Mike Johnson extends FISA in secret with the democrats

[jbander]

If people won't contribute just dump their asses .

 

[beagle9]

if you just write crap that is nonsense , stuff that has nothing to do with the thread or just gibberish , you will take the walk of shame , I'll dump your wasted ass quicker then shit. Say go ahead.

Please go ahead...

 

[jbander]

Please go ahead...

Warned the creep, all I asked is for him is to not hijack the thread and not wast bandwidth by saying nothing, he had to contribute but the worm couldn't do it so he is gone, By puppy dog it has been a slice.

 

[beagle9]

Warned the creep, all I asked is for him is to not hijack the thread and not wast bandwidth by saying nothing, he had to contribute but the worm couldn't do it so he is gone, By puppy dog it has been a slice.

Bye

 

[woodwork201]

It's not if he has the votes. Border security is becoming more bipartisan by the day. More than 80% of American see the border as a major problem. If xiden doesn't address it the commiecrats will be in deep shit in 24.

.

.

We do not need border reform. Now, strangely, after decades of the left trying to get "fundamental border reform", it is the Republicans calling for it and the Democrats pretending to object. So, now that it is the Republicans, it will get passed and everyone will say how wonderful it is; our Republican Representatives saved us.

But, in reality, we have close to perfect immigration law today. We do not need any change in immigration law; we only need a change in immigration enforcement. The problem is that neither branch of the Uniparty has pushed for immigration enforcement in our lifetimes.

 

[OKTexas]

We do not need border reform. Now, strangely, after decades of the left trying to get "fundamental border reform", it is the Republicans calling for it and the Democrats pretending to object. So, now that it is the Republicans, it will get passed and everyone will say how wonderful it is; our Republican Representatives saved us.

But, in reality, we have close to perfect immigration law today. We do not need any change in immigration law; we only need a change in immigration enforcement. The problem is that neither branch of the Uniparty has pushed for immigration enforcement in our lifetimes.

Where the hell did you come up with that dumbass word "reform"? It damn sure wasn't from the post you quoted. And yes, Trump had crossings at a 40 year low, now xiden is allowing them at a all time highs.

.

 

[beagle9]

Where the hell did you come up with that dumbass word "reform"? It damn sure wasn't from the post you quoted. And yes, Trump had crossings at a 40 year low, now xiden is allowing them at a all time highs.

.

Denial and obfuscation is the Democrat way....... They are truly diabolical people sad to say.

 

[woodwork201]

Where the hell did you come up with that dumbass word "reform"? It damn sure wasn't from the post you quoted. And yes, Trump had crossings at a 40 year low, now xiden is allowing them at a all time highs.

.

re·form
/rəˈfôrm/
verb
verb: reform; 3rd person present: reforms; past tense: reformed; past participle: reformed; gerund or present participle: reforming; verb: re-form; 3rd person present: re-forms; past tense: re-formed; past participle: re-formed; gerund or present participle: re-forming

1. 1.
   make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.
   
   

My response was simply to talk about the Republicans who, rather than impeaching Mayorkas and Biden, are calling to pass legislation to increase and improve security on the border. Thinking about improving security on the border, what's another word for making changes to something in order to improve it? This is an open-post quiz so be sure to use all of the resources available to you when preparing your answer?

So, what is it that the Republicans are asking for in relation to the border before they approve sending yet another 100 billion tax dollars to the Ukraine? Pro-tip: read the definition above before responding.

The point is, and you missed it completely, that we don't need additional legal measures by statute or legislation; what we need is to enforce the immigration law that we currently have.

It's not that I'm against any or all immigration reform. For instance, I'm all for a fully automated machine or Gatling gun solution, something like the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system but that targets flesh and blood, such that if anyone crosses illegally into the US territory between the wall and the border of the US we recognize it for the invasion that it is and we terminate the invasion immediately. But as nice-to-have as a CIWS system would be, it's not actually needed unless and until we've tried simply enforcing the immigration laws as they are today, including impeaching/convicting anyone in the Executive Branch of Government who fails to keep their oath to uphold the existing laws.

So while you, hopefully, are taking an English-as-a-first-language course, the Republicans in the House will quit trying to pass bills that they know the Senate is going to not pass and that, even if the Senate did go along, Biden is certain to veto, or even if Biden signed it, he is certain to not enforce it - this we know because he isn't enforcing any current immigration law, so while you're in that class, maybe the Republicans can do something that matters - like defunding major portions of Homeland Security and standing their ground through government shutdowns to back it up.

 

[woodwork201]

Denial and obfuscation is the Democrat way....... They are truly diabolical people sad to say.

All I can suggest is that you might get a group discount on that English language course with oktexas.

 

[OKTexas]

re·form
/rəˈfôrm/
verb
verb: reform; 3rd person present: reforms; past tense: reformed; past participle: reformed; gerund or present participle: reforming; verb: re-form; 3rd person present: re-forms; past tense: re-formed; past participle: re-formed; gerund or present participle: re-forming

1. 1.
   make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.
   

