“This is a system-wide collapse” - Texas border overwhelmed

[pcosmar]

Who gets to determine which is which?

Who determined the creation of the CIA?

I can't wait thing the whole thing implodes. System Wide

 

[Swordsmyth]

Who determined the creation of the CIA?

I can't wait thing the whole thing implodes. System Wide

That isn't an answer to my question.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS AN "ACTUAL THREAT"?


The answer can't be "pcosmar".

 

[pcosmar]

The answer can't be "pcosmar".

I decide in my life.

and I do not tolerate Spooks. any more than I would tolerate a Child Molester.. but I am being redundant.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

I'll take the one in the middle.

I'll take all three.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I decide in my life.

and I do not tolerate Spooks. any more than I would tolerate a Child Molester.. but I am being redundant.

Who gets to decide for a country?
You said other countries should label the CIA an "actual threat" and keep them out.
Who gets to decide for our country?

 

[devil21]

Why not...?

It is white girl pussy protesters just like that, that are doing the most damage.

You're not really helping fight the left's narrative by making it about immigrants and now women too. In fact, you're reinforcing it.

Btw, it's kind of ironic that your sig quote is hosted by a Snopes website. And you left out a lot of the quote. You should add the entire quote for context.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're not really helping fight the left's narrative by making it about immigrants and now women too. In fact, you're reinforcing it.

LOL

The left is the side denying that women and immigrants are disproportionately part of the problem.

You are spouting leftist propaganda.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're not really helping fight the left's narrative by making it about immigrants and now women too. In fact, you're reinforcing it.

Btw, it's kind of ironic that your sig quote is hosted by a Snopes website. And you left out a lot of the quote. You should add the entire quote for context.

Well, I'll be damned, the fuckers bought "On the Issues".

Let me change that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're not really helping fight the left's narrative by making it about immigrants and now women too. In fact, you're reinforcing it.

So leftist voting women are not an issue now?

Btw, it's kind of ironic that your sig quote is hosted by a Snopes website. And you left out a lot of the quote. You should add the entire quote for context.

Here's the entire exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."You've changed your view.

REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed. And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred. Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.

REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?

MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22342301/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/#.XKK-FFVKjcs

 

[devil21]

LOL

The left is the side denying that women and immigrants are disproportionately part of the problem.

You are spouting leftist propaganda.

Propaganda? I'm making an observation. The fact is, AF may be falling precisely into a trap that's being laid for him. Let's look at this overall situation from a possible different perspective, shall we? It's a good thing to reassess one's beliefs occasionally to ensure that the short con isn't distracting from a longer con. A sound strategy, yes?

Say, if you're a elite banker globalist and you want to perform population reduction operations in a country of 300 million people, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to directly employ enough foot soldiers to eliminate people and employ a slow-kill agenda that outpaces birth rates enough to make difference relatively quickly. What is the next solution then? Especially if you didn't want to be directly blamed for those operations and risk losing your position from a direct revolt against you? We can look back at history and see that fomenting a civil war worked very well not long ago. So, the solution is to repeat history. Arm up the white men, tell them that the enemy of their survival is their neighbors (blacks, hispanics, apparently now even women in general), continually increase the pitch with more and more propaganda from intentionally placed "spokespeople", let the anger build more and more. And then when the time is right, unleash them to perform the eliminations for you, while you proceed to loot everything not nailed down.

But naaa, that couldn't be it. Carry on.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So leftist voting women are not an issue now?



Here's the entire exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."You've changed your view.

REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed. And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred. Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.

REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?

MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22342301/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/#.XKK-FFVKjcs

So, all that being said, I see no inconsistency.

Ron ran on immigration issues that I still support:

1 - Bring the troops home and deploy them on the border to defend the republic and not be the world's cops.

2 - Eliminate welfare and hand out subsidies and "managed" trade deals that encourage illegal migration.

3 - End birthright citizenship by amending/eliminating the 14th Amendment.

He'd be denounced as a foul racist for running on those issues in 2020.

