SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> The constitution says
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1738337221

Message started by JOG on 01/31/25 at 07:27:01

Title: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 07:27:01

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

It's short. I hope the NGOs are investigated and Everyone involved gets a Full Dose of the law.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Serowbot on 01/31/25 at 07:50:49

The full $50?
Devastating :-?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by thumperclone on 01/31/25 at 08:06:52

Musk violated section D

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 08:46:43

Ohh,Lookie! Another allegations without one word of support. Zero explanation.
HOW did Musk do that?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 08:57:43

The US Constitution does not say any of this.

I assume we are just supposed to ignore that part though and just cherry pick the accurate parts from the inaccurate parts of an argument.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 09:43:11

Musk violated section D

https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26219

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 13:24:48

58787A726F781D0 wrote:

The US Constitution does not say any of this.

I assume we are just supposed to ignore that part though and just cherry pick the accurate parts from the inaccurate parts of an argument.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A8+section%3A1325&os=apprefapp&ref=app

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A8+section%3A1325&os=apprefapp&ref=app

Is everything fake?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 13:35:30

Is everything fake?

No. It's also not in the US Constitution. Should we ignore that or just cherry pick what's correct and not correct?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 13:52:39

Ohh! So, I Attributed it to the Constitution WRONGLY. And, rather than pointing out that it is not a part of the Constitution, you tried to pretend it's Not American LAW. Well, forgive The FUKK outta Mee!
So, it IS the LAW. Well, haven't You just Added so Much to the forum?
DaFuq's wrong with you?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 14:00:24

Ohh! So, I Attributed it to the Constitution WRONGLY. And, rather than pointing out that it is not a part of the Constitution, you tried to pretend it's Not American LAW.

Nope, you are making up something that was never said. I very specifically did point out it was not in the Constitution - twice. I never said, implied or otherwise mentioned anything about it not being LAW. It's law. Not the Constitution. People want to make everything a violation of the Constitution.

Well, forgive The FUKK outta Mee!
So, it IS the LAW. Well, haven't You just Added so Much to the forum?
DaFuq's wrong with you?

It's not in the Constitution. You say you will not hesitate to point out when other people are wrong. This is really no different. Humans are in violation of US law, not the US Constitution. Get over it.

Or does the repetitive name-calling Add so Much to the forum?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 14:09:27

How does it benefit the conversation or the forum to pretend that what someone Said is INCORRECT? When their Sin is a misattribution to the source? How does being Wrong about the source CHANGE the meaning and importance of the statement.
I Know you got hit in the mouth around the sandbox when you were a kid,because you have been an insufferable Jakkass all your life.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 14:18:10

How does it benefit the conversation or the forum to pretend that what someone Said is INCORRECT?

"The Constitution says" Someone Said that. It is not "pretend" to accurately observe the information provided is not in the US Constitution. This griping about an accurate observation is why I asked if this is going to be another cherry-picking what is true and what is not.

Simple answer here is yes. Yes you want us to ignore the inaccurate statement and "pretend" it is INCORRECT, when it is actually, really, INCORRECT.

So sure lets "pretend" it is INCORRECT and go ahead with this conversation as if the LAW you referenced is in the Constitution. How much sense does that make to you?

When their Sin is a misattribution to the source? How does being Wrong about the source CHANGE the meaning and importance of the statement.

I never said anything like that. You did. You made all that up in your head. I only said it is not in the US Constitution.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 14:30:33

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Serowbot on 01/31/25 at 14:36:16

I though Republicans read the Constitution
like... every day :-?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 14:39:28

You have a real
Passive/Aggressive
Problum..
You unnecessarily create conflict.
All you needed to do was
Correct me.
Hey,what JOG is saying IS the LAW
But it's not in the Constitution.

You might be a bit of a Dikk.

Anyone else would have just said "Oh ok it's not in the Constitution" and moved on instead of making a big deal out of it and creating some imaginary narrative about how it will CHANGE the meaning of anything. This is your problem, I never said anything about the actual law beyond it not being in the Constitution.

This consistent over-reaction to anything that is not absolute agreement is why I asked the question I did. Of course what else should I expect considering you would assess that I researched information, in as accurate detail as I could, that was offered on here to "control the narrative" on a single forum post and not because I want to know what is in the research.

The fact you never considered that I would want to know what's inside the documentation provided says a lot about how personal you take things here.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 14:40:01

3620372A32272A31450 wrote:

I though Republicans read the Constitution
like... every day :-?

