Serowbot wrote on 01/31/25 at 14:36:16:

You probably thought that was clever.😂

[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.

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.

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?

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

Eegore wrote on 01/31/25 at 20:17:49:


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