Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #462221 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-10 09:15 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-08-11 01:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Trump vs shitv DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-08-10 09:15 -0400
Re: Trump vs shitv owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 14:11 +0000
Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-10 09:18 -0500
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 14:45 +0000
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-10 14:59 +0000
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 15:10 +0000
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-10 15:46 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 08:24 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 08:43 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-10 10:17 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 08:21 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 08:28 -0700
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 15:29 +0000
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-10 15:48 +0000
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 16:47 +0000
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-10 12:46 -0500
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 18:11 +0000
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-10 13:24 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 11:35 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 11:51 -0700
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 18:53 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 12:22 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 16:01 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 16:02 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 07:39 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 06:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 08:15 -0700
Re: Trump the liar vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-08-14 15:21 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 09:26 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:32 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-15 00:35 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 08:44 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 12:07 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 13:19 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:29 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:38 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:54 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-16 08:53 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 07:18 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 08:18 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 08:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 08:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 08:54 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 10:56 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 11:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Chuck Chop <"butwaitthere is more"@ginsu.org> - 2018-08-16 21:24 -0400
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 19:11 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Chuck Chop <"butwaitthere is more"@ginsu.org> - 2018-08-16 22:38 -0400
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 10:55 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Andrzej Matuch <a.m@vt.ca> - 2018-08-17 12:47 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 06:16 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-17 08:51 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:32 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:32 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:32 +0000
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-14 11:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:38 +0000
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-14 14:00 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 14:28 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 15:20 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 15:46 -0700
Re: Trump the liar vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-08-15 00:24 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 17:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 18:22 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 18:40 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 19:04 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 19:43 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:16 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-14 19:48 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 20:09 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 20:23 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-15 03:28 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:47 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 06:22 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:13 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:56 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 09:44 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-15 11:20 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 12:19 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-15 13:17 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 13:54 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 14:28 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-16 04:11 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 04:27 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 06:29 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:47 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 08:46 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 08:56 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-16 09:35 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 09:55 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 10:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 12:20 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-16 13:09 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 13:30 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:35 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:40 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 14:04 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-16 15:05 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:26 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 16:17 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 16:30 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 16:44 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 17:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-17 03:57 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-17 07:36 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-17 09:03 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 07:03 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 07:11 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 08:32 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 10:13 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 10:48 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 13:21 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 15:22 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-20 22:30 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 15:43 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:34 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-20 23:46 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Chuck Chop <"butwaitthere is more"@ginsu.org> - 2018-08-20 20:03 -0400
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 17:21 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Chuck Chop <"butwaitthere is more"@ginsu.org> - 2018-08-20 20:33 -0400
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-21 00:35 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 18:47 -0700
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-21 11:43 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 05:01 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:23 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:25 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:20 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 18:48 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-21 02:29 +0000
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-21 03:33 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 03:58 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 04:30 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-21 14:08 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Chuck Chop <"butwaitthere is more"@ginsu.org> - 2018-08-21 10:11 -0400
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-21 14:14 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-21 14:30 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:03 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:18 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 20:03 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 20:05 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 20:18 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-21 03:56 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:03 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:35 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:45 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 20:01 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 19:58 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 19:45 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Chuck Chop <"butwaitthere is more"@ginsu.org> - 2018-08-20 22:54 -0400
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:49 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 20:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 10:40 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 10:50 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:18 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 10:36 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:03 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Andrzej Matuch <a.m@vt.ca> - 2018-08-17 12:59 +0000
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-17 10:42 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:25 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-17 09:35 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Andrzej Matuch <a.m@vt.ca> - 2018-08-17 16:31 +0000
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 07:15 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 07:18 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:25 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 09:32 -0500
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 10:25 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:00 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:24 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 16:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-21 08:41 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 11:50 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-20 21:32 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Helinka Svoboda <helinkasvoboda@protestant.com> - 2018-08-20 21:47 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 15:12 -0700
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-20 22:49 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:40 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:56 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-21 08:08 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:37 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-21 08:06 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-21 08:38 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-21 14:26 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:36 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-22 07:08 -0500
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-22 06:50 -0700
Re: Trump the liar DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-08-22 10:21 -0400
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-22 11:33 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-17 08:52 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-16 11:00 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 11:30 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:51 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 14:14 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 14:25 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:53 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 09:49 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-15 09:36 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 20:04 -0700
People who overdosed on drugs, and died. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-08-14 16:54 -0700
Enertainment comes first and foremost. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-08-16 16:59 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 19:32 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:45 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 13:10 -0700
Re: Trump the liar -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-08-14 14:46 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 15:22 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-14 20:06 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-08-15 04:21 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 04:49 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 16:05 -0700
Re: Trump the liar SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-10 18:11 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 11:20 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 16:04 -0700
Re: Trump the liar Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Trump the liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-10 10:52 -0500
Re: Trump the liar owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-08-10 16:04 +0000
Re: Trump the liar Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 09:30 -0700
Re: Trump vs shitv Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 07:41 -0700
Re: Trump vs shitv SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-10 14:52 +0000
Re: Trump vs shitv SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-08-10 14:50 +0000
Re: Trump vs shitv Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 07:56 -0700
Re: Trump vs shitv Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-08-10 08:24 -0700
Trump makes people think, and it hurts their heads. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-08-11 01:22 -0700
Re: Trump makes people think, and it hurts their heads. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 01:57 -0700
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 14:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <313149ec-d74a-4132-adb2-046512b11ce0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462970 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:25:48 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:39:20 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > > > > chrisv wrote: > > > > > > > > >Is it true that that clown threatened to shut-down the government, if > > > > >he doesn't get funding for his Mexico wall? Only an idiot would think > > > > >the wall a good idea in the first place! > > > > > > > > Personally, if I hear some guy saying that "we're going to build a > > > > wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it", I think "this guy is an > > > > idiot". > > > > > > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. > > > > Considering that most 'illegals' are Visa overstays > > I agree that they appear to be overstays, but I'm one of the people that is > "skeptical" of this 'stat'. I'm sure this will shock the hell outta you ;) With education, that can be cured. > > *and* these > > entries are by gateways other than the Southwest border, even if > > the wall could be made 100% perfect, the absolute best that a wall > > could theoretically do is a 40% reduction. > > I'm good with 30%... 25% even. First off, a 30% total reduction off of what's only 40% of the whole is actually asking a Wall to be (30%/40%) = 75% effective, which is quite ambitious...which means expensive. Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it shaves off only 5%? YMMV, but I want to see no-kidding financials along with validated benefits for the proposal, plus the baseline & alternatives, instead of blithely writing a blank check on a hope and a prayer that throwing a bucket of money at it _might_ somehow work. > > > OTOH, once one takes into consideration the annual amount spent > > > on illegal immigration, costs attempting to deal with drugs that > > > are pouring, no **flooding** across the southern border, costs > > > of dealing with drug addiction (including *loss of life, lost > > > productivity, incarceration, etc.) a wall, which we all know > > > won't be 100% effective, looks like it could be at least part > > > of a better solution than our current, feeble attempts. > > > > Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which > > are best to not be conflated. > > I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both. So does a Manned Mission to Mars... > Notably, your article indicates the experts are merely "skeptical" > Translation: like everyone else, they can't really say. > > "Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and > Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact ' > in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact." > > As much as I hate the idea of walls, I'm willing to give it a shot > as our current 'wall' sucks... *totally*. We've already tripled our investment in the SW border security; just how much of a relevant metric change has been the result? Because if you can't even figure out what metrics are important, then there's no point in spending even more money, because you can't even tell if you're going in the correct policy direction. > > Specifially, the current epidemic isn't from huge changes in the > > coke, heroin or pot from South/Latin America, but is with Opioids. > > A lot of heroin comes from down south... and the deaths (and addictions) > have sure gone up: > > "Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths > nearly quadrupled..." "45% of people who used heroin were also > addicted to prescription opioid painkillers" > <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/> That choice of metric is conflated, because "heroin-related" includes Opioids, and their manufacturing origin isn't Central/South America. > > The primary sources of Opioids is (a) Big Pharma and China (the > > latter is largely Fentanyl, shipped through the mail). > > So? Mexico is a huge source for powdered and crack cocaine, heroin, meth, > *fentanyl, weed, etc. Weed, cocaine & heroin have been broadly around for ~50 years, whereas the current drug abuse epidemic is far more recent -- and it correlates to Big Pharma pushing prescription Opioids since 1999 and similarly, of Fentanyl too (it is also another very recent commercial pharmaceutical): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#History> > > Those who claim that a wall will stop this are "Pants on Fire" wrong: > > Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and > drug trafficking down. What I see is a concerted effort to sell the idea > that a wall stands no chance of making much of a difference and it's > pushed *hard* in the media. I don't buy any of the arguments I've seen, > your mileage obviously varies. When you're able to objectively quantify with relevant metrics just what the actual national benefit has been for the USA's already tripled budget for border security, then we can talk. Until then, you're just doing a "spending money must be good, so spending more money must be better". > > <https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/> > > > > > > > > But hey, that's just me. > > > > > > Ok, 'just you', what about this stuff... > > > > > > * "Nationally, ... > > > > Now read your own quote for comprehension, specifically this part: > > > > > Opioids – ranging from illegal street drugs like heroin to > > > prescription painkillers – have played an especially lethal > > > role: About two-thirds (66%) of the fatal overdoses in 2016 > > > involved an opioid." > > I 'comprehended' it the first time, doesn't change my mind based on > other things I've read, as well <shrug>. TL;DR: it says that two thirds of fatal ODs are coming from drugs which don't originate from the region you're trying to box off. > > > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal-overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in-their-community/> > > > > Similarly, > > > > "...nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription opioids > > prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a webpage > > explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug." > > > > <https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use> > > > > FYI, a lot of the switch to heroin is economic (Opioids are more expensive). > > That, and availability. > > > > "...Many of the deaths are from an extremely potent opioid, fentanyl, > > which is trafficked from Mexico.[16]..." > > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic> > > > > Need to read the cite and understand. For example, that was a drug > > bust based on contraband brought in by air, not a southwest border > > crossing. Similarly, to have the insight to understand that there's > > not Fentanyl manufacturing facilities in Mexico, so these existing > > drug cartels are just a "middleman" who see a profit incentive. > > I understand that there are still a sizable number of deaths and addictions > from things other than fentanyl that do come across the southern border. It may be "sizable", but its only ~1/3rd of the overall problem. From a Pareto Principle, it means your resources will have greater impact if spent elsewhere. > > > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You don't believe that > > > it might be time to try something more aggressive? > > > > The "more aggressive" approach has spent $1T (and counting) > > I don't call that more aggressive, I call that 'business as usual'. > Someone > is making money off the U.S. taxpayer and it's not just > the drug dealers. Such as the private corporations who are contracted to run jails. > > ...but > > that's basically just law enforcement, so it doesn't include the > > additional $40B/yr being spent on jails for drug-related crimes. > > > > <https://elevationshealth.com/annual-cost-war-on-drugs/> > > > > > Or do you think we should decriminalize all drugs? Open the > > > border and take whatever additional hits there are to take? > > > > Well, one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions > > while expecting a different outcome... /S > > > > As others have pointed out, Portugal is taking a different > > approach which appears to be working...and at a lower cost. > > Portugal has 10 million people and is the size of Indiana... Nope. All public policy topics are invariably not about total population counts, but percentages of the populace. In this regards, Portugal has succeeded in lowering their rates of the bad aspects of drug use/abuse by some pretty good margins: 60% increase in uptake of treatment [Wiki] 33% reduction in continuing use rate (44% to 28%) 80% reduction in Death rate (78 to 17) 80% reduction in HIV infection rates (approx. 42 to 8 per million) <https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal> > > Another question that one should also ask is the demographics > > of the epidemic's users to seek out what underlying social > > factors may be contributing factors. What I believe I've > > read here is a big upswing in addicts amongst older, white & > > middle class who have increasingly been fiscally marginalized > > and stressed ... these are the casualties of income inequity. > > Ages 50-56 do pills, as opposed to heroin by users aged 20-35. Here's a report that shows the age grouping: <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/> > From what I've read on this the last time I bothered, the latter was > was on the upswing while the former is decreasing. Yes, but that's because the heroin is being laced with Fentanyl. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 14:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <477bfb08-acb7-4543-abae-b34382c4018e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462991 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:00:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:25:48 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:39:20 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > > > > > chrisv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Is it true that that clown threatened to shut-down the government, if > > > > > >he doesn't get funding for his Mexico wall? Only an idiot would think > > > > > >the wall a good idea in the first place! > > > > > > > > > > Personally, if I hear some guy saying that "we're going to build a > > > > > wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it", I think "this guy is an > > > > > idiot". > > > > > > > > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. > > > > > > Considering that most 'illegals' are Visa overstays > > > > I agree that they appear to be overstays, but I'm one of the people that is > > "skeptical" of this 'stat'. I'm sure this will shock the hell outta you ;) > > With education, that can be cured. > > > > *and* these > > > entries are by gateways other than the Southwest border, even if > > > the wall could be made 100% perfect, the absolute best that a wall > > > could theoretically do is a 40% reduction. > > > > I'm good with 30%... 25% even. > > First off, a 30% total reduction off of what's only 40% of the whole > is actually asking a Wall to be (30%/40%) = 75% effective, which is > quite ambitious...which means expensive. > > Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it > shaves off only 5%? > > YMMV, but I want to see no-kidding financials along with validated > benefits for the proposal, plus the baseline & alternatives, instead > of blithely writing a blank check on a hope and a prayer that throwing > a bucket of money at it _might_ somehow work. > > > > > > OTOH, once one takes into consideration the annual amount spent > > > > on illegal immigration, costs attempting to deal with drugs that > > > > are pouring, no **flooding** across the southern border, costs > > > > of dealing with drug addiction (including *loss of life, lost > > > > productivity, incarceration, etc.) a wall, which we all know > > > > won't be 100% effective, looks like it could be at least part > > > > of a better solution than our current, feeble attempts. > > > > > > Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which > > > are best to not be conflated. > > > > I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both. > > So does a Manned Mission to Mars... > > > > Notably, your article indicates the experts are merely "skeptical" > > Translation: like everyone else, they can't really say. > > > > "Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and > > Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact ' > > in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact." > > > > As much as I hate the idea of walls, I'm willing to give it a shot > > as our current 'wall' sucks... *totally*. > > We've already tripled our investment in the SW border security; just > how much of a relevant metric change has been the result? > > Because if you can't even figure out what metrics are important, > then there's no point in spending even more money, because you > can't even tell if you're going in the correct policy direction. > > > > > Specifially, the current epidemic isn't from huge changes in the > > > coke, heroin or pot from South/Latin America, but is with Opioids. > > > > A lot of heroin comes from down south... and the deaths (and addictions) > > have sure gone up: > > > > "Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths > > nearly quadrupled..." "45% of people who used heroin were also > > addicted to prescription opioid painkillers" > > <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/> > > That choice of metric is conflated, because "heroin-related" includes > Opioids, and their manufacturing origin isn't Central/South America. > > > > > The primary sources of Opioids is (a) Big Pharma and China (the > > > latter is largely Fentanyl, shipped through the mail). > > > > So? Mexico is a huge source for powdered and crack cocaine, heroin, meth, > > *fentanyl, weed, etc. > > Weed, cocaine & heroin have been broadly around for ~50 years, whereas > the current drug abuse epidemic is far more recent -- and it correlates > to Big Pharma pushing prescription Opioids since 1999 and similarly, of > Fentanyl too (it is also another very recent commercial pharmaceutical): > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#History> > > > > > Those who claim that a wall will stop this are "Pants on Fire" wrong: > > > > Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and > > drug trafficking down. What I see is a concerted effort to sell the idea > > that a wall stands no chance of making much of a difference and it's > > pushed *hard* in the media. I don't buy any of the arguments I've seen, > > your mileage obviously varies. > > When you're able to objectively quantify with relevant metrics just > what the actual national benefit has been for the USA's already > tripled budget for border security, then we can talk. Until then, > you're just doing a "spending money must be good, so spending more > money must be better". > > > > > > <https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/> > > > > > > > > > > > But hey, that's just me. > > > > > > > > Ok, 'just you', what about this stuff... > > > > > > > > * "Nationally, ... > > > > > > Now read your own quote for comprehension, specifically this part: > > > > > > > Opioids – ranging from illegal street drugs like heroin to > > > > prescription painkillers – have played an especially lethal > > > > role: About two-thirds (66%) of the fatal overdoses in 2016 > > > > involved an opioid." > > > > I 'comprehended' it the first time, doesn't change my mind based on > > other things I've read, as well <shrug>. > > TL;DR: it says that two thirds of fatal ODs are coming from drugs > which don't originate from the region you're trying to box off. > > > > > > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal-overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in-their-community/> > > > > > > Similarly, > > > > > > "...nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription opioids > > > prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a webpage > > > explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug." > > > > > > <https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use> > > > > > > FYI, a lot of the switch to heroin is economic (Opioids are more expensive). > > > > That, and availability. > > > > > > "...Many of the deaths are from an extremely potent opioid, fentanyl, > > > which is trafficked from Mexico.[16]..." > > > > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic> > > > > > > Need to read the cite and understand. For example, that was a drug > > > bust based on contraband brought in by air, not a southwest border > > > crossing. Similarly, to have the insight to understand that there's > > > not Fentanyl manufacturing facilities in Mexico, so these existing > > > drug cartels are just a "middleman" who see a profit incentive. > > > > I understand that there are still a sizable number of deaths and addictions > > from things other than fentanyl that do come across the southern border. > > It may be "sizable", but its only ~1/3rd of the overall problem. > From a Pareto Principle, it means your resources will have greater > impact if spent elsewhere. > > > > > > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You don't believe that > > > > it might be time to try something more aggressive? > > > > > > The "more aggressive" approach has spent $1T (and counting) > > > > I don't call that more aggressive, I call that 'business as usual'. > > Someone > is making money off the U.S. taxpayer and it's not just > > the drug dealers. > > Such as the private corporations who are contracted to run jails. > > > > > ...but > > > that's basically just law enforcement, so it doesn't include the > > > additional $40B/yr being spent on jails for drug-related crimes. > > > > > > <https://elevationshealth.com/annual-cost-war-on-drugs/> > > > > > > > Or do you think we should decriminalize all drugs? Open the > > > > border and take whatever additional hits there are to take? > > > > > > Well, one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions > > > while expecting a different outcome... /S > > > > > > As others have pointed out, Portugal is taking a different > > > approach which appears to be working...and at a lower cost. > > > > Portugal has 10 million people and is the size of Indiana... > > Nope. All public policy topics are invariably not about total > population counts, but percentages of the populace. In this > regards, Portugal has succeeded in lowering their rates of the > bad aspects of drug use/abuse by some pretty good margins: > > 60% increase in uptake of treatment [Wiki] > 33% reduction in continuing use rate (44% to 28%) > 80% reduction in Death rate (78 to 17) > 80% reduction in HIV infection rates (approx. 