there just aren't enough face palms...
So what do you want to happen then, if not judicial review?
Sometimes there just aren't enough face palms...
Indeed.
https://cheezburger.com/7529883648/multi-face-palmhttps://i.chzbgr.com/full/4528076032/h6AE98DAE/
Documents not only have words, but they also have context. Using the words out of context does not mean they get to have the meaning that you would like them to have.
http://youtu.be/OHVjs4aobqs
Bailey Guns
11-08-2018, 20:19
So what do you want to happen then, if not judicial review?
Ideally? Well... People would magically, or even thru divine intervention, manage to remove their heads from their asses, read a little actual history, educate themselves on concepts like "intent", learn to listen to reason, stop making shit up that's not in the Constitution, stop making excuses for those that illegally cross our borders and stop being obtuse. That would be a good start.
BushMasterBoy
11-08-2018, 20:50
My advice: Be really careful of any packages you receive. We may be next!
Great-Kazoo
11-08-2018, 21:23
My advice: Be really careful of any packages you receive. We may be next!
Tucker Carlson is already aware of that.
Ideally? Well... People would magically, or even thru divine intervention, manage to remove their heads from their asses, read a little actual history, educate themselves on concepts like "intent", learn to listen to reason, stop making shit up that's not in the Constitution, stop making excuses for those that illegally cross our borders and stop being obtuse. That would be a good start.
Everything is legal until the courts say it isn't. We need the Supreme Court to make the call on this.
Great-Kazoo
11-08-2018, 22:59
Everything is legal until the courts say it isn't. We need the Supreme Court to make the call on this.
No, we need a congress to step up and resolve an issue both sides have ignored (for their own benefit) for decades. IMO it doesn't mater who has control of the house, senate or even the WH. They all do what's best for their interest (wallet) way before their constituents
Aloha_Shooter
11-09-2018, 10:50
Everything is legal until the courts say it isn't. We need the Supreme Court to make the call on this.
Wrong. Making things illegal is legislation. Courts are not supposed to legislate. There is a difference between interpreting the Constitution ala Marbury v. Madison and outright legislating from the bench as the SCOTUS has done increasingly since the Warren Court.
Bailey Guns
11-09-2018, 12:32
Now you're really gonna confuse him.
Well apparently Trump signed an EO that is supposed to stop em. We'll see how that goes.
hollohas
11-09-2018, 20:19
We're already so off topic in this thread, so here's something funny. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181110/7397c179165f9c738b2560f1ef42af69.jpg
BPTactical
11-09-2018, 21:47
We're already so off topic in this thread, so here's something funny. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181110/7397c179165f9c738b2560f1ef42af69.jpg
LOL
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.