My response was simply to talk about the Republicans who, rather than impeaching Mayorkas and Biden, are calling to pass legislation to increase and improve security on the border. Thinking about improving security on the border, what's another word for making changes to something in order to improve it? This is an open-post quiz so be sure to use all of the resources available to you when preparing your answer?

So, what is it that the Republicans are asking for in relation to the border before they approve sending yet another 100 billion tax dollars to the Ukraine? Pro-tip: read the definition above before responding.

The point is, and you missed it completely, that we don't need additional legal measures by statute or legislation; what we need is to enforce the immigration law that we currently have.

It's not that I'm against any or all immigration reform. For instance, I'm all for a fully automated machine or Gatling gun solution, something like the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system but that targets flesh and blood, such that if anyone crosses illegally into the US territory between the wall and the border of the US we recognize it for the invasion that it is and we terminate the invasion immediately. But as nice-to-have as a CIWS system would be, it's not actually needed unless and until we've tried simply enforcing the immigration laws as they are today, including impeaching/convicting anyone in the Executive Branch of Government who fails to keep their oath to uphold the existing laws.

So while you, hopefully, are taking an English-as-a-first-language course, the Republicans in the House will quit trying to pass bills that they know the Senate is going to not pass and that, even if the Senate did go along, Biden is certain to veto, or even if Biden signed it, he is certain to not enforce it - this we know because he isn't enforcing any current immigration law, so while you're in that class, maybe the Republicans can do something that matters - like defunding major portions of Homeland Security and standing their ground through government shutdowns to back it up.

The only thing that needs said is: Enforce the laws currently on the books. No reform is necessary.

.

 

[beagle9]

re·form
/rəˈfôrm/
verb
verb: reform; 3rd person present: reforms; past tense: reformed; past participle: reformed; gerund or present participle: reforming; verb: re-form; 3rd person present: re-forms; past tense: re-formed; past participle: re-formed; gerund or present participle: re-forming

1. 1.
   make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.
   

My response was simply to talk about the Republicans who, rather than impeaching Mayorkas and Biden, are calling to pass legislation to increase and improve security on the border. Thinking about improving security on the border, what's another word for making changes to something in order to improve it? This is an open-post quiz so be sure to use all of the resources available to you when preparing your answer?

So, what is it that the Republicans are asking for in relation to the border before they approve sending yet another 100 billion tax dollars to the Ukraine? Pro-tip: read the definition above before responding.

The point is, and you missed it completely, that we don't need additional legal measures by statute or legislation; what we need is to enforce the immigration law that we currently have.

It's not that I'm against any or all immigration reform. For instance, I'm all for a fully automated machine or Gatling gun solution, something like the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system but that targets flesh and blood, such that if anyone crosses illegally into the US territory between the wall and the border of the US we recognize it for the invasion that it is and we terminate the invasion immediately. But as nice-to-have as a CIWS system would be, it's not actually needed unless and until we've tried simply enforcing the immigration laws as they are today, including impeaching/convicting anyone in the Executive Branch of Government who fails to keep their oath to uphold the existing laws.

So while you, hopefully, are taking an English-as-a-first-language course, the Republicans in the House will quit trying to pass bills that they know the Senate is going to not pass and that, even if the Senate did go along, Biden is certain to veto, or even if Biden signed it, he is certain to not enforce it - this we know because he isn't enforcing any current immigration law, so while you're in that class, maybe the Republicans can do something that matters - like defunding major portions of Homeland Security and standing their ground through government shutdowns to back it up.

Not sure where the confusion came in, but I'm glad you cleared that up ..

I agree except for the gatlin gun solution (((()))), but everything else read just fine..

 

[woodwork201]

The only thing that needs said is: Enforce the laws currently on the books. No reform is necessary.

.

Well, I talked about reform because you talked about reform in the post I quoted. That's kind of how Internet forums work: someone posts their ideas and others tell them why they're wrong. But then you prove the next part: when proven wrong, then move the goal posts so that you can never be wrong because those who actually know what they're talking about can't keep up with your changing argument.

 

[woodwork201]

Not sure where the confusion came in, but I'm glad you cleared that up ..

I agree except for the gatlin gun solution (((()))), but everything else read just fine..

What? You don't like the Gatling gun solution? You'd prefer tactical nukes? Or even just dogs? Well, sure, those are options, too.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, I talked about reform because you talked about reform in the post I quoted. That's kind of how Internet forums work: someone posts their ideas and others tell them why they're wrong. But then you prove the next part: when proven wrong, then move the goal posts so that you can never be wrong because those who actually know what they're talking about can't keep up with your changing argument.

You might want to go back and read the conversation again, "reform" is not a word I generally use in relation to the fed govt.

.

 

[woodwork201]

You might want to go back and read the conversation again, "reform" is not a word I generally use in relation to the fed govt.

.

It doesn't matter if you used the word; you suggested reform. I gave you the definition. Please get someone to read it to you because, apparently, you're not able to comprehend it. You called for reform in post #7 in this thread. No, you didn't use the word but you supported Mike Johnson holding up the NDAA for better border security. That means a change in law for border security because that's all he could do with the NDAA. I gave you the definition: Reform = changing something for the better. You supported reform.