42 to 8 per million) > > <https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal> > > > > > > Another question that one should also ask is the demographics > > > of the epidemic's users to seek out what underlying social > > > factors may be contributing factors. What I believe I've > > > read here is a big upswing in addicts amongst older, white & > > > middle class who have increasingly been fiscally marginalized > > > and stressed ... these are the casualties of income inequity. > > > > Ages 50-56 do pills, as opposed to heroin by users aged 20-35. > > Here's a report that shows the age grouping: > > <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/> > > > From what I've read on this the last time I bothered, the latter was > > was on the upswing while the former is decreasing. > > Yes, but that's because the heroin is being laced with Fentanyl. > > > -hh They suggest asking for advice for an RMS-approved application is instigating. Do not get too cocky, vallor, sometimes "your shills" are just that. vallor's behavior is quite in all respects disingenuous. There is zero ambiguity that as soon as any former 'person in his KF' does one thing to wound the little milksop's feelings that they will be reblocked. -- Best CMS Solution of 2017! http://www.5z8.info/myspace-of-sex_q7q7zl_instant-purchase https://youtu.be/qwb1Ez0GWMA Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 15:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <21a992d9-17e9-4a41-8209-eaf6e59db8c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462991 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:25:48 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:39:20 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > > > > > chrisv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Is it true that that clown threatened to shut-down the government, if > > > > > >he doesn't get funding for his Mexico wall? Only an idiot would think > > > > > >the wall a good idea in the first place! > > > > > > > > > > Personally, if I hear some guy saying that "we're going to build a > > > > > wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it", I think "this guy is an > > > > > idiot". > > > > > > > > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. > > > > > > Considering that most 'illegals' are Visa overstays > > > > I agree that they appear to be overstays, but I'm one of the people that is > > "skeptical" of this 'stat'. I'm sure this will shock the hell outta you ;) > > With education, that can be cured. Tell it to this guy: "It's impossible to determine from numbers alone how much there has actually been an increase in illegal activity or whether the upticks mark shifts in ever-finite investigative resources, said Michael S. Scott, a clinical professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. More agents working potentially significant cases, or isolated but sizable confiscations, can sway statistics like these widely. Plus, supply can alter demand, which can have effects elsewhere in the illicit drug market. " <https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/02/13/arizona-dea-marijuana-seizures-heroin-busts-and-fentanyl-2017/315430002/> > > > *and* these > > > entries are by gateways other than the Southwest border, even if > > > the wall could be made 100% perfect, the absolute best that a wall > > > could theoretically do is a 40% reduction. > > > > I'm good with 30%... 25% even. > > First off, a 30% total reduction off of what's only 40% of the whole > is actually asking a Wall to be (30%/40%) = 75% effective, which is > quite ambitious...which means expensive. This isn't a lot of money, relatively speaking. > Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? That's not calculable. > For example, would > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it > shaves off only 5%? Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis that 'proves' this'd be the case ;) > YMMV, but I want to see no-kidding financials along with validated > benefits for the proposal, plus the baseline & alternatives, instead > of blithely writing a blank check on a hope and a prayer that throwing > a bucket of money at it _might_ somehow work. The cost is a drop in this ever growing bucket. > > > > OTOH, once one takes into consideration the annual amount spent > > > > on illegal immigration, costs attempting to deal with drugs that > > > > are pouring, no **flooding** across the southern border, costs > > > > of dealing with drug addiction (including *loss of life, lost > > > > productivity, incarceration, etc.) a wall, which we all know > > > > won't be 100% effective, looks like it could be at least part > > > > of a better solution than our current, feeble attempts. > > > > > > Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which > > > are best to not be conflated. > > > > I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both. > > So does a Manned Mission to Mars... I'd prefer we solved local issues first, but it's quite obvious to me that politicians, and the media who peddles their BS, aren't remotely interested in doing so. Even Trump has backed away from building it. > > Notably, your article indicates the experts are merely "skeptical" > > Translation: like everyone else, they can't really say. > > > > "Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and > > Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact ' > > in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact." > > > > As much as I hate the idea of walls, I'm willing to give it a shot > > as our current 'wall' sucks... *totally*. > > We've already tripled our investment in the SW border security; just > how much of a relevant metric change has been the result? > > Because if you can't even figure out what metrics are important, > then there's no point in spending even more money, because you > can't even tell if you're going in the correct policy direction. What "metrics" can you possibly be looking at to not realize the huge extent of this monumental, *persistent* failure? > > > Specifially, the current epidemic isn't from huge changes in the > > > coke, heroin or pot from South/Latin America, but is with Opioids. > > > > A lot of heroin comes from down south... and the deaths (and addictions) > > have sure gone up: > > > > "Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths > > nearly quadrupled..." "45% of people who used heroin were also > > addicted to prescription opioid painkillers" > > <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/> > > That choice of metric is conflated, because "heroin-related" includes > Opioids, and their manufacturing origin isn't Central/South America. Nah, plenty of them come across the border, as I said. IOW, there's still plenty to deal with even after we pretend the stats are saying it's all 'OK'. > > > The primary sources of Opioids is (a) Big Pharma and China (the > > > latter is largely Fentanyl, shipped through the mail). > > > > So? Mexico is a huge source for powdered and crack cocaine, heroin, meth, > > *fentanyl, weed, etc. > > Weed, cocaine & heroin have been broadly around for ~50 years, It's not just for drugs, it's for illegal border crossings. > whereas the current drug abuse epidemic is far more recent They usually are ;) > -- and it correlates > to Big Pharma pushing prescription Opioids since 1999 and similarly, of > Fentanyl too (it is also another very recent commercial pharmaceutical): > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#History> > > > > > Those who claim that a wall will stop this are "Pants on Fire" wrong: > > > > Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and > > drug trafficking down. What I see is a concerted effort to sell the idea > > that a wall stands no chance of making much of a difference and it's > > pushed *hard* in the media. I don't buy any of the arguments I've seen, > > your mileage obviously varies. > > When you're able to objectively quantify with relevant metrics just > what the actual national benefit has been for the USA's already > tripled budget for border security, then we can talk. What'd be the point? No matter what I cited or quoted, you'd claim your cites and quotes 'win'. > Until then, > you're just doing a "spending money must be good, so spending more > money must be better". No, it's what it gets spent on that matters. The 'stats guys' have been selling their 'numbers' long enough, they failed. The wall may prove to be a bad idea, but I think it's still worth a shot because it's really not that much money, relatively speaking. It doesn't matter anyway, it'll never get built. > > > <https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/> > > > > > > > > > > > But hey, that's just me. > > > > > > > > Ok, 'just you', what about this stuff... > > > > > > > > * "Nationally, ... > > > > > > Now read your own quote for comprehension, specifically this part: > > > > > > > Opioids – ranging from illegal street drugs like heroin to > > > > prescription painkillers – have played an especially lethal > > > > role: About two-thirds (66%) of the fatal overdoses in 2016 > > > > involved an opioid." > > > > I 'comprehended' it the first time, doesn't change my mind based on > > other things I've read, as well <shrug>. > > TL;DR: it says that two thirds of fatal ODs are coming from drugs > which don't originate from the region you're trying to box off. And maybe the real number is much less. We know about the deaths, they are a real number, what we don't know is exactly where it all comes from; worse, there's no way *to* know. > > > > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal-overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in-their-community/> > > > > > > Similarly, > > > > > > "...nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription opioids > > > prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a webpage > > > explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug." > > > > > > <https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use> > > > > > > FYI, a lot of the switch to heroin is economic (Opioids are more expensive). > > > > That, and availability. > > > > > > "...Many of the deaths are from an extremely potent opioid, fentanyl, > > > which is trafficked from Mexico.[16]..." > > > > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic> > > > > > > Need to read the cite and understand. For example, that was a drug > > > bust based on contraband brought in by air, not a southwest border > > > crossing. Similarly, to have the insight to understand that there's > > > not Fentanyl manufacturing facilities in Mexico, so these existing > > > drug cartels are just a "middleman" who see a profit incentive. > > > > I understand that there are still a sizable number of deaths and addictions > > from things other than fentanyl that do come across the southern border. > > It may be "sizable", but its only ~1/3rd of the overall problem. Correction: It *appears* to be. > From a Pareto Principle, it means your resources will have greater > impact if spent elsewhere. If true, sure... the problem is the accuracy. > > > > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You don't believe that > > > > it might be time to try something more aggressive? > > > > > > The "more aggressive" approach has spent $1T (and counting) > > > > I don't call that more aggressive, I call that 'business as usual'. > > Someone > is making money off the U.S. taxpayer and it's not just > > the drug dealers. > > Such as the private corporations who are contracted to run jails. Similar, yes. Do the 'stats' tell you we should let 'em all out ;) > > > ...but > > > that's basically just law enforcement, so it doesn't include the > > > additional $40B/yr being spent on jails for drug-related crimes. > > > > > > <https://elevationshealth.com/annual-cost-war-on-drugs/> > > > > > > > Or do you think we should decriminalize all drugs? Open the > > > > border and take whatever additional hits there are to take? > > > > > > Well, one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions > > > while expecting a different outcome... /S > > > > > > As others have pointed out, Portugal is taking a different > > > approach which appears to be working...and at a lower cost. > > > > Portugal has 10 million people and is the size of Indiana... > > Nope. All public policy topics are invariably not about total > population counts, but percentages of the populace. You're missing the point, policies that work in countries with relatively small populations and land area aren't necessarily going to work in places like the U.S. (or China and Russia). > In this > regards, Portugal has succeeded in lowering their rates of the > bad aspects of drug use/abuse by some pretty good margins: > > 60% increase in uptake of treatment [Wiki] > 33% reduction in continuing use rate (44% to 28%) > 80% reduction in Death rate (78 to 17) > 80% reduction in HIV infection rates (approx. 42 to 8 per million) > > <https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal> I've seen them, they look good but I'm still not convinced it'd work here. FWIW, I'm not convinced of how well the wall will work, either, but I am willing to give it a try to stop drugs, illegal border crossings, etc. Frankly, I'm good with it if all it did was put people to work. > > > Another question that one should also ask is the demographics > > > of the epidemic's users to seek out what underlying social > > > factors may be contributing factors. What I believe I've > > > read here is a big upswing in addicts amongst older, white & > > > middle class who have increasingly been fiscally marginalized > > > and stressed ... these are the casualties of income inequity. > > > > Ages 50-56 do pills, as opposed to heroin by users aged 20-35. > > Here's a report that shows the age grouping: > > <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/> > > > From what I've read on this the last time I bothered, the latter was > > was on the upswing while the former is decreasing. > > Yes, but that's because the heroin is being laced with Fentanyl. Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl has little to do with the southern border, I disagree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 15:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <6d41c2be-3ee2-4693-9b79-f806146f1fa8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463004 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:25:48 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:39:20 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > > > > > > chrisv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Is it true that that clown threatened to shut-down the government, if > > > > > > >he doesn't get funding for his Mexico wall? Only an idiot would think > > > > > > >the wall a good idea in the first place! > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, if I hear some guy saying that "we're going to build a > > > > > > wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it", I think "this guy is an > > > > > > idiot". > > > > > > > > > > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. > > > > > > > > Considering that most 'illegals' are Visa overstays > > > > > > I agree that they appear to be overstays, but I'm one of the people that is > > > "skeptical" of this 'stat'. I'm sure this will shock the hell outta you ;) > > > > With education, that can be cured. > > Tell it to this guy: > > "It's impossible to determine from numbers alone how much there has actually been an increase in illegal activity or whether the upticks mark shifts in ever-finite investigative resources, said Michael S. Scott, a clinical professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. > > More agents working potentially significant cases, or isolated but sizable confiscations, can sway statistics like these widely. Plus, supply can alter demand, which can have effects elsewhere in the illicit drug market. " > > <https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/02/13/arizona-dea-marijuana-seizures-heroin-busts-and-fentanyl-2017/315430002/> > > > > > *and* these > > > > entries are by gateways other than the Southwest border, even if > > > > the wall could be made 100% perfect, the absolute best that a wall > > > > could theoretically do is a 40% reduction. > > > > > > I'm good with 30%... 25% even. > > > > First off, a 30% total reduction off of what's only 40% of the whole > > is actually asking a Wall to be (30%/40%) = 75% effective, which is > > quite ambitious...which means expensive. > > This isn't a lot of money, relatively speaking. > > > Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? > > That's not calculable. > > > For example, would > > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it > > shaves off only 5%? > > Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis > that 'proves' this'd be the case ;) > > > YMMV, but I want to see no-kidding financials along with validated > > benefits for the proposal, plus the baseline & alternatives, instead > > of blithely writing a blank check on a hope and a prayer that throwing > > a bucket of money at it _might_ somehow work. > > The cost is a drop in this ever growing bucket. > > > > > > OTOH, once one takes into consideration the annual amount spent > > > > > on illegal immigration, costs attempting to deal with drugs that > > > > > are pouring, no **flooding** across the southern border, costs > > > > > of dealing with drug addiction (including *loss of life, lost > > > > > productivity, incarceration, etc.) a wall, which we all know > > > > > won't be 100% effective, looks like it could be at least part > > > > > of a better solution than our current, feeble attempts. > > > > > > > > Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which > > > > are best to not be conflated. > > > > > > I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both. > > > > So does a Manned Mission to Mars... > > I'd prefer we solved local issues first, but it's quite obvious to me that > politicians, and the media who peddles their BS, aren't remotely interested > in doing so. Even Trump has backed away from building it. > > > > Notably, your article indicates the experts are merely "skeptical" > > > Translation: like everyone else, they can't really say. > > > > > > "Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and > > > Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact ' > > > in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact." > > > > > > As much as I hate the idea of walls, I'm willing to give it a shot > > > as our current 'wall' sucks... *totally*. > > > > We've already tripled our investment in the SW border security; just > > how much of a relevant metric change has been the result? > > > > Because if you can't even figure out what metrics are important, > > then there's no point in spending even more money, because you > > can't even tell if you're going in the correct policy direction. > > What "metrics" can you possibly be looking at to not realize the huge extent > of this