EternalShinyAndChrome

It's clear the fake outrage crowd hasn't read it and just went off of the lies they heard on TikTok.

WeeSatan: "they removed my thread!! Religious Oppression! They're feeding Christians to the Lions!" He's more emotional and hysterical than a teenage girl!

Cultists like you gonna' cult, I guess.

Charlatans use gay slurs. Jesus doesn't help false prophets and those who CLAIM to be pious but then use gay slurs and do the Devil's work like you do. Your place in hell is reserved. Jesus can't help you now. Burn baby, burn.

So, in your view, do they have to do every single one to be considered a homemaker? If they don't do just one then in your eyes they are NOT a homemaker?

Like I said, a charlatan! Claims to be religious but then uses gay slurs. You're busted, b@tch.

What did she do?

now you're reaching.

Good point. Sure,

Mostly, yes. They're your kids and YOU should be primarily raising them. Not sure a personal chef and maid raises kids, though, so you seem to be reaching here.

Actually, yes you can if you read what I posted. But you don't want to do that - you want to cherry pick and pretend in things that don't really happen are actually happening.

Which, of course, is absurd considering your leftist ideology killed more than 100+ million people in the 20th century between Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro and a host of others so I wouldn't be bringing up talk about "Final Solutions" because it's not a winner for you. If anyone has the market on "Final Solutions", its you lefties.

Cherry pick much? did you read what actually happens in practice, specifically with the expedited removal process? Or do you just like your glory-hole slurp you get from your masters? You lost, because in reality your "due process' doesn't work for a majority of them anyways.

Sorry, pal, that's not how it works for most of them. You lose again with your very misinformed view of the constitution. I suggest you start reading up on Constitutional Law instead of getting it at the Liberal Propaganda Glory Hole. Right to due process What the law says: The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The issue of due process is at the heart of many immigration cases, including Reno v. Flores, the 1993 Supreme Court case that has returned to the spotlight with the surge in family separations. The case led to an agreement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days. In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.” In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president’s tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of “expedited removal,” which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. “Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said. Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing. The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing. Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S. “In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice. Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts. “In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said.

Anyone remember the time one of the board's most uninformed, propaganda slurping liberals started a thread about uniformed people? Yeah, me too. Disney couldn't have written a more absurd story line!

This is great news! I'm not seeing a problem. We should actually deport them right away. Why even put them in camps?

Says the guy getting his marching orders from the DNC Glory hole. How about you STFU you f@cking loser and stick to cruising ghey bodybuilder forums with your power twink pals?

He hasn't. He's been regurgitating what they told him at the DNC glory hole and tiktok.

That doesn't make any sense. You're drawing two disparate things into one conclusion. One does not follow the other. Again, you're making some s*** up that he never said or implied and arguing against that.

Are you sure it wasn't a pigeon? @squistion: can you confirm as an expert on pigeons?

So Jada pinkett Smith was pining over a gay guy for the last 30 years and embarrassing and denigrating Will Smith for him?

It's amazing they are twisting what he said into something he didn't say so they can act all fake outraged. Bunch of f****** lying Soy boys and weak men.

Again, no need to lash out like a teenage girl. Just take the loss and be done with it and move on. You got called out, appropriately, and it is what it is. Accept your curb stomping like a man. You do know what a man is, right?

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Yeah, that's not what Butker said and/or implied at all. That's you and your side twisting what he said into something he didn't say and then arguing against that. If only we had a word for that.