TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -XV-

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Thats all they are down there doing for now. Building fences, providing humanitarian support and logistics. They are augmenting ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. If anyone gets into any kind of conflicts with the migrants it will be CBP.

Also i still feel that it is unnecessary for the military to be there now because other agencies can handle it no problem and such is written that they are supposed to handle it and the military is a last resort.

If they can handle it then why haven't they for the past 30 years? You do know that we have around 20 Million illegals who somehow got through those who you say can handle it, right?

Answer is they obviously can't. When you have traitors in office who control the national guard and police in their state and have them look away from the problem, time for the Feds to step in.

a reply to: bluesjr

You hit the nail with that one.


The answer is very clear that we have the manpower to handle it and the technology and such.


What holds us back?





















Politics have tied the hands of people assigned to do the job.

Reasons very well could be an effort to force us down the NWO road of having a totalitarian state. That is where we are headed.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Even if they were armed....

"[I]f"? If?

I thought you were certain.

Can you concede that some of the caravan might be armed and dangerous?

...a force that is too much for normal efforts of national guard and police....

Isn't it best to be prepared for "too much"?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Jumping in, PJ. I hope that's okay with you.

I need to add to this conversation because I believe that if the U.S. doesn't protect itself from invasion by 'irregular border crossers' (the politically correct term here), Canada will suffer the consequences. We already have a serious crisis on our border that our government is not only minimizing but appears to be fostering by aiding, funding and abetting. Protection of Canada's borders begins with protection of America's.

UT:

Many are posting the need for all out conflict and pretending the migrants are armed.

"Many"?

Who are they?

"...[P]retending...."?

You haven't provided evidence that there is not a considerable force of armed migrants intending to invade your southern border. The evidence is against you.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: bluesjr

You hit the nail with that one.


The answer is very clear that we have the manpower to handle it and the technology and such.


What holds us back?















Politics have tied the hands of people assigned to do the job.

Reasons very well could be an effort to force us down the NWO road of having a totalitarian state. That is where we are headed.

Right. This is not a battle against the illegal border crossers, per say, but a war against the NWO, socialism (which leads to communism) and totalitarianism.

If you agree that's where things are headed, you need to pick a side.

originally posted by: CanadianMason
considerable force of armed migrants

But how many and what makes them considerable?

a reply to: CanadianMason

lolers

So now unless i can prove they are not armed then the military is justified to kill em all and let god sort em out......

I also can not prove that the martians are not coming or that bigfoot does not exist but i am sure the military can kill them too.

From what i can tell you are raising the need for a canadian border wall cause americans are armed and what if those refugees take our guns and head north.

Honestly we are getting in the weeds now and are serving no real purpose other than ego inflation with the current direction the conversation has taken.

this is what pm's are for.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: CanadianMason

lolers

So now unless i can prove they are not armed then the military is justified to kill em all and let god sort em out......

I also can not prove that the martians are not coming or that bigfoot does not exist but i am sure the military can kill them too.

Honestly we are getting in the weeds now and are serving no real purpose other than ego inflation with the current direction the conversation has taken.

this is what pm's are for.

Whatever. Just convince me they are not armed and dangerous.

originally posted by: CanadianMason
Right. This is not a battle against the illegal border crossers, per say, but a war against the NWO, socialism (which leads to communism) and totalitarianism.

Is it?

If you agree that's where things are headed, you need to pick a side.

Mobius strip. What if there are no sides. Just people dancing to the same song with different POVs.

a reply to: CanadianMason

You can't prove a negative.

Also, the people didn't have to convince the gov that Iraq didn't have WMDs. The gov convinced the people that they did. Now they are convincing them that an enemy army is charging the southern border.

" 'There's an old saying in Tennessee..." George W. Bush

a reply to: CanadianMason

Actually i can.

On the last page a member pointed out to me the duties the military is performing on the border. Among those is surveillance. Further more there are several agencies that are keeping tabs on things. The thing about arms is that you have to carry them and there are no reports that anyone is toting guns. There a few who choose to raise the possibility but based on the other caravans these people are looking for jobs. They are not dumb enough to give potus what he desires and that is the authorization for force.

If anyone shows up with guns you can place safe bets that they have been paid by someone to stir the pot.

a reply to: daskakik

What if there are no sides. Just people dancing to the same song with different POVs.

That is a very deep politico-philosophical question, daskakik.

For those who might suffer under them, is there a difference between far- left communism and far-right fascism?

Not for those who suffer them.

What tune would you put to your statement. That would be interesting.

This thread.

a reply to: CanadianMason

Why just those who suffered under them? What about those who thrived under them?

What about those suffering under centrist governments?

Well lookie here:

twitter.com...

Pelosi now open to 5.7 billion in wall funding??

BREAKING NEWS: US Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says she will accept a bipartisan deal on border security and is open to $5.7 billion wall funding
Developing...

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Oh yea all last nite on the radio they were reporting that a committee is close to reaching deal and she made the proclamation she would pass anything the committee comes up with regardless what it is and she asked trump to do the same.

I imagine they covered much of the same ground on the subject that we have in this thread in the last couple days. Heres to hoping they throw in hr420!

originally posted by: CoramDeo
This thread.

Is it wrong that that's kind of the way I like it?

Impressive flying -

What are the odd’s that the very building where we saw the mil op “training” take place, is owned by Lawyer Thomas Girardi, the guy who is handling the Allison Mack and Keith Raniere Sex Trafficking case..

Monkey has a thread coming...

I may have to give a big old shout out to PJ's intuitive sense...

a reply to: crankyoldman

Mwahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaa



It's all just a coincidence!

Lol
Just a training exercise!
Haaaaaaaaaaaa

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
Well lookie here:

twitter.com...

Pelosi now open to 5.7 billion in wall funding??

BREAKING NEWS: US Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says she will accept a bipartisan deal on border security and is open to $5.7 billion wall funding
Developing...

If this gets verified then, to me, it would fit the "watch what happens right after the SOTU" comment.

A big IF though. I really don't see how she could continue down the path of pure resistance with the numbers on human trafficking getting out in the open. She needs to give in or forever be seen as a sex slave supporter.