RE: SHADES OF THE PAST.

RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/17/2017 9:03:42 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines what a port of entry is and provides rules and regulations for the United States, which the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) enforces. However, what 'designates' a Port of Entry is actually the civil authority whom has control over the facilities in question. It is the decision of the civil body that possesses the property in question to identify wither or not they wish to be a Port of Entry or not. According to this gobbledigook dhs defines what a poe is and the civil authority that controls the entity decides if it is or not. That leaves miitary bases out of the picture. You be talkin' shit sweet cheeks. It is not that i don't know... It is pretty clear that you do not since you have offered no cititation for your opiions. it is that i don't see the point in sharing all of this information with you Then why are you involved in this discussion? because all you're going to do is ask another very vague limited question thinking that it will be the keystone which will deconstruct my argument. You have no arguement to deconstruct. Jesus you are phoquing stupid

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/18/2017 4:38:47 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan This takes us back to the original discussion that you have attempted to dodge with this foray into what is or is not an international airport/port of entry /border, what is or is not correct english and all maner of 'grammar naziism to your opinion about the structure and function of how illegal immigration interdiction and enforcement was changed by the articulate, big eared lying phoquer named obama. You have posted two documents in support of your opinion that were dated during his administration and one from from the roosevelt administration. Perhaps if you were to bring us something from the clinton and subsequent bush era we might more clearly see your foolishness.

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/18/2017 7:10:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan This takes us back to the original discussion that you have attempted to dodge with this foray into what is or is not an international airport/port of entry /border, what is or is not correct english and all maner of 'grammar naziism to your opinion about the structure and function of how illegal immigration interdiction and enforcement was changed by the articulate, big eared lying phoquer named obama. Actually - the original discussion (if you are even aware of what it was) is that Obama's deportations are actually very low. This is in spite of the fact that his 'removals' are the highest of any president ever. This was entirely due to the fact that in roughly 2012-ish he modified the 'priorities' of the DHS so that immigrants that cross the border or attempting to illegally enter through Port of Entry are also considered Priority 1 Apprehensions and are treated as the same as Terrorists, Traffickers, and Invading Armies. This has allowed his administration to have over 5 Million 'removals' while also having over 90% of deportations in 2016 consist of Priority One Threats. What has follow that is your meager attempts to dodge the points, attempt to denounce facts as 'opinion', lay out a myriad of personal attacks, depend on misdirection and misinformation, flagrant misinterpretation and a succinct lack of the usage of proper English or the quote function which this forum provides while overly using the 'bold' function to create hard to reply to posts full of ignorance, incorrect statements, and sheer stupidity. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You have posted two documents in support of your opinion that were dated during his administration and one from from the roosevelt administration. Perhaps if you were to bring us something from the clinton and subsequent bush era we might more clearly see your foolishness. And look at that - a prime example of Misinterpretation. You see - the 1934. Appendix D -- Grounds For Judicial Deportation I linked was not Penned in 1934... It is apart of the Criminal Resource Manual and is entry 1934 out of 2500 entries. In the very least the law was penned in 1994 or after because it references the The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 which was President Clinton's administration.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/18/2017 7:55:46 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan You see - the 1934. Appendix D -- Grounds For Judicial Deportation I linked was not Penned in 1934... It is apart of the Criminal Resource Manual and is entry 1934 out of 2500 entries. In the very least the law was penned in 1994 or after because it references the The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 which was President Clinton's administration. The crm is title 9 of the us attourneys manual. "The United States Attorneys' Manual is a looseleaf text designed as a quick and ready reference for United States Attorneys and other employees of the United States Department of Justice responsible for the prosecution of violations of federal law. It contains general policies and guidance relevant to the work of the United States Attorneys' offices and to their relations with the legal divisions, investigative agencies, and other components within the Department of Justice. The Manual is an internal document of the Department of Justice, and as such, does not have the force of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorneys%27_Manual