monumental, *persistent* failure? > > > > > Specifially, the current epidemic isn't from huge changes in the > > > > coke, heroin or pot from South/Latin America, but is with Opioids. > > > > > > A lot of heroin comes from down south... and the deaths (and addictions) > > > have sure gone up: > > > > > > "Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths > > > nearly quadrupled..." "45% of people who used heroin were also > > > addicted to prescription opioid painkillers" > > > <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/> > > > > That choice of metric is conflated, because "heroin-related" includes > > Opioids, and their manufacturing origin isn't Central/South America. > > Nah, plenty of them come across the border, as I said. IOW, there's still > plenty to deal with even after we pretend the stats are saying it's all 'OK'. > > > > > The primary sources of Opioids is (a) Big Pharma and China (the > > > > latter is largely Fentanyl, shipped through the mail). > > > > > > So? Mexico is a huge source for powdered and crack cocaine, heroin, meth, > > > *fentanyl, weed, etc. > > > > Weed, cocaine & heroin have been broadly around for ~50 years, > > It's not just for drugs, it's for illegal border crossings. > > > whereas the current drug abuse epidemic is far more recent > > They usually are ;) > > > -- and it correlates > > to Big Pharma pushing prescription Opioids since 1999 and similarly, of > > Fentanyl too (it is also another very recent commercial pharmaceutical): > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#History> > > > > > > > > Those who claim that a wall will stop this are "Pants on Fire" wrong: > > > > > > Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and > > > drug trafficking down. What I see is a concerted effort to sell the idea > > > that a wall stands no chance of making much of a difference and it's > > > pushed *hard* in the media. I don't buy any of the arguments I've seen, > > > your mileage obviously varies. > > > > When you're able to objectively quantify with relevant metrics just > > what the actual national benefit has been for the USA's already > > tripled budget for border security, then we can talk. > > What'd be the point? No matter what I cited or quoted, you'd claim > your cites and quotes 'win'. > > > Until then, > > you're just doing a "spending money must be good, so spending more > > money must be better". > > No, it's what it gets spent on that matters. The 'stats guys' have been > selling their 'numbers' long enough, they failed. The wall may prove to > be a bad idea, but I think it's still worth a shot because it's really not > that much money, relatively speaking. It doesn't matter anyway, it'll > never get built. > > > > > > <https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But hey, that's just me. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, 'just you', what about this stuff... > > > > > > > > > > * "Nationally, ... > > > > > > > > Now read your own quote for comprehension, specifically this part: > > > > > > > > > Opioids – ranging from illegal street drugs like heroin to > > > > > prescription painkillers – have played an especially lethal > > > > > role: About two-thirds (66%) of the fatal overdoses in 2016 > > > > > involved an opioid." > > > > > > I 'comprehended' it the first time, doesn't change my mind based on > > > other things I've read, as well <shrug>. > > > > TL;DR: it says that two thirds of fatal ODs are coming from drugs > > which don't originate from the region you're trying to box off. > > And maybe the real number is much less. We know about the deaths, > they are a real number, what we don't know is exactly where it all > comes from; worse, there's no way *to* know. > > > > > > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal-overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in-their-community/> > > > > > > > > Similarly, > > > > > > > > "...nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription opioids > > > > prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a webpage > > > > explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug." > > > > > > > > <https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use> > > > > > > > > FYI, a lot of the switch to heroin is economic (Opioids are more expensive). > > > > > > That, and availability. > > > > > > > > "...Many of the deaths are from an extremely potent opioid, fentanyl, > > > > which is trafficked from Mexico.[16]..." > > > > > > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic> > > > > > > > > Need to read the cite and understand. For example, that was a drug > > > > bust based on contraband brought in by air, not a southwest border > > > > crossing. Similarly, to have the insight to understand that there's > > > > not Fentanyl manufacturing facilities in Mexico, so these existing > > > > drug cartels are just a "middleman" who see a profit incentive. > > > > > > I understand that there are still a sizable number of deaths and addictions > > > from things other than fentanyl that do come across the southern border. > > > > It may be "sizable", but its only ~1/3rd of the overall problem. > > Correction: It *appears* to be. > > > From a Pareto Principle, it means your resources will have greater > > impact if spent elsewhere. > > If true, sure... the problem is the accuracy. > > > > > > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You don't believe that > > > > > it might be time to try something more aggressive? > > > > > > > > The "more aggressive" approach has spent $1T (and counting) > > > > > > I don't call that more aggressive, I call that 'business as usual'. > > > Someone > is making money off the U.S. taxpayer and it's not just > > > the drug dealers. > > > > Such as the private corporations who are contracted to run jails. > > Similar, yes. Do the 'stats' tell you we should let 'em all out ;) > > > > > ...but > > > > that's basically just law enforcement, so it doesn't include the > > > > additional $40B/yr being spent on jails for drug-related crimes. > > > > > > > > <https://elevationshealth.com/annual-cost-war-on-drugs/> > > > > > > > > > Or do you think we should decriminalize all drugs? Open the > > > > > border and take whatever additional hits there are to take? > > > > > > > > Well, one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions > > > > while expecting a different outcome... /S > > > > > > > > As others have pointed out, Portugal is taking a different > > > > approach which appears to be working...and at a lower cost. > > > > > > Portugal has 10 million people and is the size of Indiana... > > > > Nope. All public policy topics are invariably not about total > > population counts, but percentages of the populace. > > You're missing the point, policies that work in countries with relatively > small populations and land area aren't necessarily going to work in places > like the U.S. (or China and Russia). > > > In this > > regards, Portugal has succeeded in lowering their rates of the > > bad aspects of drug use/abuse by some pretty good margins: > > > > 60% increase in uptake of treatment [Wiki] > > 33% reduction in continuing use rate (44% to 28%) > > 80% reduction in Death rate (78 to 17) > > 80% reduction in HIV infection rates (approx. 42 to 8 per million) > > > > <https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal> > > I've seen them, they look good but I'm still not convinced it'd work here. > FWIW, I'm not convinced of how well the wall will work, either, but I am > willing to give it a try to stop drugs, illegal border crossings, etc. Frankly, > I'm good with it if all it did was put people to work. > > > > > Another question that one should also ask is the demographics > > > > of the epidemic's users to seek out what underlying social > > > > factors may be contributing factors. What I believe I've > > > > read here is a big upswing in addicts amongst older, white & > > > > middle class who have increasingly been fiscally marginalized > > > > and stressed ... these are the casualties of income inequity. > > > > > > Ages 50-56 do pills, as opposed to heroin by users aged 20-35. > > > > Here's a report that shows the age grouping: > > > > <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid-epidemic/> > > > > > From what I've read on this the last time I bothered, the latter was > > > was on the upswing while the former is decreasing. > > > > Yes, but that's because the heroin is being laced with Fentanyl. > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. Researching Xfce... even now a n00b... It was The Thing who got caught using hundreds of socks time and time again, and these are 'people' who come clearly out of the blue straight into threads where he was getting his ass handed to him... continuously for over a decade. You are quick as a tuna on ice. Why does The Thing focus on his own self-esteem issues so much? The Thing can't get anything else to work, either. You likely think Ubuntu handles the desktop well. Nope. Not compared to what I have. So many idiots are now yapping about the GNU/Linux "ecosystem" as if it seriously would be useful. - Best CMS Solution of 2017! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OffkiSAsYo8 Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 00:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ftha6aF8ldaU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463004 |
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 15:20:59 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:25:48 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll >> > > wrote: >> > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:39:20 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: >> > > > > chrisv wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >Is it true that that clown threatened to shut-down the >> > > > > >government, if he doesn't get funding for his Mexico wall? >> > > > > >Only an idiot would think the wall a good idea in the first >> > > > > >place! >> > > > > >> > > > > Personally, if I hear some guy saying that "we're going to >> > > > > build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it", I think "this >> > > > > guy is an idiot". >> > > > >> > > > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully >> > > > convinced. >> > > >> > > Considering that most 'illegals' are Visa overstays >> > >> > I agree that they appear to be overstays, but I'm one of the people >> > that is "skeptical" of this 'stat'. I'm sure this will shock the >> > hell outta you ;) >> >> With education, that can be cured. > > Tell it to this guy: > > "It's impossible to determine from numbers alone how much there has > actually been an increase in illegal activity or whether the upticks > mark shifts in ever-finite investigative resources, said Michael S. > Scott, a clinical professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal > Justice at Arizona State University. > > More agents working potentially significant cases, or isolated but > sizable confiscations, can sway statistics like these widely. Plus, > supply can alter demand, which can have effects elsewhere in the illicit > drug market. " > > <https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/02/13/arizona- dea-marijuana-seizures-heroin-busts-and-fentanyl-2017/315430002/> > >> > > *and* these >> > > entries are by gateways other than the Southwest border, even if >> > > the wall could be made 100% perfect, the absolute best that a wall >> > > could theoretically do is a 40% reduction. >> > >> > I'm good with 30%... 25% even. >> >> First off, a 30% total reduction off of what's only 40% of the whole is >> actually asking a Wall to be (30%/40%) = 75% effective, which is quite >> ambitious...which means expensive. > > This isn't a lot of money, relatively speaking. > >> Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? > > That's not calculable. > >> For example, would you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher >> tax bill if it shaves off only 5%? > > Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis that > 'proves' this'd be the case ;) > >> YMMV, but I want to see no-kidding financials along with validated >> benefits for the proposal, plus the baseline & alternatives, instead of >> blithely writing a blank check on a hope and a prayer that throwing a >> bucket of money at it _might_ somehow work. > > The cost is a drop in this ever growing bucket. > >> > > > OTOH, once one takes into consideration the annual amount spent >> > > > on illegal immigration, costs attempting to deal with drugs that >> > > > are pouring, no **flooding** across the southern border, costs of >> > > > dealing with drug addiction (including *loss of life, lost >> > > > productivity, incarceration, etc.) a wall, which we all know >> > > > won't be 100% effective, looks like it could be at least part of >> > > > a better solution than our current, feeble attempts. >> > > >> > > Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which are >> > > best to not be conflated. >> > >> > I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both. >> >> So does a Manned Mission to Mars... > > I'd prefer we solved local issues first, but it's quite obvious to me > that politicians, and the media who peddles their BS, aren't remotely > interested in doing so. Even Trump has backed away from building it. > >> > Notably, your article indicates the experts are merely "skeptical" >> > Translation: like everyone else, they can't really say. >> > >> > "Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and >> > Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact >> > ' >> > in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact." >> > >> > As much as I hate the idea of walls, I'm willing to give it a shot as >> > our current 'wall' sucks... *totally*. >> >> We've already tripled our investment in the SW border security; just >> how much of a relevant metric change has been the result? >> >> Because if you can't even figure out what metrics are important, >> then there's no point in spending even more money, because you can't >> even tell if you're going in the correct policy direction. > > What "metrics" can you possibly be looking at to not realize the huge > extent of this monumental, *persistent* failure? > >> > > Specifially, the current epidemic isn't from huge changes in the >> > > coke, heroin or pot from South/Latin America, but is with Opioids. >> > >> > A lot of heroin comes from down south... and the deaths (and >> > addictions) have sure gone up: >> > >> > "Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths >> > nearly quadrupled..." "45% of people who used heroin were also >> > addicted to prescription opioid painkillers" >> > <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/> >> >> That choice of metric is conflated, because "heroin-related" includes >> Opioids, and their manufacturing origin isn't Central/South America. > > Nah, plenty of them come across the border, as I said. IOW, there's > still plenty to deal with even after we pretend the stats are saying > it's all 'OK'. > >> > > The primary sources of Opioids is (a) Big Pharma and China (the >> > > latter is largely Fentanyl, shipped through the mail). >> > >> > So? Mexico is a huge source for powdered and crack cocaine, heroin, >> > meth, *fentanyl, weed, etc. >> >> Weed, cocaine & heroin have been broadly around for ~50 years, > > It's not just for drugs, it's for illegal border crossings. > >> whereas the current drug abuse epidemic is far more recent > > They usually are ;) > >> -- and it correlates to Big Pharma pushing prescription Opioids since >> 1999 and similarly, of Fentanyl too (it is also another very recent >> commercial pharmaceutical): >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#History> >> >> >> > > Those who claim that a wall will stop this are "Pants on Fire" >> > > wrong: >> > >> > Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration >> > and drug trafficking down. What I see is a concerted effort to sell >> > the idea that a wall stands no chance of making much of a difference >> > and it's pushed *hard* in the media. I don't buy any of the arguments >> > I've seen, your mileage obviously varies. >> >> When you're able to objectively quantify with relevant metrics just >> what the actual national benefit has been for the USA's already tripled >> budget for border security, then we can talk. > > What'd be the point? No matter what I cited or quoted, you'd claim your > cites and quotes 'win'. > >> Until then, >> you're just doing a "spending money must be good, so spending more >> money must be better". > > No, it's what it gets spent on that matters. The 'stats guys' have been > selling their 'numbers' long enough, they failed. The wall may prove to > be a bad idea, but I think it's still worth a shot because it's really > not that much money, relatively speaking. It doesn't matter anyway, > it'll never get built. > > >> > > <https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > But hey, that's just me. >> > > > >> > > > Ok, 'just you', what about this stuff... >> > > > >> > > > * "Nationally, ... >> > > >> > > Now read your own quote for comprehension, specifically this part: >> > > >> > > > Opioids – ranging from illegal street drugs like heroin to >> > > > prescription painkillers – have played an especially lethal role: >> > > > About two-thirds (66%) of the fatal overdoses in 2016 involved an >> > > > opioid." >> > >> > I 'comprehended' it the first time, doesn't change my mind based on >> > other things I've read, as well <shrug>. >> >> TL;DR: it says that two thirds of fatal ODs are coming from drugs >> which don't originate from the region you're trying to box off. > > And maybe the real number is much less. We know about the deaths, > they are a real number, what we don't know is exactly where it all comes > from; worse, there's no way *to* know. > >> > > > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal- overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in- their-community/> >> > > >> > > Similarly, >> > > >> > > "...nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription >> > > opioids prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a >> > > webpage explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug." >> > > >> > > <https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/ relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid- use-risk-factor-heroin-use> >> > > >> > > FYI, a lot of the switch to heroin is economic (Opioids are more >> > > expensive). >> > >> > That, and availability. >> > >> > > > "...Many of the deaths are from an extremely potent opioid, >> > > > fentanyl, >> > > which is trafficked from Mexico.