That is what has changed.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Propaganda? I'm making an observation. The fact is, AF may be falling precisely into a trap that's being laid for him. Let's look at this overall situation from a possible different perspective, shall we? It's a good thing to reassess one's beliefs occasionally to ensure that the short con isn't distracting from a longer con. A sound strategy, yes?

Say, if you're a elite banker globalist and you want to perform population reduction operations in a country of 300 million people, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to directly employ enough foot soldiers to eliminate people and employ a slow-kill agenda that outpaces birth rates enough to make difference relatively quickly. What is the next solution then? Especially if you didn't want to be directly blamed for those operations and risk losing your position from a direct revolt against you? We can look back at history and see that fomenting a civil war worked very well not long ago. So, the solution is to repeat history. Arm up the white men, tell them that the enemy of their survival is their neighbors (blacks, hispanics, apparently now even women in general), continually increase the pitch with more and more propaganda from intentionally placed "spokespeople", let the anger build more and more. And then when the time is right, unleash them to perform the eliminations for you, while you proceed to loot everything not nailed down.

But naaa, that couldn't be it. Carry on.

Or they can flood us with hostile invaders who will vote to take everything we have and then exterminate us while getting useful idiots to insist that we allow them all in and possibly provoke a civil war between the people with the sense to oppose the invasion and the useful idiots.

The leftist voters are just as bad as the people who use them and we must be rid of them one way or another, I would like it to be a peaceful separation but I don't think they will agree to that.

We are headed off a cliff one way or the other because half the country insists on it and the other half can't do anything to stop it as long as the first half insists, the only thing we can do is identify our enemies, limit their reinforcements and prepare to deal with them while always holding out the olive branch of an offer to peacefully separate.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

REX 84 is going swimmingly, it seems. Blame brown people and you can get the terrified white people to do anything you want.

Practically this entire thread is a giant violation of the RPF's mission statement.

Do you really want to put yourself in the same category as those who constantly screech “brown people”?

While there may be some Americans who do harbor a prejudice against Central Americans, just as there are some Americans that harbor a favoritism towards those south of the border, there is by no means a correlation based upon views on immigration.

The Hispanic and black people I know who do not want more immigration do not complain about “brown people”, they complain about crowds, traffic, homeless people shitting on the street and living in the bushes, the price and lack of availability of housing, depressed wages, etc.

Since many people are not on the front lines, they may complain about something else, like all of the people leaving California for the reasons stated above, and ruining their State with bleeding heart, counter-productive, self-destructive leftism.

Some are lucky enough to be in a bubble where they don’t feel any effect (yet).

But yes, there are political games being played by many sides on this issue.

 

[devil21]

Or they can flood us with hostile invaders who will vote to take everything we have and then exterminate us while getting useful idiots to insist that we allow them all in and possibly provoke a civil war between the people with the sense to oppose the invasion and the useful idiots.

The leftist voters are just as bad as the people who use them and we must be rid of them one way or another, I would like it to be a peaceful separation but I don't think they will agree to that.

We are headed off a cliff one way or the other because half the country insists on it and the other half can't do anything to stop it as long as the first half insists, the only thing we can do is identify our enemies, limit their reinforcements and prepare to deal with them while always holding out the olive branch of an offer to peacefully separate.

The part where your perspective falls very short compared to the alternative perspective I posted is that those you say will do the exterminating aren't the ones buying guns and ammo by the metric ton and aren't anywhere near a large enough force to pull off anything of the sort. On the other hand....

If, instead of treating it as a political issue, you treat it as a war scenario (after all, you are the one calling them "invaders"), which scenario is much more likely to be the outcome?

Do you really want to put yourself in the same category as those who constantly screech “brown people”?

I feel bad for people being scapegoated. I feel even worse for people that I generally like possibly (or likely, if history is any measure) being duped into becoming unpaid mercenaries for globalists that openly admit that population reduction is a major goal.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Propaganda? I'm making an observation. The fact is, AF may be falling precisely into a trap that's being laid for him. Let's look at this overall situation from a possible different perspective, shall we? It's a good thing to reassess one's beliefs occasionally to ensure that the short con isn't distracting from a longer con. A sound strategy, yes?

