@wildgrass saidOh. Are you getting that out there, I don’t think any of our lawmakers have realized that is going on They will want to know your background regarding your assessment of the entire situation and the nature of their qualifications.
That's the problem, you hit the nail on the head. Legally, they are officers but they shouldn't be. These lawmakers are trying to change that, because they SHOULD be referred to legally as terrorists.
Hell, I’d like to know that myself. You seem to know more than Sunhouse does.
I am very entertained on the Forum
It is amazing that I, AvJoe, get to communicate with communists, socialists, citizens, with no concept of patriotism, pacifists, people not happy with their gender AND WANTING TO TELL PEOPLE ALL ABOUT IT !!!!
Absolutely unbelievable. I have shielded all of this from my aunt Plum. A normal person to say the least. She is different from all of you as she does not want anyone else’s stuff. Did you see where Susie Ann told me that she wants to know about the things that she is supposed to get from the government,. I asked her what things and she has not written back.
@Suzianne saidI think t’were you lunatics that said they killed somebody, though I think marauder led the charge to say that they were murdered. I asked everyone to expand upon that, but never heard back. Curious….I guess they were not murdered. Were they murdered? ,
Non sequitur.
And for the love of God, stop lying about ICE not killing anybody.
It is gaslighting, at best.
Yugeyes are so conflicted and confused. Is that a lie, for you to say I said that? I prob used proper vernacular…shot.
@AverageJoe1 saidDo you really have an Aunt Plum?
Oh. Are you getting that out there, I don’t think any of our lawmakers have realized that is going on They will want to know your background regarding your assessment of the entire situation and the nature of their qualifications.
Hell, I’d like to know that myself. You seem to know more than Sunhouse does.
I am very entertained on the Forum
It is amazing that ...[text shortened]... t she is supposed to get from the government,. I asked her what things and she has not written back.
@wildgrass saidYou pitifully redefine 'terrorism' to make your point. Because, you cannot defend your point on any facts. If ICE agents are terrorists, then words have completely lost meaning. To you and your flake friends, terrorist now means 'any government agent I don't like"? That is not a serious position, little feller, (you write in Suzianneze)....It is just your outrage dressed up as a definition. Really zero debating, you have shown us nothing,,,,,,except your outrage and calling it something.
That's the problem, you hit the nail on the head. Legally, they are officers but they shouldn't be. These lawmakers are trying to change that, because they SHOULD be referred to legally as terrorists.
. Why the pansy emotionalism? Disagreeing with the law that they enforce is not an argument,,,,it is just emotionally labeling. Your emotion replaces logic. Terrorist is someone you don't like. It is not an argument, it is a meltdown....like Sonhouse-eze. It is clear you have no argument when you base this post on the definition of a word.
Take a breath.
@wildgrass saidWell, alas, only a picture of her that I cherish, she is tangible though!!!! Taught me all I know, but probably not all that SHE knew.
Do you really have an Aunt Plum?
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's not a redefinition. People are afraid to go outside because they are worried that they will be arrested and put in a detention center based on skin color and whether the ICE officer needs to meet a quota or whether he got laid last night. That's terrorism, sponsored by our government.
You pitifully redefine 'terrorism' to make your point. Because, you cannot defend your point on any facts. If ICE agents are terrorists, then words have completely lost meaning. To you and your flake friends, terrorist now means 'any government agent I don't like"? That is not a serious position, little feller, (you write in Suzianneze)....It is just your outrage dress ...[text shortened]... is clear you have no argument when you base this post on the definition of a word.
Take a breath.
@wildgrass saidThat’s not evidence—that’s imagination. ‘Quotas,’ ‘bad moods,’ ‘skin color sweeps’? Methinks you exaggerate, and dreaming. You’ve built an entire narrative out of hypotheticals and then labeled it terrorism. All you say is what you think A few innocents may get picked up, but you casually say, without basis, that they are incarcerated. It is an imperfect process, but worth it Google the really bad criminals they’ve arrested. The innocents need to wise up and get away.
It's not a redefinition. People are afraid to go outside because they are worried that they will be arrested and put in a detention center based on skin color and whether the ICE officer needs to meet a quota or whether he got laid last night. That's terrorism, sponsored by our government.
If what you’re claiming were true in any widespread, systematic way, it would be dominating courts, headlines, and investigations across the country. Instead, you’re substituting feelings for facts.
Feelings. Emotions.
Throwing around the word ‘terrorism’ because you disagree with enforcement policy doesn’t make you right—it just makes your argument unserious. You talk to yourself like Sonhouse does.
@AverageJoe1 saidNah. The threats are real. We saw the killings and detentions and government trying to say it's all part of the process of law enforcement.