[16]..." >> > > > >> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic> >> > > >> > > Need to read the cite and understand. For example, that was a drug >> > > bust based on contraband brought in by air, not a southwest border >> > > crossing. Similarly, to have the insight to understand that >> > > there's not Fentanyl manufacturing facilities in Mexico, so these >> > > existing drug cartels are just a "middleman" who see a profit >> > > incentive. >> > >> > I understand that there are still a sizable number of deaths and >> > addictions from things other than fentanyl that do come across the >> > southern border. >> >> It may be "sizable", but its only ~1/3rd of the overall problem. > > Correction: It *appears* to be. > >> From a Pareto Principle, it means your resources will have greater >> impact if spent elsewhere. > > If true, sure... the problem is the accuracy. > >> > > > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You don't believe >> > > > that it might be time to try something more aggressive? >> > > >> > > The "more aggressive" approach has spent $1T (and counting) >> > >> > I don't call that more aggressive, I call that 'business as usual'. >> > Someone > is making money off the U.S. taxpayer and it's not just the >> > drug dealers. >> >> Such as the private corporations who are contracted to run jails. > > Similar, yes. Do the 'stats' tell you we should let 'em all out ;) > >> > > ...but that's basically just law enforcement, so it doesn't include >> > > the additional $40B/yr being spent on jails for drug-related >> > > crimes. >> > > >> > > <https://elevationshealth.com/annual-cost-war-on-drugs/> >> > > >> > > > Or do you think we should decriminalize all drugs? Open the >> > > > border and take whatever additional hits there are to take? >> > > >> > > Well, one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions >> > > while expecting a different outcome... /S >> > > >> > > As others have pointed out, Portugal is taking a different approach >> > > which appears to be working...and at a lower cost. >> > >> > Portugal has 10 million people and is the size of Indiana... >> >> Nope. All public policy topics are invariably not about total >> population counts, but percentages of the populace. > > You're missing the point, policies that work in countries with > relatively small populations and land area aren't necessarily going to > work in places like the U.S. (or China and Russia). > >> In this regards, Portugal has succeeded in lowering their rates of the >> bad aspects of drug use/abuse by some pretty good margins: >> >> 60% increase in uptake of treatment [Wiki] >> 33% reduction in continuing use rate (44% to 28%) >> 80% reduction in Death rate (78 to 17) >> 80% reduction in HIV infection rates (approx. 42 to 8 per million) >> >> <https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal- decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal> > > I've seen them, they look good but I'm still not convinced it'd work > here. > FWIW, I'm not convinced of how well the wall will work, either, but I am > willing to give it a try to stop drugs, illegal border crossings, etc. > Frankly, > I'm good with it if all it did was put people to work. > >> > > Another question that one should also ask is the demographics of >> > > the epidemic's users to seek out what underlying social factors may >> > > be contributing factors. What I believe I've read here is a big >> > > upswing in addicts amongst older, white & >> > > middle class who have increasingly been fiscally marginalized and >> > > stressed ... these are the casualties of income inequity. >> > >> > Ages 50-56 do pills, as opposed to heroin by users aged 20-35. >> >> Here's a report that shows the age grouping: >> >> <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid- epidemic/> >> >> > From what I've read on this the last time I bothered, the latter was >> > was on the upswing while the former is decreasing. >> >> Yes, but that's because the heroin is being laced with Fentanyl. > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. Steve, Steve, Steve ... _There is already a "wall"._ The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is noxious. Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of handling nowadays. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 17:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <9002bd10-97fb-42a5-8f53-95534dc8db55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463020 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 5:24:46 PM UTC-7, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 15:20:59 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:25:48 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:15:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:39:20 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > >> > > > > chrisv wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >Is it true that that clown threatened to shut-down the > >> > > > > >government, if he doesn't get funding for his Mexico wall? > >> > > > > >Only an idiot would think the wall a good idea in the first > >> > > > > >place! > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Personally, if I hear some guy saying that "we're going to > >> > > > > build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it", I think "this > >> > > > > guy is an idiot". > >> > > > > >> > > > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully > >> > > > convinced. > >> > > > >> > > Considering that most 'illegals' are Visa overstays > >> > > >> > I agree that they appear to be overstays, but I'm one of the people > >> > that is "skeptical" of this 'stat'. I'm sure this will shock the > >> > hell outta you ;) > >> > >> With education, that can be cured. > > > > Tell it to this guy: > > > > "It's impossible to determine from numbers alone how much there has > > actually been an increase in illegal activity or whether the upticks > > mark shifts in ever-finite investigative resources, said Michael S. > > Scott, a clinical professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal > > Justice at Arizona State University. > > > > More agents working potentially significant cases, or isolated but > > sizable confiscations, can sway statistics like these widely. Plus, > > supply can alter demand, which can have effects elsewhere in the illicit > > drug market. " > > > > <https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/02/13/arizona- > dea-marijuana-seizures-heroin-busts-and-fentanyl-2017/315430002/> > > > >> > > *and* these > >> > > entries are by gateways other than the Southwest border, even if > >> > > the wall could be made 100% perfect, the absolute best that a wall > >> > > could theoretically do is a 40% reduction. > >> > > >> > I'm good with 30%... 25% even. > >> > >> First off, a 30% total reduction off of what's only 40% of the whole is > >> actually asking a Wall to be (30%/40%) = 75% effective, which is quite > >> ambitious...which means expensive. > > > > This isn't a lot of money, relatively speaking. > > > >> Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? > > > > That's not calculable. > > > >> For example, would you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher > >> tax bill if it shaves off only 5%? > > > > Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis that > > 'proves' this'd be the case ;) > > > >> YMMV, but I want to see no-kidding financials along with validated > >> benefits for the proposal, plus the baseline & alternatives, instead of > >> blithely writing a blank check on a hope and a prayer that throwing a > >> bucket of money at it _might_ somehow work. > > > > The cost is a drop in this ever growing bucket. > > > >> > > > OTOH, once one takes into consideration the annual amount spent > >> > > > on illegal immigration, costs attempting to deal with drugs that > >> > > > are pouring, no **flooding** across the southern border, costs of > >> > > > dealing with drug addiction (including *loss of life, lost > >> > > > productivity, incarceration, etc.) a wall, which we all know > >> > > > won't be 100% effective, looks like it could be at least part of > >> > > > a better solution than our current, feeble attempts. > >> > > > >> > > Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which are > >> > > best to not be conflated. > >> > > >> > I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both. > >> > >> So does a Manned Mission to Mars... > > > > I'd prefer we solved local issues first, but it's quite obvious to me > > that politicians, and the media who peddles their BS, aren't remotely > > interested in doing so. Even Trump has backed away from building it. > > > >> > Notably, your article indicates the experts are merely "skeptical" > >> > Translation: like everyone else, they can't really say. > >> > > >> > "Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and > >> > Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact > >> > ' > >> > in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact." > >> > > >> > As much as I hate the idea of walls, I'm willing to give it a shot as > >> > our current 'wall' sucks... *totally*. > >> > >> We've already tripled our investment in the SW border security; just > >> how much of a relevant metric change has been the result? > >> > >> Because if you can't even figure out what metrics are important, > >> then there's no point in spending even more money, because you can't > >> even tell if you're going in the correct policy direction. > > > > What "metrics" can you possibly be looking at to not realize the huge > > extent of this monumental, *persistent* failure? > > > >> > > Specifially, the current epidemic isn't from huge changes in the > >> > > coke, heroin or pot from South/Latin America, but is with Opioids. > >> > > >> > A lot of heroin comes from down south... and the deaths (and > >> > addictions) have sure gone up: > >> > > >> > "Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths > >> > nearly quadrupled..." "45% of people who used heroin were also > >> > addicted to prescription opioid painkillers" > >> > <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/heroin/> > >> > >> That choice of metric is conflated, because "heroin-related" includes > >> Opioids, and their manufacturing origin isn't Central/South America. > > > > Nah, plenty of them come across the border, as I said. IOW, there's > > still plenty to deal with even after we pretend the stats are saying > > it's all 'OK'. > > > >> > > The primary sources of Opioids is (a) Big Pharma and China (the > >> > > latter is largely Fentanyl, shipped through the mail). > >> > > >> > So? Mexico is a huge source for powdered and crack cocaine, heroin, > >> > meth, *fentanyl, weed, etc. > >> > >> Weed, cocaine & heroin have been broadly around for ~50 years, > > > > It's not just for drugs, it's for illegal border crossings. > > > >> whereas the current drug abuse epidemic is far more recent > > > > They usually are ;) > > > >> -- and it correlates to Big Pharma pushing prescription Opioids since > >> 1999 and similarly, of Fentanyl too (it is also another very recent > >> commercial pharmaceutical): > >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#History> > >> > >> > >> > > Those who claim that a wall will stop this are "Pants on Fire" > >> > > wrong: > >> > > >> > Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration > >> > and drug trafficking down. What I see is a concerted effort to sell > >> > the idea that a wall stands no chance of making much of a difference > >> > and it's pushed *hard* in the media. I don't buy any of the arguments > >> > I've seen, your mileage obviously varies. > >> > >> When you're able to objectively quantify with relevant metrics just > >> what the actual national benefit has been for the USA's already tripled > >> budget for border security, then we can talk. > > > > What'd be the point? No matter what I cited or quoted, you'd claim your > > cites and quotes 'win'. > > > >> Until then, > >> you're just doing a "spending money must be good, so spending more > >> money must be better". > > > > No, it's what it gets spent on that matters. The 'stats guys' have been > > selling their 'numbers' long enough, they failed. The wall may prove to > > be a bad idea, but I think it's still worth a shot because it's really > > not that much money, relatively speaking. It doesn't matter anyway, > > it'll never get built. > > > > > >> > > <https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ > ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > But hey, that's just me. > >> > > > > >> > > > Ok, 'just you', what about this stuff... > >> > > > > >> > > > * "Nationally, ... > >> > > > >> > > Now read your own quote for comprehension, specifically this part: > >> > > > >> > > > Opioids – ranging from illegal street drugs like heroin to > >> > > > prescription painkillers – have played an especially lethal role: > >> > > > About two-thirds (66%) of the fatal overdoses in 2016 involved an > >> > > > opioid." > >> > > >> > I 'comprehended' it the first time, doesn't change my mind based on > >> > other things I've read, as well <shrug>. > >> > >> TL;DR: it says that two thirds of fatal ODs are coming from drugs > >> which don't originate from the region you're trying to box off. > > > > And maybe the real number is much less. We know about the deaths, > > they are a real number, what we don't know is exactly where it all comes > > from; worse, there's no way *to* know. > > > >> > > > <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/30/as-fatal- > overdoses-rise-many-americans-see-drug-addiction-as-a-major-problem-in- > their-community/> > >> > > > >> > > Similarly, > >> > > > >> > > "...nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription > >> > > opioids prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a > >> > > webpage explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug." > >> > > > >> > > <https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/ > relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid- > use-risk-factor-heroin-use> > >> > > > >> > > FYI, a lot of the switch to heroin is economic (Opioids are more > >> > > expensive). > >> > > >> > That, and availability. > >> > > >> > > > "...Many of the deaths are from an extremely potent opioid, > >> > > > fentanyl, > >> > > which is trafficked from Mexico.[16]..." > >> > > > > >> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic> > >> > > > >> > > Need to read the cite and understand. For example, that was a drug > >> > > bust based on contraband brought in by air, not a southwest border > >> > > crossing. Similarly, to have the insight to understand that > >> > > there's not Fentanyl manufacturing facilities in Mexico, so these > >> > > existing drug cartels are just a "middleman" who see a profit > >> > > incentive. > >> > > >> > I understand that there are still a sizable number of deaths and > >> > addictions from things other than fentanyl that do come across the > >> > southern border. > >> > >> It may be "sizable", but its only ~1/3rd of the overall problem. > > > > Correction: It *appears* to be. > > > >> From a Pareto Principle, it means your resources will have greater > >> impact if spent elsewhere. > > > > If true, sure... the problem is the accuracy. > > > >> > > > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You don't believe > >> > > > that it might be time to try something more aggressive? > >> > > > >> > > The "more aggressive" approach has spent $1T (and counting) > >> > > >> > I don't call that more aggressive, I call that 'business as usual'. > >> > Someone > is making money off the U.S. taxpayer and it's not just the > >> > drug dealers. > >> > >> Such as the private corporations who are contracted to run jails. > > > > Similar, yes. Do the 'stats' tell you we should let 'em all out ;) > > > >> > > ...but that's basically just law enforcement, so it doesn't include > >> > > the additional $40B/yr being spent on jails for drug-related > >> > > crimes. > >> > > > >> > > <https://elevationshealth.com/annual-cost-war-on-drugs/> > >> > > > >> > > > Or do you think we should decriminalize all drugs? Open the > >> > > > border and take whatever additional hits there are to take? > >> > > > >> > > Well, one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions > >> > > while expecting a different outcome... /S > >> > > > >> > > As others have pointed out, Portugal is taking a different approach > >> > > which appears to be working...and at a lower cost. > >> > > >> > Portugal has 10 million people and is the size of Indiana... > >> > >> Nope. All public policy topics are invariably not about total > >> population counts, but percentages of the populace. > > > > You're missing the point, policies that work in countries with > > relatively small populations and land area aren't necessarily going to > > work in places like the U.S. (or China and Russia). > > > >> In this regards, Portugal has succeeded in lowering their rates of the > >> bad aspects of drug use/abuse by some pretty good margins: > >> > >> 60% increase in uptake of treatment [Wiki] > >> 33% reduction in continuing use rate (44% to 28%) > >> 80% reduction in Death rate (78 to 17) > >> 80% reduction in HIV infection rates (approx. 