Say, if you're a elite banker globalist and you want to perform population reduction operations in a country of 300 million people, it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to directly employ enough foot soldiers to eliminate people and employ a slow-kill agenda that outpaces birth rates enough to make difference relatively quickly. What is the next solution then? Especially if you didn't want to be directly blamed for those operations and risk losing your position from a direct revolt against you? We can look back at history and see that fomenting a civil war worked very well not long ago. So, the solution is to repeat history. Arm up the white men, tell them that the enemy of their survival is their neighbors (blacks, hispanics, apparently now even women in general), continually increase the pitch with more and more propaganda from intentionally placed "spokespeople", let the anger build more and more. And then when the time is right, unleash them to perform the eliminations for you, while you proceed to loot everything not nailed down.

But naaa, that couldn't be it. Carry on.

Maybe.

And maybe a cigar is just a cigar sometimes, and human beings act in ways that are not manipulated and controlled and directed at every turn.

Which means they can act in stupid and genocidal ways.

Especially if they have become convinced by the same propaganda organs you claim are manipulating me, that I am the source of all their misery, I have been the one "keeping them down" and that if they could just silence/shackle/kill me and my kind, all their troubles would be over.

It's what fueled just about every genocide and pogrom in history.

I see it being geared up against me and mine, in the home and nation that my family built.

Pardon me for getting bitter, punchy and defensive.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The part where your perspective falls very short compared to the alternative perspective I posted is that those you say will do the exterminating aren't the ones buying guns and ammo by the metric ton and aren't anywhere near a large enough force to pull off anything of the sort. On the other hand....

If, instead of treating it as a political issue, you treat it as a war scenario (after all, you are the one calling them "invaders"), which scenario is much more likely to be the outcome?

They will be supplied with what they need when the time comes, they always are.
And in the mean time the government will use them to take everything from us including our guns.


P.S. you really have no idea what or who is being brought across the border, so saying that the invaders don't have weapons and don't know how to use them is nonsense.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The part where your perspective falls very short compared to the alternative perspective I posted is that those you say will do the exterminating aren't the ones buying guns and ammo by the metric ton and aren't anywhere near a large enough force to pull off anything of the sort. On the other hand....

Guns and ammo that won't ever be used for defense of life, liberty and property are as worthless as dirt.

That said, "they" aren't?

We all need to step out of echo chambers and bubble buoys from time to time.

One would have thought that the campaigns of 2008 and 2012 would have been proof enough to show just how tiny a minority "we" are.

If, instead of treating it as a political issue, you treat it as a war scenario (after all, you are the one calling them "invaders"), which scenario is much more likely to be the outcome?

It is war, and the militia (organized and unorganized) should have been deployed years ago.

 

[devil21]

Oh well, can't say I didn't warn...

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Illegal immigration "superhighway" 3/31/19

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/31/us-mexico-border-illegal-immigration-superhighway/

Mexican officials warn of another caravan of 20,000 migrants preparing to shoot north, hoping to take advantage of the lax enforcement in both Mexico and lenient policies in the U.S. About 100,000 immigrants responding to those incentives have been nabbed at the border in March alone.

“The result is an illegal immigration superhighway that’s flowing through Mexico,” one senior Homeland Security Department official told The Washington Times.

By now, the nature of the border problem is clear: Families and children, assisted by drug smuggling cartels, have figured out how to exploit loopholes in federal law to gain a foothold in the U.S. They are coming in larger numbers and poorer health, and Homeland Security says it has reached the breaking point.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The Hispanic and black people I know who do not want more immigration do not complain about “brown people”, they complain about crowds, traffic, homeless people shitting on the street and living in the bushes, the price and lack of availability of housing, depressed wages, etc.

Since many people are not on the front lines, they may complain about something else, like all of the people leaving California for the reasons stated above, and ruining their State with bleeding heart, counter-productive, self-destructive leftism.

+rep

It was native black and Latino people that overwhelmingly were looking to leave the San Fran area in those recent polls.

They are the ones first hurt by floods of migrants.

That is one reason why closeted racist leftists promote unbridled immigration.