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 7:53:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan The crm is title 9 of the us attourneys manual. "The United States Attorneys' Manual is a looseleaf text designed as a quick and ready reference for United States Attorneys and other employees of the United States Department of Justice responsible for the prosecution of violations of federal law. It contains general policies and guidance relevant to the work of the United States Attorneys' offices and to their relations with the legal divisions, investigative agencies, and other components within the Department of Justice. The Manual is an internal document of the Department of Justice, and as such, does not have the force of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorneys%27_Manual as a reference guide - it References laws, statues, and judgments on specific cases which are relevant to the subject in question to give understanding, context, and a series of guidelines which allows attorneys and law enforcement personal to better enforce the letter of the law. For instance in section one of 1934. Appendix D -- Grounds For Judicial Deportation, it discusses and directly points out the Specific US Code (actual law) which it is providing clarification and explanation to (8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(i)) as well as provides context of the contents of said law, such as the condition of 'Crime of Moral Turpitude'. In this it references a court cases to provide clarity as to what 'turpitude' may or may not include: Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 892 (1958) As well as including caveats to the law as penned - such as how technically single act of 'moral turpitude' but such acts may not be grounds for deportation, and directs the reader to the context for that (section 1252(a)(2)(A)(i)). But also stipulates that single acts, while it may not be deportation worthy, can be used towards substantiating a claim of Aggravated Felony. The reason why i linked the Attorney's Manual is because I know for a fact that if you see the US Code - you'll instantaneously claim that it proves you correct because you lack the comprehension and grasp of Basic English to understand the legal language used, and thus will use it horribly out of context. Specifically - i believe that you will directly reference: 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B) Entered without inspection Any alien who entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General or is in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States is deportable. You will simply see the word 'deportable' and claim victory with out understanding that 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1), the which that falls under, is specifically discussing the conditions 'Exludable' - which in modern context would be denoted as a 'Return'.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 11:01:48 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Thank you for posting that. We will get to your snivle in a bit but it appears that you were mistaken about who determines what a port of entry is. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines what a port of entry is Above is your post telling us who defines what a port of entry is. Below is the law stating who defines what a port of entrry is. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B) Entered without inspection Any alien who entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General or is in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States is deportable. When you get caught making shit up to prove a point it makes it difficult to take your word on any matter.

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 11:23:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Thank you for posting that. We will get to your snivle in a bit but it appears that you were mistaken about who determines what a port of entry is. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines what a port of entry is Above is your post telling us who defines what a port of entry is. Below is the law stating who defines what a port of entrry is. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B) Entered without inspection Any alien who entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General or is in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States is deportable. When you get caught making shit up to prove a point it makes it difficult to take your word on any matter. Remember that part when i said: I know for a fact that if you see the US Code - you'll instantaneously claim that it proves you correct because you lack the comprehension and grasp of Basic English to understand the legal language used, and thus will use it horribly out of context. in post #185 Yeah - you just did Exactly that. Like i said you would. The US Code linked was written in 1994. the Department of Homeland Security was established 2002, where it absorbed 22 independent federal agencies and departments, and formed them into into a singular unified, integrated cabinet agency; Including, but not limited to, the oversight of Customs and Immigration. This is just another example of your incompetence and petty reaching to try and prove a point regardless of how incorrect it is.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 11:56:53 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx as a reference guide - it References laws, statues, and judgments on specific cases which are relevant to the subject in question to give understanding, context, and a series of guidelines which allows attorneys and law enforcement personal to better enforce the letter of the law. Above you focus on the "letter" of the law. Below you deny the "letter" of the law in favor of "modern context. which in modern context would be denoted as a 'Return'. You did this earlier in the discussion regarding the phrase 'crossing the border' Crossing the border is crossing the border, no matter if it is legal or not. Your claim was that the coloquial usage demands that it means only that it is an illegal crossing. You can't have it both way sweet cheeks. You tried that cheap shit with your 'coloquial' usage of 'international airport'. You wound up with both of your bullshit definitions stuffed up your ass. You will simply see the word 'deportable' and claim victory You seem rather preoccupied with "victory"...I have mentioned before that I am not interested in a debate. I am here for discussion. In discussion there is no victory rather, when entered into honestly, discussion leads to understanding.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 12:01:06 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan The US Code linked was written in 1994. the Department of Homeland Security was established 2002, where it absorbed 22 independent federal agencies and departments, and formed them into into a singular unified, integrated cabinet agency; Including, but not limited to, the oversight of Customs and Immigration. You have not cited the dhs authority to designate a port of entry. You have cited the u.s. code citing the a.g. as the designating authority. Put up or shut up. Jesus you are phoquing stupid

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 12:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan The US Code linked was written in 1994. the Department of Homeland Security was established 2002, where it absorbed 22 independent federal agencies and departments, and formed them into into a singular unified, integrated cabinet agency; Including, but not limited to, the oversight of Customs and Immigration. You have not cited the dhs authority to designate a port of entry. You have cited the u.s. code citing the a.g. as the designating authority. Put up or shut up. Jesus you are phoquing stupid Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations §40.1 (p) (p)Port of entry* means a port or place designated by the DHS at which an alien may apply to DHS for admission into the United States.* data is current as of March 16, 2017. So... yeah - you're still wrong.