That’s not evidence—that’s imagination. ‘Quotas,’ ‘bad moods,’ ‘skin color sweeps’? Methinks you exaggerate, and dreaming. You’ve built an entire narrative out of hypotheticals and then labeled it terrorism. All you say is what you think A few innocents may get picked up, but you casually say, without basis, that they are incarcerated. It is an imperfect process, but w ...[text shortened]... t make you right—it just makes your argument unserious. You talk to yourself like Sonhouse does.
The terror is part of the process.
@wildgrass saidGreat post, are you someone that thinks the people that came here illegally should be able to just stay here with no vetting? If your party hadn’t let so many in crossing illegally we wouldn’t have this problem. It’s just like Iran, do we take care of this problem now or when things are out of control. Thank you libs for being useless and all talk and no action, that’s called poor leadership!
Nah. The threats are real. We saw the killings and detentions and government trying to say it's all part of the process of law enforcement.
The terror is part of the process.
@wildgrass saidGet your head out!
Nah. The threats are real. We saw the killings and detentions and government trying to say it's all part of the process of law enforcement.
The terror is part of the process.
@mike69 saidNo, I have said many times that the vast majority of these cases are paperwork issues. We should not put people in detention centers for years because they overstayed a visa or were fired from a job or did not show up for a immigration hearing.
Great post, are you someone that thinks the people that came here illegally should be able to just stay here with no vetting? If your party hadn’t let so many in crossing illegally we wouldn’t have this problem. It’s just like Iran, do we take care of this problem now or when things are out of control. Thank you libs for being useless and all talk and no action, that’s called poor leadership!
@AverageJoe1 saidIt is but you won't see it on the propaganda sources you exclusively rely on:
That’s not evidence—that’s imagination. ‘Quotas,’ ‘bad moods,’ ‘skin color sweeps’? Methinks you exaggerate, and dreaming. You’ve built an entire narrative out of hypotheticals and then labeled it terrorism. All you say is what you think A few innocents may get picked up, but you casually say, without basis, that they are incarcerated. It is an imperfect process, but w ...[text shortened]... t make you right—it just makes your argument unserious. You talk to yourself like Sonhouse does.
"In a court order, Minnesota's chief judge wrote that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has violated nearly 100 court orders this month.
Judge Patrick Schiltz filed a court order Wednesday, canceling Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons's Thursday hearing. In the order, Schiltz provided a list of 96 court orders that he says were violated in 74 cases."
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-minnesota/judge-ice-violated-nearly-100-court-orders-this-month/89-3e95803b-952f-4383-b09d-fc289cd9c21b
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/ice-immigration-court-orders-00757894
@AverageJoe1 said"US citizen ChongLy “Scott” Thao says ICE agents forced their way into his St. Paul, Minnesota, home without a warrant, detained him at gunpoint, and led him outside in freezing temperatures wearing only underwear and a blanket. “They told me to come out here without my clothes on,” Thao said. “They just handcuffed me right there.” Thao said his 4-year-old grandson watched the ordeal from a window and cried as agents took him away. “My grandson watched everything… after they took me, he was crying, looking for me,” Thao said, adding that agents later released him without an apology after realizing he was a US citizen."
That’s not evidence—that’s imagination. ‘Quotas,’ ‘bad moods,’ ‘skin color sweeps’? Methinks you exaggerate, and dreaming. You’ve built an entire narrative out of hypotheticals and then labeled it terrorism. All you say is what you think A few innocents may get picked up, but you casually say, without basis, that they are incarcerated. It is an imperfect process, but w ...[text shortened]... t make you right—it just makes your argument unserious. You talk to yourself like Sonhouse does.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/ice-drags-us-citizen-home-162800471.html
This was a result of ICE's memo claiming they can forcibly enter homes without a judicial warrant, a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
These are exactly the type of abuses that the Democrats' proposals are meant to stop.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAnd if you hadn’t opened every door and side entrance letting illegals in we wouldn’t be in this situation, things wouldn’t be to this level. I don’t care about your post as it’s like everything else having two sides and I trust your sources, or news very little for clear reasons.
"US citizen ChongLy “Scott” Thao says ICE agents forced their way into his St. Paul, Minnesota, home without a warrant, detained him at gunpoint, and led him outside in freezing temperatures wearing only underwear and a blanket. “They told me to come out here without my clothes on,” Thao said. “They just handcuffed me right there.” Thao said his 4-year-old grandson watche ...[text shortened]... Amendment.
These are exactly the type of abuses that the Democrats' proposals are meant to stop.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidNot here, don’t know where you live because you have said two different countries over time. Here we have lots and lots of brown people and they’re everywhere not hiding in their houses.
It's not a redefinition. People are afraid to go outside because they are worried that they will be arrested and put in a detention center based on skin color and whether the ICE officer needs to meet a quota or whether he got laid last night. That's terrorism, sponsored by our government.
ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO START ANSWERING QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF JUST POSTING MORE aBS AND EXPECTING ME TO ANSWER YOU, just like little sue.