Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

"on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

That's a good bit more than your simplistic "politics".

---

The process is literally referred to as applying for "political Asylum."

Surely you can't be this dumb.

---

Right. But that's not what you said, you said "political persecution" . Do you seriously not see a difference?

Uh Oh...

This is not going well but you can tell these are future Antifa Democrat voters though. Maybe Mexico will enforce their borders more on their Southern border now that Trump is doing it in the U.S.

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

Migrant caravan at US border is harboring more than 500 criminals, Homeland Security claims

https://www.foxnews.com/us/migrant-caravan-may-be-in-tijuana-for-the-long-haul-while-u-s-shuts-down-san-diego-area-crossing

Liberals have been very quiet on this thread lately. I wonder why?

This is greatness by the way...

This mess belongs to Congress and POTUS. They have punted on this since Bush 43, at least.

And predictably, a leftist activist judge in San Francisco is trying to keep the President from doing his job to defend our borders.

These Leftists are using these poor people as pawns and they're going to get someone killed. Disgusting.

quash said:

---

This mess belongs to Congress and POTUS. They have punted on this since Bush 43, at least.

---

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bills passed the Senate in 06 and 13.... the 2013 version with 68 Senators voting Yea. Neither one was given a vote in the House, even though they both would have passed and been signed by the President.... but Paul Ryan was scared ****less of the "Freedom" Caucus... so he buried it.

All of Congress and All Presidents since GHWB are guilty, but some are more guilty than others

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Has Waco47 posted his address yet to invite them all to stay with him?

---

No but in January I'm going to Matamoros to help a friend's mission that has been receiving asylum seekers. Want to join me?

---

Well, looks like 47 is heading south of the border to help murder babies now. Interesting he calls it his mission.

Anyone care to guess why the caravan went all the way to Tijuana? Why not McAllen or Juarez?

Better beaches and bars?

I have never been there but if I had a choice I would choose it over Juarez or McAllen. I like Nuevo Laredo and will go there for a week this summer but only because it is much cheaper.

GolemIII said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Has Waco47 posted his address yet to invite them all to stay with him?

---

No but in January I'm going to Matamoros to help a friend's mission that has been receiving asylum seekers. Want to join me?

---

Well, looks like 47 is heading south of the border to help murder babies now. Interesting he calls it his mission.

---

Doubt 47 goes 'south of the border' for any reason

Hell its a big day for the old fraud to go around the block .

LOL Media said Trump just used this an election stunt. How stupid and blind have the media come because of their hate of Trump.

This is getting ridiculous

Come on media, keep showing and milking the families being separated because of course there are no bad people.

riflebear said:

---

Come on media, keep showing and milking the families being separated because of course there are no bad people.

---

What media are you talking about? NPR has been on this story for years.

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

syme said:

---

Anyone care to guess why the caravan went all the way to Tijuana? Why not McAllen or Juarez?

---

The cartels on the west coast are nicer than the east coast. East coast thugs are the human smugglers specialists.

KingHendy said:

---

syme said:

---

Anyone care to guess why the caravan went all the way to Tijuana? Why not McAllen or Juarez?

---

The cartels on the west coast are nicer than the east coast. East coast thugs are the human smugglers specialists.

---

Good point.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that historical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

---

Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

---

Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.

---

When did I say that? Feel free to quote me.

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

---

Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.

---

When did I say that? Feel free to quote me.

---

"That deflection has been tried before"

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

---

Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.

---

When did I say that? Feel free to quote me.

---

"That deflection has been tried before"

---

Congrats, that's a quote.

It's not me explaining the difference, but by golly it's a quote.

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

---

Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.

---

When did I say that? Feel free to quote me.

---

"That deflection has been tried before"

---

Congrats, that's a quote.

It's not me explaining the difference, but by golly it's a quote.

---

That quote was from your response intending to invalidate my comparison that them illegally entering the country is no different than them illegally entering your home.

It seems your density knows no depths.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.

---

What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?

---

Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.

---

That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.

---

You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?

Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.

---

So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.

---

So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.

---

Your words, not mine. See?

---

Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.

---

When did I say that? Feel free to quote me.

---

"That deflection has been tried before"

---

Congrats, that's a quote.

It's not me explaining the difference, but by golly it's a quote.

---

That quote was from your response intending to invalidate my comparison that them illegally entering the country is no different than them illegally entering your home.

It seems your density knows no depths.

---

That's not what it was for. It addressed the cockeyed notion that every political position requires a maximum response to be valid. Like being anti- abortion and adopting ten unwanted kids. I thought you were aware but it looks like I was wtong.