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 1:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx as a reference guide - it References laws, statues, and judgments on specific cases which are relevant to the subject in question to give understanding, context, and a series of guidelines which allows attorneys and law enforcement personal to better enforce the letter of the law. Above you focus on the "letter" of the law. Below you deny the "letter" of the law in favor of "modern context. which in modern context would be denoted as a 'Return'. The phrase 'letter of the law' is a colloquialism... not only do you misinterpret the colloquialism as a whole - but you also subsequently take that single word out of context and seemingly try and make it about me so you can attack me, trying to force me to defend something on a literal basis... completely ignoring that the entire sentence was built to give context to what a Reference Book is... not only is that disingenuous, but it is just plain ignorant. quote: You did this earlier in the discussion regarding the phrase 'crossing the border' Crossing the border is crossing the border, no matter if it is legal or not. Your claim was that the coloquial usage demands that it means only that it is an illegal crossing. You can't have it both way sweet cheeks. You tried that cheap shit with your 'coloquial' usage of 'international airport'. You wound up with both of your bullshit definitions stuffed up your ass. Crossing the Border is also a colloquialism to denote physically passing across a territorial line. It is even used in that context with in most laws, as passing through a designated port of entry is often not the same legally as 'crossing the border'. In fact, if we go back to the 2014 DHS 'Priority 1 Immigrant' memo which started this all off: (b) aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States it intentionally separates 'at the border' and 'port of entry' into 2 different points, as if there is a legal difference between the two. quote: You will simply see the word 'deportable' and claim victory You seem rather preoccupied with "victory"...I have mentioned before that I am not interested in a debate. I am here for discussion. In discussion there is no victory rather, when entered into honestly, discussion leads to understanding. It isn't a discussion if you are stating that those whom hold views in opposition to yours are incorrect, wrong, or are 'phoquing stupid'... such actions remove it from being a discussion and push it into a debate which does have a relative 'win state' that you're obviously pushing for, as disproving or discrediting opposition is a measured to try and prove that your stance is more correct by comparison.

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 2:17:42 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan So... yeah - you're still wrong. Really???What am I wrong about?

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 2:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan So... yeah - you're still wrong. Really???What am I wrong about? Just about everything you've spouted out in so far. A better question would be what exactly have you been right about?

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 3:14:11 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan So... yeah - you're still wrong. Really???What am I wrong about? Just about everything you've spouted out in so far. Cite please.

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 4:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan So... yeah - you're still wrong. Really???What am I wrong about? Just about everything you've spouted out in so far. Cite please. okay... http://www.collarchat.com/searchpro.asp?author=thompsonx there is your citation - it is all your posts. most of which are rife with falsehoods, incorrect statements, and incompetence. 'Naturally Aspirated Fire' 'don't you mean farther' 'phoquing stupid' just to name a few horribly incorrect things you've stated in just the past few days.

bounty44 -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 6:27:48 PM)
you might enjoy these exchanges: http://www.collarchat.com/m_5001022/mpage_2/tm.htm page 2 and 3

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 6:41:44 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan You are intitled to your ignorant unsubstantiated puerile opinion but not your own facts. Jesus you are phoquing stupid

InfoMan -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 7:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan You are intitled to your ignorant unsubstantiated puerile opinion but not your own facts. Jesus you are phoquing stupid intitled is not a word. trying to call some one ignorant when you yourself cannot spell 'entitled' is very telling.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/19/2017 8:10:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan You are intitled to your ignorant unsubstantiated puerile opinion but not your own facts. Jesus you are phoquing stupid intitled is not a word. trying to call some one ignorant when you yourself cannot spell 'entitled' is very telling. There have been threads where Thompson added a lot to the discussion (info and viewpoints that were actually germane to the original opening post of that thread). That ended a couple years ago. He went over the top and I've had him on ignore since. I'm surprised you're still going back and forth with him. quote: “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” -- Mark Twain

thompsonx -> RE: SHADES OF THE PAST. (3/20/2017 4:41:10 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx You are intitled to your ignorant unsubstantiated puerile opinion but not your own facts. Jesus you are phoquing stupid intitled is not a word. trying to call some one ignorant when you yourself cannot spell 'entitled' is very telling. I have mentioned before that I include spelling errors in my post so that morons and other assorted fools, who have nothing to add to a a discussion, will be able to post and let us all hear the sound of their empty heads. You seldom dissapoint us.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875