Now, you're saying we need to enforce the laws we have today. I agree with that but it wasn't the argument you were making before you, in ignorance, attacked me for using an accurate English language word for changing something for the better. So, rather than admit that your attack was wrong, done in ignorance - which is OK, we all do that at some time - but you won't admit your error, you just keep digging in deeper. You made a mistake. Either just drop it and stop defending it, or even better, do the manly thing and own it.

So we can get back to your new stance, that we just enforce the laws in place. Since the President is refusing to enforce the law, what we need is to shut down the Government. No budget at all until the impeachment is over. All legislative resources of the House of Representative spend full time on impeachment. They can't help it if the Senate won't do their job but make it their failure rather than the failure of the House. Budget and impeachment are literally the only tools that the House has to try to get the President to enforce the law. If you want the law enforced, shutting down the Government and impeachment is all that they have.

By the way, the Constitution explicitly limits all Army funding to 2 years. One year of no spending bills, there's enough in the Constitution that they can pretend it allows the funding to continue but for the next year, the Army shuts down. If that's what it takes to get the President to comply with the law, then shut it all down. If they won't do it, then the President knows there is nothing that can be done.

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't matter if you used the word; you suggested reform. I gave you the definition. Please get someone to read it to you because, apparently, you're not able to comprehend it. You called for reform in post #7 in this thread. No, you didn't use the word but you supported Mike Johnson holding up the NDAA for better border security. That means a change in law for border security because that's all he could do with the NDAA. I gave you the definition: Reform = changing something for the better. You supported reform.

Now, you're saying we need to enforce the laws we have today. I agree with that but it wasn't the argument you were making before you, in ignorance, attacked me for using an accurate English language word for changing something for the better. So, rather than admit that your attack was wrong, done in ignorance - which is OK, we all do that at some time - but you won't admit your error, you just keep digging in deeper. You made a mistake. Either just drop it and stop defending it, or even better, do the manly thing and own it.

So we can get back to your new stance, that we just enforce the laws in place. Since the President is refusing to enforce the law, what we need is to shut down the Government. No budget at all until the impeachment is over. All legislative resources of the House of Representative spend full time on impeachment. They can't help it if the Senate won't do their job but make it their failure rather than the failure of the House. Budget and impeachment are literally the only tools that the House has to try to get the President to enforce the law. If you want the law enforced, shutting down the Government and impeachment is all that they have.

By the way, the Constitution explicitly limits all Army funding to 2 years. One year of no spending bills, there's enough in the Constitution that they can pretend it allows the funding to continue but for the next year, the Army shuts down. If that's what it takes to get the President to comply with the law, then shut it all down. If they won't do it, then the President knows there is nothing that can be done.

No dumb ass, it means enforce existing law, no changes required. No go away.

.

 

[woodwork201]

No dumb ass, it means enforce existing law, no changes required. No go away.

.

If only you had said that; but you didn't. You said hold up the NDAA to get better border security - in the NDAA. You're not really much of a man, are you? Sad. We're trying to defend a nation, the Constitution, and the right to keep and bear arms, and all we get are beta mails who can't even admit mistakes so can never learn. We're doomed.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

For those that don't know, the NDAA, which was supported in both parties, gives government the power to arrest and imprison any American without representation, but only on the premise they are a dangerous terrorist.

 

[OKTexas]

If only you had said that; but you didn't. You said hold up the NDAA to get better border security - in the NDAA. You're not really much of a man, are you? Sad. We're trying to defend a nation, the Constitution, and the right to keep and bear arms, and all we get are beta mails who can't even admit mistakes so can never learn. We're doomed.

I said it in post 170, I'm only responsible for what I say. Not your inability to read.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MSN

Mike Johnson, the man democrats would have us believe is the devil, the man who will implement a theocracy and force us all to give up porn has met with democrats in secret to extend FISA.

Speaker Mike Johson (R-LA) faced backlash for including a FISA extension in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), frustrating conservatives who were not consulted.

Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene criticized the move, blaming Johnson for negotiating a deal that included funding for abortion, trans surgeries, and a clean FISA extension.

This decision was seen as a sell-out of conservative principles and a win for Democrats.

“It also would pass a CLEAN FISA extension. Not to mention, more of your taxpayer dollars sent to Ukraine to fund the proxy war.,” Greene said.

“No member of the NDAA conference had any influence on this process. It was done in secret meetings with no input from conferees.”

“Now, we’re supposed to just grin and take it with no say in the final bill.”

The joke is once again on American conservatives who may buy into the circus known as the Swamp, that suggests they have actual representatives who are fighting for them, when that is the farthest thing from the truth there is.

Fake news:

“Overall, we rate State of the Nation (SOTN) extreme right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience and the use of poor sources, a complete lack of transparency, and false claims.”

State of the Nation - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

The dishonest and corruption of conservatives is endless.