42 to 8 per million) > >> > >> <https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal- > decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal> > > > > I've seen them, they look good but I'm still not convinced it'd work > > here. > > FWIW, I'm not convinced of how well the wall will work, either, but I am > > willing to give it a try to stop drugs, illegal border crossings, etc. > > Frankly, > > I'm good with it if all it did was put people to work. > > > >> > > Another question that one should also ask is the demographics of > >> > > the epidemic's users to seek out what underlying social factors may > >> > > be contributing factors. What I believe I've read here is a big > >> > > upswing in addicts amongst older, white & > >> > > middle class who have increasingly been fiscally marginalized and > >> > > stressed ... these are the casualties of income inequity. > >> > > >> > Ages 50-56 do pills, as opposed to heroin by users aged 20-35. > >> > >> Here's a report that shows the age grouping: > >> > >> <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-bad-is-the-opioid- > epidemic/> > >> > >> > From what I've read on this the last time I bothered, the latter was > >> > was on the upswing while the former is decreasing. > >> > >> Yes, but that's because the heroin is being laced with Fentanyl. > > > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. > > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > > _There is already a "wall"._ > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. > > And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is > noxious. Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: > something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of > handling nowadays. > > -- > -v He is as incompetent as Peter the Klöwn. Sandman would never deny the flooder is Peter the Klöwn, who is a self professed C developer but I don't know if it could be used to spam like this. Idiot. His wish is to see me bothered by nonstop flooding. And hey, that could kill this group. -- Do not click this link! http://www.5z8.info/creditscore_g7f8du_launchexe Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 18:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <4d8f9f0f-6f42-4d10-b9d7-7a24864876ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463020 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:24:46 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: (snip) > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. > > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > > _There is already a "wall"._ And it sucks. > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. As I *said*, I don;t even think it will get built and Trump isn't really as 'behind' it as he was earlier. > > And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is > noxious. LOL! Whatever you wish to *allege* about my 'understanding', you're free to do so but I'm not buying the 'fentanyl isn't a border issue' argument. > Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: > something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of > handling nowadays. There is no 'scientific' about citing stats that can't possibly prove what is being claimed... i.e. 'crime is lower on the border'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 18:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <95c6d532-efb0-43b5-8915-5fdc89a4668a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463027 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:22:33 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:24:46 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > > (snip) > > > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > > > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. > > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > > > > _There is already a "wall"._ > > And it sucks. > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. > > As I *said*, I don;t even think it will get built and Trump isn't > really as 'behind' it as he was earlier. > > > > > And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is > > noxious. > > > LOL! Whatever you wish to *allege* about my 'understanding', you're > free to do so but I'm not buying the 'fentanyl isn't a border issue' > argument. > > > Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: > > something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of > > handling nowadays. > > There is no 'scientific' about citing stats that can't possibly > prove what is being claimed... i.e. 'crime is lower on the border'. You guys can only rationalize from the viewpoint of a psychopath. Spending effort potentially learning isn't wasted time. Asserting you know everything and working to 'prove' people that it is true? That is a waste. Peter the Cöwardly Liön insists that he uses Tar, while actually he never timed it on the fly and really worked with it. LXDE is clearly my second favorite DE and the only one I advocate to Windows converts. Primary interface is Unity, though. Amazing customization is all you require after you install it. Habits change. Could be the idea of a website is getting to be old fashion. Peter the Cöwardly Liön must appreciate that others can go get FileMaker, right, gluey? Add to that, anyone can go get a real newsreader with proper filtering, which renders his trolling useless, just like Peter the Cöwardly Liön ;) Those who know our history knows the flood bot is not created in the nature Klaus Schadenfreude is implying, and many of them are xxx manually written. Gee, imagine Peter the Cöwardly Liön trying to pin his flapdoodle on Klaus Schadenfreude and me, no one has ever seen that before. -- Puppy Videos https://www.facebook.com/JonasEklundh http://www.5z8.info/open.exe_f2s2ea_nazi https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 19:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <9e0c9847-efc2-45eb-bd02-26008aa906dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463027 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 7:22:33 PM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:24:46 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > > (snip) > > > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > > > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. > > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > > > > _There is already a "wall"._ > > And it sucks. > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. > > As I *said*, I don;t even think it will get built and Trump isn't > really as 'behind' it as he was earlier. > > > > > And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is > > noxious. > > > LOL! Whatever you wish to *allege* about my 'understanding', you're > free to do so but I'm not buying the 'fentanyl isn't a border issue' > argument. > > > Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: > > something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of > > handling nowadays. > > There is no 'scientific' about citing stats that can't possibly > prove what is being claimed... i.e. 'crime is lower on the border'. I should've added this, that I found awhile back... -- But CNN found that the Border Patrol has made little effort to count deaths beyond the ones they encounter. Medical examiners and sheriffs agreed that the Border Patrol doesn't ask for their numbers. And 10 Border Patrol agents and supervisors across the southwestern border and in Washington told CNN that they account only for migrant deaths that Border Patrol agents are directly involved in handling. They don't include other deaths reported by landowners or others to local law enforcement. "We've only ever counted what we find," said Felipe Jimenez, an agent in the Border Patrol's Tucson sector since 2009. He said that, as an emergency medical technician, he has been involved in many rescues and encounters with deceased migrants. "The ones we find are our official number. Since I've been in, it's just been what we encounter," said Chris Cabrera, a spokesman for the Border Patrol agents' union who has worked as an agent in the Rio Grande Valley sector since 2001. -- <https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/us/border-patrol-migrant-death-count-invs/index.html> There's no way to know how many more there are... that's just a fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 19:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <efc42324-a882-4395-bddc-9b287578aee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463034 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 7:04:14 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 7:22:33 PM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:24:46 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl > > > > has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. > > > > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > > > > > > _There is already a "wall"._ > > > > And it sucks. > > > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. > > > > As I *said*, I don;t even think it will get built and Trump isn't > > really as 'behind' it as he was earlier. > > > > > > > > And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is > > > noxious. > > > > > > LOL! Whatever you wish to *allege* about my 'understanding', you're > > free to do so but I'm not buying the 'fentanyl isn't a border issue' > > argument. > > > > > Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: > > > something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of > > > handling nowadays. > > > > There is no 'scientific' about citing stats that can't possibly > > prove what is being claimed... i.e. 'crime is lower on the border'. > > I should've added this, that I found awhile back... > > -- > But CNN found that the Border Patrol has made little effort to count deaths beyond the ones they encounter. Medical examiners and sheriffs agreed that the Border Patrol doesn't ask for their numbers. And 10 Border Patrol agents and supervisors across the southwestern border and in Washington told CNN that they account only for migrant deaths that Border Patrol agents are directly involved in handling. They don't include other deaths reported by landowners or others to local law enforcement. > > "We've only ever counted what we find," said Felipe Jimenez, an agent in the Border Patrol's Tucson sector since 2009. He said that, as an emergency medical technician, he has been involved in many rescues and encounters with deceased migrants. > > "The ones we find are our official number. Since I've been in, it's just been what we encounter," said Chris Cabrera, a spokesman for the Border Patrol agents' union who has worked as an agent in the Rio Grande Valley sector since 2001. > -- > > <https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/us/border-patrol-migrant-death-count-invs/index.html> > > There's no way to know how many more there are... that's just a fact. No one here has ever read my program, much less found a bug; still, in my subconscious, I'm thinking, "What if the program crashes", as if someone knew. Yup. Sadly this is what we have to defeat. Cretins who clearly have no reason for being here other than to troll. I'm getting sick of the nonsense in here. I'm guessing the Klaus Schadenfreude stalker is proving the advocates right again. Steve Petruzzellis's computer has more scripts than Klaus Schadenfreude's. Steve Petruzzellis wins. Klaus Schadenfreude loses. So take that, Klaus Schadenfreude. It was Klaus Schadenfreude who was openly asking how better to better his flooding. -- This broke the Internet! https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/BVpdH5KOc6s http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_j3m3lg_whitepower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOfBmWwCVY Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 19:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <fthgnaFfcbuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463027 |
On 8/14/18 6:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:24:46 PM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > > (snip) > >>> Some of it. No matter, we both know you're trying to argue that fentanyl >>> has little to do with the southern border, I disagree. >> >> Steve, Steve, Steve ... >> >> _There is already a "wall"._ > > And it sucks. Nobody is saying to not improve it where needed... but Trump describes, in any of its various and ever changing forms, is merely symbolic, and he lied about having Mexico pay for it. >> The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is >> somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. > > As I *said*, I don;t even think it will get built and Trump isn't > really as 'behind' it as he was earlier. It will not be built as described... that was said to fool people such as you. And it worked. You backed it and attacked those of us who were not fooled. >> And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is >> noxious. > > > LOL! Whatever you wish to *allege* about my 'understanding', you're > free to do so but I'm not buying the 'fentanyl isn't a border issue' > argument. You deny evidence and then insist your fantasies should be accepted by others. >> Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: >> something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of >> handling nowadays. > > There is no 'scientific' about citing stats that can't possibly > prove what is being claimed... i.e. 'crime is lower on the border'. You are a part of the "anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd". -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 19:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <79f47e6e-32e8-44fb-975a-697dd0f9a5e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463020 |
vallor writes: > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > _There is already a "wall"._ As well as 101 ways to circumvent it. > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions - it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites. > And your constant poo-pooing of statistics that you don't understand is > noxious. Sometimes you have to rely on expertise of the experts: > something the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd seems incapable of > handling nowadays. For example, he’s trying to make points with how some measures claim that there’s more pounds coming in from the South than through the harder-to-intercept Mail, even though the same reference notes that the former is heavily cut and the mail is higher purity, so the amount of actual active ingredient being delivered is quite likely higher in what’s the ‘smaller’ delivery. The bad guys aren’t stupid. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 20:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <08b14340-bce7-421f-8ca9-0882220e25e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463041 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > vallor writes: > > Steve, Steve, Steve ... > > _There is already a "wall"._ > > As well as 101 ways to circumvent it. > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. > > Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability) And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;) >- it’s merely a > cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites. Typical uber-left BS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-14 20:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <fthkmeFfcbvU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463048 |
On 8/14/18 8:09 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> vallor writes: >>> Steve, Steve, Steve ... >>> _There is already a "wall"._ >> >> As well as 101 ways to circumvent it. >> >>> The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is >>> somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd. >> >> Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions > > "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it > shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability) > > And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near > as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;) > >> - it’s merely a >> cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites. > > Typical uber-left BS. > You keep pushing a wall even you now say you are uncertain about, and you show no clue about a cost / benefit analysis. Meanwhile you go on and on and on about drug problems but take no personal responsibility. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 03:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <c5593e67-7aad-4928-a89d-6d9064c86a6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463048 |
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:09:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> > vallor writes:
> > > Steve, Steve, Steve ...
