Hey now, I merely answered the punch line to the joke HE asked...
Being triggered in other words means exposing the lie.
No, no! This is the very sort of language that triggers some folks.
Sure, trigger me! Expose the truth that she's far too young for me.Hate that damned word in the context the SJW's use it for denigrating something.
Trigger?, here a trigger:
View attachment 165059
Sure, trigger me! Expose the truth that she's far too young for me.
Yes, but I have this thing called a conscience.Ya still alive, right? lol
Well.
I never said we have no problem.
February crossing apprehensions? It was less than an average month in 1984. Or 2004. Or 2014.
Problem, yes.
Emergency?
No.
Trump's manufactured emergency.
Fortifying his nads and little more.
So, so much political mediated hyperbole.
Wetbacks is in reference to an action, the act of those crossing the river (in actuality or metaphorically) illegally to gain entry into our country. It does not refer to a specific race, and in fact can and has included many races. It's in reference to a criminal or any involved in such criminal activity. So not sure how it should be considered a racial slur. Not that it isn't considered such as it is by obviously you and multitudes of the PC crowd/media/leftists. But like most espoused by same, just another error.
I'm not surprised.I know these people and this is a common occurrence. Just one family, imagine how many others deal with the same.
https://www.facebook.com/1624237239/posts/10216026201600891/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excuse me, but I believe you mean tresspassors.Trespassers works for me.
That picture gives me something too, but its not a conscience.Yes, but I have this thing called a conscience.
Well, when she's probably about the same age as a granddaughter it gives you a bit different perspective.That picture gives me something too, but its not a conscience.
She's younger that 2 of my g'daughters. But heck, I'm just looking.Well, when she's probably about the same age as a granddaughter it gives you a bit different perspective.
Possibly, however, this money has already been appropriated by Congress—albeit for certain other things. But really, it’s small potatoes budget-wise—6 billion is a piddling amount. Whereas if a future president attempted to force single-payer and push folks away from private healthcare, that President would not so conveniently find the sums of money already appropriated from which to raid. So, while possible to declare a national healthcare emergency, I see no parallel to the instant situation. Because 90 trillion dollars.Mmm...yeah...I see national healthcare in our future under the same clause.
Separation if powers, it was nice knowing you.
So, basically, I'm calling bullshît. In 1976, Congress specifically ceded a certain amount of their authority to the President in the National Emergencies Act. Every President has used it, and the sky has not fallen. SCOTUS even examined the Act, and strengthened the President's hand in the matter by trimming away a portion of Congress' ability to override the President in such matters. So, given that, the Court grants even greater deference to the Executive due to the fact that this is not a clean slate piece of legislation.Mmm...yeah...I see national healthcare in our future under the same clause.
Separation if powers, it was nice knowing you.
Hyperbole much? Not to mention outright falsehood, counsellor. Acting under the authority granted him by the National Emergencies Act of 1976 does NOT constitute the use of "extra-constitutional means". Congress has ceded a part of its authority and the Supreme Court has already examined that Act and not found it to be unconstitutional.Please cite where he can use extra constitutional means to do so.
Is that an autumnal mead? . . .Like hell!
. . .
Craft beer? Not under my roof presently.
Right now got 15 lbs of Costco honey fermenting to mead.
14.4% alcohol at last check. Time to bottle. I needs long months of aging.
Mighty proud of my little yeast compadres right now!!!