You probably thought that was clever.[ch128514]

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Serowbot on 01/31/25 at 14:41:15

I think JoG is having trouble with Trump winning :-?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 14:52:53

[quote author=0525272F3225400 link=1738337221/0#14 date=1738363168]You have a real
Passive/Aggressive
Problum..
You unnecessarily create conflict.
All you needed to do was
Correct me.
Hey,what JOG is saying IS the LAW
But it's not in the Constitution.

You might be a bit of a Dikk.

Anyone else would have just said "Oh ok it's not in the Constitution" and moved on instead of making a big deal out of it and creating some imaginary narrative about how it will CHANGE the meaning of anything. This is your problem, I never said anything about the actual law beyond it not being in the Constitution.

This consistent over-reaction to anything that is not absolute agreement is why I asked the question I did. Of course what else should I expect considering you would assess that I researched information, in as accurate detail as I could, that was offered on here to "control the narrative" on a single forum post and not because I want to know what is in the research.

The fact you never considered that I would want to know what's inside the documentation provided says a lot about how personal you take things here.[/quoti

Ohh, Bullschitt.. Pissawff.
The fact you never considered that I would want to know what's inside the documentation provided says a lot about how personal you take things here.[/quoti

I was WRONG about the source documents.. And you Tried to make that a Disqualifying thing to what I said. Of course it's Personal. You think I'm not Watching what you say? You were sent here to control the conversation. TT Failed. You are not exactly Winnin.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 15:31:35

What?
Asking your handlers what to do now?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 16:14:27

What?
Asking your handlers what to do now?

What's the acceptable timeline to reply to your posts? Again, making something as arbitrary as the time it takes people to respond to your posts personal.

I was WRONG about the source documents.. And you Tried to make that a Disqualifying thing to what I said.

You are also WRONG about that. I said the information is not in the Constitution. You are making it more than that, anyone else would have moved on. Nothing is Disqualifying anything other than You choosing to dwell on this one aspect. Get over it - I never said anything you posted is "Disqualifying" You are making all that up in your head.

You think I'm not Watching what you say? You were sent here to control the conversation. TT Failed. You are not exactly Winnin.

All you have to do is stop complaining. Why on earth are you letting me "control" this conversation? Are you that easy to influence that I can "control" your forum posts? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I won't sit here and "pretend" the LAW you referenced is in the Constitution, but I will agree that it applies directly to what you stated in the first post. I'm actually already having this conversation on another forum by simply copying your post over there.

But You choose to complain instead of just talk about the topic. If you didn't take things so personal we could be talking about how immigration law applies to things. You don't seem to be able to get past your feelings and the desire to insult others to have an adult conversation though. Just move on, get over the emotions - talk about the topic you presented.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 16:23:01

You do know I'm not the only person reading this, right?
You are so lame.

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 16:30:23

You do know I'm not the only person reading this, right?
You are so lame.

Yeah, keep complaining, making it personal then tell me I am "controlling" the conversation. My last PM = "This guy is still yammering on about the Constitution thing?"

Just move on, get over the emotions - talk about the topic you presented. How do you think NGO's are connected to this? Most work overseas. Some take Border Patrol contracts to move immigrants around. What are you referencing?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 19:36:25

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by JOG on 01/31/25 at 19:38:52

Now,let's TALK ABOUT THE FUKKIN LAW.
Instead of me..

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 01/31/25 at 20:17:49

Dude! You are hilarious. You so tried to make what I did,, ohh,so Horrible! I SAID a US law was in the Constitution, and Your response was purely antagonistic,,
And, purposefully argumentative,, instead of simply correcting ,you decided to just be a dikk.
No,pissOff
. you just Keep proving my thinking correct. You are so obvious.

Still complaining. Say whatever you need to to feel better. I never assigned a value to your statements, you are imagining up nonsense because you take all this personal. It's just a forum, get over it.

Again:

How do you think NGO's are connected to this? Most work overseas. Some take Border Patrol contracts to move immigrants around. What are you referencing?

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by MnSpring on 02/01/25 at 06:31:45

527270786572170 wrote:

"... Most work overseas. ..."

Perhaps say;
' Most NOG's that receive USA government money,
(Citizens taxes),
ALSO WORK OVERSEAS '

Title: Re: The constitution says
Post by Eegore on 02/01/25 at 09:48:02

Perhaps say;
' Most NOG's that receive USA government money,
(Citizens taxes),
ALSO WORK OVERSEAS '

Agreed. So should I indicate every single time NGO's that I am speaking of are specifically USA Government money? Or can it be implied that I am not referencing US immigration law towards NGO's that receive no USA government money, thus being foreign NGO's? I'm not sure foreign NGO's that do not work in the US apply to this.

The question I have is what accountability is JOG referencing? It's a pretty open ended topic as presented.