> > > _There is already a "wall"._
> >
> > As well as 101 ways to circumvent it.
> >
> > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is
> > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd.
> >
> > Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions
>
> "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would
> you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it
> shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability)
>
> And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near
> as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;)
Actually, it served its purpose quite admirably, since you dodged answering.
Specifically, that example was deliberately set high so that any rationale person
would have unflinchingly said "Hell No!" to. Yet you were unwilling to say 'no', or
even just how much your "border security" issue is personally worth to you - even
to spend but a penny - when the money's coming out of your own pocket.
> >- it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites.
>
> Typical uber-left BS.
That's not a rebuttal. Bigotry is the more reasonable explanation for your agenda,
since the argument that you've made is utter bullshit that regularly self-contradicts:
You've said that you can't quantify the magnitude of the problem ("That's not calculable"),
yet we are simultaneously expected to believe you that it is supposedly a big problem ( a
"monumental, *persistent* failure").
You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by throwing even more
money at it even though we've already spent $1T (and counting). Bonus: you claim
that this will be cheap even though we've already spent $8K/household & failed, and
yet you're not willing to have even a penny come out of your own pocket to pay for it.
The racial aspect is that you've tried to move the entire drug abuse epidemic to only the
physical border with Mexico, where we all know that the racist dog whistle rhetoric has
been of murderer - rapists - 'bad hombres' with zero acknowledgment of the families
with children desperately fleeing severe criminality, poverty, gang war, & violence.
Because for some reason supposedly other than bigotry, we're expected to believe
that they somehow deserve their fate, just like the passengers of the MS St. Louis.
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 03:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <d3b335c4-5d03-48ba-a55e-adc3d2251898@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463101 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 3:28:06 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:09:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> > > vallor writes:
> > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ...
> > > > _There is already a "wall"._
> > >
> > > As well as 101 ways to circumvent it.
> > >
> > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is
> > > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd.
> > >
> > > Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions
> >
> > "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would
> > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it
> > shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability)
> >
> > And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near
> > as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;)
>
> Actually, it served its purpose quite admirably, since you dodged answering.
>
> Specifically, that example was deliberately set high so that any rationale person
> would have unflinchingly said "Hell No!" to. Yet you were unwilling to say 'no', or
> even just how much your "border security" issue is personally worth to you - even
> to spend but a penny - when the money's coming out of your own pocket.
>
>
> > >- it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites.
> >
> > Typical uber-left BS.
>
> That's not a rebuttal. Bigotry is the more reasonable explanation for your agenda,
> since the argument that you've made is utter bullshit that regularly self-contradicts:
>
> You've said that you can't quantify the magnitude of the problem ("That's not calculable"),
> yet we are simultaneously expected to believe you that it is supposedly a big problem ( a
> "monumental, *persistent* failure").
>
> You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by throwing even more
> money at it even though we've already spent $1T (and counting). Bonus: you claim
> that this will be cheap even though we've already spent $8K/household & failed, and
> yet you're not willing to have even a penny come out of your own pocket to pay for it.
>
> The racial aspect is that you've tried to move the entire drug abuse epidemic to only the
> physical border with Mexico, where we all know that the racist dog whistle rhetoric has
> been of murderer - rapists - 'bad hombres' with zero acknowledgment of the families
> with children desperately fleeing severe criminality, poverty, gang war, & violence.
> Because for some reason supposedly other than bigotry, we're expected to believe
> that they somehow deserve their fate, just like the passengers of the MS St. Louis.
>
>
> -hh
The Thing asked to be rated according to objective trolling criteria, which I accommodated. I have a System76 system I use as well, but it's something you would not understand.
BTW, I've already discussed that his use of "herd" to describe Klaus Schadenfreude is libel, since he's likening them to mindless sheep.
--
E-commerce Simplified
https://youtu.be/OffkiSAsYo8
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfhq6/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/
Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 06:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <2e1cc1c5-b557-407d-9ba1-d5f57d9da6ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463101 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 3:28:06 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:09:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> > > vallor writes:
> > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ...
> > > > _There is already a "wall"._
> > >
> > > As well as 101 ways to circumvent it.
> > >
> > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is
> > > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd.
> > >
> > > Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions
> >
> > "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would
> > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it
> > shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability)
> >
> > And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near
> > as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;)
>
> Actually, it served its purpose quite admirably, since you dodged answering.
>
> Specifically, that example was deliberately set high so that any rationale person
> would have unflinchingly said "Hell No!" to. Yet you were unwilling to say 'no', or
> even just how much your "border security" issue is personally worth to you - even
> to spend but a penny - when the money's coming out of your own pocket.
>
>
> > >- it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites.
> >
> > Typical uber-left BS.
>
> That's not a rebuttal. Bigotry is the more reasonable explanation for your agenda,
> since the argument that you've made is utter bullshit that regularly self-contradicts:
>
> You've said that you can't quantify the magnitude of the problem ("That's not calculable"),
> yet we are simultaneously expected to believe you that it is supposedly a big problem ( a
> "monumental, *persistent* failure").
>
> You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by throwing even more
> money at it even though we've already spent $1T (and counting). Bonus: you claim
> that this will be cheap even though we've already spent $8K/household & failed, and
> yet you're not willing to have even a penny come out of your own pocket to pay for it.
>
> The racial aspect is that you've tried to move the entire drug abuse epidemic to only the
> physical border with Mexico, where we all know that the racist dog whistle rhetoric has
> been of murderer - rapists - 'bad hombres' with zero acknowledgment of the families
> with children desperately fleeing severe criminality, poverty, gang war, & violence.
> Because for some reason supposedly other than bigotry, we're expected to believe
> that they somehow deserve their fate, just like the passengers of the MS St. Louis.
>
>
> -hh
How is FileZilla on Linux doing anything above the lowest common denominator? It is easy to handpick by focusing on a few exceptions unrepresentative from what is something more common like OS X. What is more honest from an advocacy opinion are the regular operations. My view is beyond your understanding. It was Larry 'Super Troll' Washington who stated that he and his work friends used to shoplift all the time and it was no big deal, not even a moral dilemma for them at all.
--
Eight things to never feed your dog
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 08:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <a9dcc47c-0f66-463e-aa8b-24fe6644f0dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463101 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 4:28:06 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:09:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> > > vallor writes:
> > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ...
> > > > _There is already a "wall"._
> > >
> > > As well as 101 ways to circumvent it.
> > >
> > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is
> > > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd.
> > >
> > > Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions
> >
> > "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would
> > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it
> > shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability)
> >
> > And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near
> > as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;)
>
> Actually, it served its purpose quite admirably,
Nah, you'd already won the 'Idiot savant of the year' award long ago.
> since you dodged answering.
Right, I "dodged" the answer to a completely absurd question. But wait,
does "dodge" mean I didn't reply at all? Reality shows I gave it even more
than it deserved:
"Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis that 'proves' this'd be the case ;)"
Gee, can I now claim that *you* dodged (you, doing something and claiming
the other guy did it) because you didn't reply to my reply? Or did the word
"dodge" get redefined by you in the middle of the discussion (the way I fully
expect "conflate" will after you read this post)?
> Specifically, that example was deliberately set high so that any rationale person
> would have unflinchingly said "Hell No!" to. Yet you were unwilling to say 'no',
Telling people what "others" are "unwilling" to do now, Snit Jr.?
> or even just how much your "border security" issue is personally worth to
> you - even to spend but a penny - when the money's coming out of your
> own pocket.
Along with all the other pennies that have gone down the drain, I'm willing
to gamble up to the rational, high amount as ascertained by Dem estimates.
Of course, the fact that I'm in this discussion indicates as much... but, hey,
why let reality stand in the way of another ludicrous, Huntzinger BS story.
> > >- it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites.
> >
> > Typical uber-left BS.
>
> That's not a rebuttal.
What you wrote was not a rebuttal, it was the typical uber-left character
assassination attempt
This is also yet another example of 'do something and then claim the other guy
is doing it'. *Below you showed a bit of creativity when you reversed the order.
> Bigotry is the more reasonable explanation for your agenda,
And you'll 'prove' it any minute now <eyeroll>, Snit Jr.
> since the argument that you've made is utter bullshit that regularly self-contradicts:
>
> You've said that you can't quantify the magnitude of the problem ("That's not calculable"),
> yet we are simultaneously expected to believe you that it is supposedly a big problem ( a
> "monumental, *persistent* failure").
You:
"Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which are
best to not be conflated."
Me
:"I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both."
But that's not an example of conflation, which means
conflate
to fuse into one entity; merge:
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conflate>
You: "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost?"
Me: "That's not calculable." (because the build cost can't be accurately
determined, as evidenced by the fact that numbers range from less than the
~22 billion as 'calculated' by Homeland Security, to the ~70 billion as
'calculated' by Dems).
The range between the high and the low, that would be used to *estimate*
the net effective marginal cost *of the wall* are *not* to be conflated with
how "big" the "problem" regarding the money we've *already* spent and are
continuing to spend annually; while they are related, the are *not* "one entity").
(*so, yes, you did what you falsely accused me of, conflation... but you reversed
the order here, probably thinking no one would notice).
> You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved
More total bullsh*t by hh, as expected:
1 - "Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and drug trafficking down."
2 - "I'm good with 30%... 25% even."
3 - "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced."
> simply by throwing even more
> money at it even though we've already spent $1T (and counting).
Hint: We're *going* to keep "throwing even more money at it" because that's
*how* this border scam is played.
> Bonus: you claim
> that this will be cheap even though we've already spent $8K/household & failed,
Someone *really* needs to grasp the concept of conflation.
> and
> yet you're not willing to have even a penny come out of your own pocket to pay for it.
Ludicrous BS.
(snip more ludicrous BS by a lying blowhard)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 08:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ca6f91e3-118c-4a8a-9eb7-e2a4e24f6455@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463139 |
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 8:13:40 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 4:28:06 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:09:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
> > > > vallor writes:
> > > > > Steve, Steve, Steve ...
> > > > > _There is already a "wall"._
> > > >
> > > > As well as 101 ways to circumvent it.
> > > >
> > > > > The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is
> > > > > somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd.
> > > >
> > > > Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions
> > >
> > > "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would
> > > you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it
> > > shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability)
> > >
> > > And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near
> > > as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;)
> >
> > Actually, it served its purpose quite admirably,
>
> Nah, you'd already won the 'Idiot savant of the year' award long ago.
>
> > since you dodged answering.
>
> Right, I "dodged" the answer to a completely absurd question. But wait,
> does "dodge" mean I didn't reply at all? Reality shows I gave it even more
> than it deserved:
>
> "Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis that 'proves' this'd be the case ;)"
>
> Gee, can I now claim that *you* dodged (you, doing something and claiming
> the other guy did it) because you didn't reply to my reply? Or did the word
> "dodge" get redefined by you in the middle of the discussion (the way I fully
> expect "conflate" will after you read this post)?
>
> > Specifically, that example was deliberately set high so that any rationale person
> > would have unflinchingly said "Hell No!" to. Yet you were unwilling to say 'no',
>
> Telling people what "others" are "unwilling" to do now, Snit Jr.?
>
> > or even just how much your "border security" issue is personally worth to
> > you - even to spend but a penny - when the money's coming out of your
> > own pocket.
>
> Along with all the other pennies that have gone down the drain, I'm willing
> to gamble up to the rational, high amount as ascertained by Dem estimates.
> Of course, the fact that I'm in this discussion indicates as much... but, hey,
> why let reality stand in the way of another ludicrous, Huntzinger BS story.
>
> > > >- it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites.
> > >
> > > Typical uber-left BS.
> >
> > That's not a rebuttal.
>
> What you wrote was not a rebuttal, it was the typical uber-left character
> assassination attempt
>
> This is also yet another example of 'do something and then claim the other guy
> is doing it'. *Below you showed a bit of creativity when you reversed the order.
>
> > Bigotry is the more reasonable explanation for your agenda,
>
> And you'll 'prove' it any minute now <eyeroll>, Snit Jr.
>
> > since the argument that you've made is utter bullshit that regularly self-contradicts:
> >
> > You've said that you can't quantify the magnitude of the problem ("That's not calculable"),
> > yet we are simultaneously expected to believe you that it is supposedly a big problem ( a
> > "monumental, *persistent* failure").
>
> You:
> "Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which are
> best to not be conflated."
>
> Me
> :"I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both."
>
> But that's not an example of conflation, which means
>
> conflate
> to fuse into one entity; merge:
> <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conflate>
>
> You: "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost?"
> Me: "That's not calculable." (because the build cost can't be accurately
> determined, as evidenced by the fact that numbers range from less than the
> ~22 billion as 'calculated' by Homeland Security, to the ~70 billion as
> 'calculated' by Dems).
>
> The range between the high and the low, that would be used to *estimate*
> the net effective marginal cost *of the wall* are *not* to be conflated with
> how "big" the "problem" regarding the money we've *already* spent and are
> continuing to spend annually; while they are related, the are *not* "one entity").
> (*so, yes, you did what you falsely accused me of, conflation... but you reversed
> the order here, probably thinking no one would notice).
>
> > You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved
>
> More total bullsh*t by hh, as expected:
> 1 - "Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and drug trafficking down."
>
> 2 - "I'm good with 30%... 25% even."
>
> 3 - "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced."
>
> > simply by throwing even more
> > money at it even though we've already spent $1T (and counting).
>
> Hint: We're *going* to keep "throwing even more money at it" because that's
> *how* this border scam is played.
>
> > Bonus: you claim
> > that this will be cheap even though we've already spent $8K/household & failed,
>
> Someone *really* needs to grasp the concept of conflation.
>
> > and
> > yet you're not willing to have even a penny come out of your own pocket to pay for it.
>
> Ludicrous BS.
>
> (snip more ludicrous BS by a lying blowhard)
That lame duck update system failed over and over again. Only what Steven Carroll wants matters to Steven Carroll. There is nothing you or I can do to change that. It's a personality defect and it is what it is.
You are bright as a boiled radish.
You can say I am Satan himself for all I care. For others I would think it is suspicious. However, given that it's Steven Carroll I would forget that step and go straight to 'ego-trip' because that's most of what he does. Meaning no evidence is required to deem it dishonest.
--
Eight things to never feed your dog!!
http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex
Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-15 09:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ftj3isFqlvgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463139 |
On 8/15/18 8:13 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 4:28:06 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:09:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 8:48:57 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>> vallor writes:
>>>>> Steve, Steve, Steve ...
>>>>> _There is already a "wall"._
>>>>
>>>> As well as 101 ways to circumvent it.
>>>>
>>>>> The idea that our borders are completely undefended, and that Trump is
>>>>> somehow going to "save" us from this (nonexistent) situation, is absurd.
>>>>
>>>> Most of these ignoraci arent interested in actual policy discussions
>>>
>>> "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost? For example, would
>>> you personally be willing to have a $10K/year higher tax bill if it
>>> shaves off only 5%?" -hh (showing his 'policy discussion' ability)
>>>
>>> And *I'm* the "ignoraci". LOL! Granted, this isn't anywhere near
>>> as ridiculous as your dice rolling 'analogy' but it's pretty close ;)
>>
>> Actually, it served its purpose quite admirably,
>
> Nah, you'd already won the 'Idiot savant of the year' award long ago.
>
>> since you dodged answering.
>
> Right, I "dodged" the answer to a completely absurd question. But wait,
> does "dodge" mean I didn't reply at all? Reality shows I gave it even more
> than it deserved:
>
> "Lemme guess, you're gonna show some *extremely* bizarre analysis that 'proves' this'd be the case ;)"
>
> Gee, can I now claim that *you* dodged (you, doing something and claiming
> the other guy did it) because you didn't reply to my reply? Or did the word
> "dodge" get redefined by you in the middle of the discussion (the way I fully
> expect "conflate" will after you read this post)?
So many words from you... as you leave the topic behind. Come on, as you
speak of having trouble putting food on the table, how much of your tax
money do you want going to a symbolic wall you have been lied to about
time and time again?
>> Specifically, that example was deliberately set high so that any rationale person
>> would have unflinchingly said "Hell No!" to. Yet you were unwilling to say 'no',
>
> Telling people what "others" are "unwilling" to do now, Snit Jr.?
Still no sign you are willing to say "no"... just more dodges from you.
>> or even just how much your "border security" issue is personally worth to
>> you - even to spend but a penny - when the money's coming out of your
>> own pocket.
>
> Along with all the other pennies that have gone down the drain, I'm willing
> to gamble up to the rational, high amount as ascertained by Dem estimates.
> Of course, the fact that I'm in this discussion indicates as much... but, hey,
> why let reality stand in the way of another ludicrous, Huntzinger BS story.
Still not a word to you as to how much the symbolic wall is worth. You
dodge over and over.
>>>> - it’s merely a cover and excuse for their perpetuation of their racism against non-whites.
>>>
>>> Typical uber-left BS.
>>
>> That's not a rebuttal.
>
> What you wrote was not a rebuttal, it was the typical uber-left character
> assassination attempt
>
> This is also yet another example of 'do something and then claim the other guy
> is doing it'. *Below you showed a bit of creativity when you reversed the order.
You have AGAIN been called out on your comments which can only be
explained by bigotry, even by you, and then you blame others. Once again
you try to turn the tables.
>> Bigotry is the more reasonable explanation for your agenda,
>
> And you'll 'prove' it any minute now <eyeroll>, Snit Jr.
Of note: you offer NO other explanation. Nor will you. You will play
victim that your bigotry is being called out. Poor you.
>> since the argument that you've made is utter bullshit that regularly self-contradicts:
>>
>> You've said that you can't quantify the magnitude of the problem ("That's not calculable"),
>> yet we are simultaneously expected to believe you that it is supposedly a big problem ( a
>> "monumental, *persistent* failure").
>
> You:
> "Drug addiction and immigration are two independent topics which are
> best to not be conflated."
>
> Me
> :"I'm just pointing out that there are costs from both."
>
> But that's not an example of conflation, which means
>
> conflate
> to fuse into one entity; merge:
> <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conflate>
>
> You: "Second, what's the net effective marginal cost?"
> Me: "That's not calculable." (because the build cost can't be accurately
> determined, as evidenced by the fact that numbers range from less than the
> ~22 billion as 'calculated' by Homeland Security, to the ~70 billion as
> 'calculated' by Dems).
>
> The range between the high and the low, that would be used to *estimate*
> the net effective marginal cost *of the wall* are *not* to be conflated with
> how "big" the "problem" regarding the money we've *already* spent and are
> continuing to spend annually; while they are related, the are *not* "one entity").
> (*so, yes, you did what you falsely accused me of, conflation... but you reversed
> the order here, probably thinking no one would notice).
Either you can calculate it or you cannot. Your games do not change that.
>> You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved
>
> More total bullsh*t by hh, as expected:
> 1 - "Nothing can "stop" it, you can only hope to slow illegal immigration and drug trafficking down."
>
> 2 - "I'm good with 30%... 25% even."
>
> 3 - "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced."
Where did you disagree with it? You kept touting it and attacked me when
I did not.
>> simply by throwing even more
>> money at it even though we've already spent $1T (and counting).
>
> Hint: We're *going* to keep "throwing even more money at it" because that's
> *how* this border scam is played.
So you back a wall you see as a scam. Um, what? Wait... now you are not
fully convinced of the wall you keep backing. And... good grief, get
your story straight!
>> Bonus: you claim
>> that this will be cheap even though we've already spent $8K/household & failed,
>
> Someone *really* needs to grasp the concept of conflation.
Ah, now you blame others for your own lack of understanding. Typical
game from you.
>> and
>> yet you're not willing to have even a penny come out of your own pocket to pay for it.
>
> Ludicrous BS.
>
> (snip more ludicrous BS by a lying blowhard)
>
And more of your snipping and running.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web