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 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 13:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <241b2437-186f-4b19-94cd-e245740addde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463369 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". > > > > > > > > > > > > I've already answered this absurd question. > > > > > > > > > > Cite, please. > > > > > > > > Learn to read. > > > > > > That's plainly not a cite. > > > > There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the > > 'question' wasn't addressed. > > Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. I did provide enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're more reasonable than you). (snip red herring attempts) > > > > But then, you don't even understand the implications of your > > > > own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it > > > > out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's > > > > what your 'argument' boils down to... > > > > > > Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your > > > claims > > > > You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend > > what you read... take your choice: > > > > "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by > > throwing even more money at it ..." > > > > From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be > > solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph > > of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea" > > > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." > > Flawed quotation The hell it is. >, as the statement did not end there with a period, Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > but rather had a comma and continued, stating: Wrong, it ended with a period and was a self contained statement. > " looks like it could be at least part of a better solution than > our current, feeble attempts." Wrong. > And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts > are "feeble" They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. (snip other red herrings that seek to bury your lies) > > >...particularly since you'll never have any arrests in > > > a region that you have zero law enforcement in. > > > > LOL! You're insane. > > The "streetlight" allegory is an older fallacy alert; An "alert" that has nothing to do with your latest erroneous statement here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 14:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ftm77eFi2vvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463377 |
On 8/16/18 1:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've already answered this absurd question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Learn to read.
>>>>
>>>> That's plainly not a cite.
>>>
>>> There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the
>>> 'question' wasn't addressed.
>>
>> Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer.
>
> Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer.
So after all this time of insisting you DID give such an answer you have
figured out you did NOT. As you were told. As you continued to deny and
attack when it was noted you did not.
Got it.
> I did provide
> enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they
> read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're
> more reasonable than you).
And yet you STILL give no actual answer but babble about your
meta-debates and victim games.
> (snip red herring attempts)
More dodging from you.
>>>>> But then, you don't even understand the implications of your
>>>>> own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it
>>>>> out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's
>>>>> what your 'argument' boils down to...
>>>>
>>>> Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your
>>>> claims
>>>
>>> You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend
>>> what you read... take your choice:
>>>
>>> "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by
>>> throwing even more money at it ..."
>>>
>>> From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be
>>> solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph
>>> of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea"
>>>
>>> "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced."
>>
>> Flawed quotation
>
> The hell it is.
Your actual comments:
-----
I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully
convinced. 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.
-----
Then you went into how many people die of drug overdoses, and jumped to:
-----
So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You
don't believe that it might be time to try something
more aggressive? Or do you think we should
decriminalize all drugs? Open the border and take
whatever additional hits there are to take?
-----
But when you realized your crap was not supportable you pretended you
were NOT backing the wall.
Give it a break, Carroll, people are not as stupid as you need them to be.
>> , as the statement did not end there with a period,
>
> Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period.
>
>> but rather had a comma and continued, stating:
>
> Wrong, it ended with a period and was a self contained statement.
>
>> " looks like it could be at least part of a better solution than
>> our current, feeble attempts."
>
> Wrong.
>
>> And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts
>> are "feeble"
>
> They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying about
> my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up.
>
> (snip other red herrings that seek to bury your lies)
>
>>>> ...particularly since you'll never have any arrests in
>>>> a region that you have zero law enforcement in.
>>>
>>> LOL! You're insane.
>>
>> The "streetlight" allegory is an older fallacy alert;
>
> An "alert" that has nothing to do with your latest erroneous statement here.
>
--
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 | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 14:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <2dc6e349-0689-4b52-b912-05fc5f798e73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463380 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:04:49 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 8/16/18 1:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've already answered this absurd question. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cite, please. > >>>>> > >>>>> Learn to read. > >>>> > >>>> That's plainly not a cite. > >>> > >>> There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the > >>> 'question' wasn't addressed. > >> > >> Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. > > > > Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. > > So after all this time of insisting you DID give such an answer you have > figured out you did NOT. As you were told. As you continued to deny and > attack when it was noted you did not. > > Got it. > > > I did provide > > enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they > > read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're > > more reasonable than you). > > And yet you STILL give no actual answer but babble about your > meta-debates and victim games. > > > (snip red herring attempts) > > More dodging from you. > > >>>>> But then, you don't even understand the implications of your > >>>>> own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it > >>>>> out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's > >>>>> what your 'argument' boils down to... > >>>> > >>>> Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your > >>>> claims > >>> > >>> You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend > >>> what you read... take your choice: > >>> > >>> "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by > >>> throwing even more money at it ..." > >>> > >>> From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be > >>> solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph > >>> of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea" > >>> > >>> "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." > >> > >> Flawed quotation > > > > The hell it is. > > Your actual comments: > > ----- > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully > convinced. 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. > ----- > > Then you went into how many people die of drug overdoses, and jumped to: > > ----- > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You > don't believe that it might be time to try something > more aggressive? Or do you think we should > decriminalize all drugs? Open the border and take > whatever additional hits there are to take? > ----- > > But when you realized your crap was not supportable you pretended you > were NOT backing the wall. > > Give it a break, Carroll, people are not as stupid as you need them to be. > > >> , as the statement did not end there with a period, > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > >> but rather had a comma and continued, stating: > > > > Wrong, it ended with a period and was a self contained statement. > > > >> " looks like it could be at least part of a better solution than > >> our current, feeble attempts." > > > > Wrong. > > > >> And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts > >> are "feeble" > > > > They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying about > > my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. > > > > (snip other red herrings that seek to bury your lies) > > > >>>> ...particularly since you'll never have any arrests in > >>>> a region that you have zero law enforcement in. > >>> > >>> LOL! You're insane. > >> > >> The "streetlight" allegory is an older fallacy alert; > > > > An "alert" that has nothing to do with your latest erroneous statement here. > > > > > -- > 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> I am working on a program which will blow what Linux has away. Klaus Schadenfreude created at least 20 KVMS in the last year or so. I am sure he and the herd are proud. Klaus Schadenfreude's computer has more cores than Script 'The Fool' Troller's. Klaus Schadenfreude wins. Script 'The Fool' Troller loses. So take that, Script 'The Fool' Troller. What is your evidence? This is something beyond you. Promotion is a wonderful thing and consumer ignorance is even better. When I first posted, I wanted to be trusting and unbiased. I gave Script 'The Fool' Troller more than a reasonable person should. -- What Every Entrepreneur Must Know! http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BilkHelp.html http://www.5z8.info/yourdick_v1o3ww_manhunter Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 15:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <617065bb-2f56-4236-843e-133d388297fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463377 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've already answered this absurd question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cite, please. > > > > > > > > > > Learn to read. > > > > > > > > That's plainly not a cite. > > > > > > There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the > > > 'question' wasn't addressed. > > > > Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. > > Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'. > I did provide > enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they > read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're > more reasonable than you). If true, then why don't you ELI5 to all of us if your "enough info" was _effectively_ a "yes" or a "no". > (snip red herring attempts) dodge. > > > > > But then, you don't even understand the implications of your > > > > > own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it > > > > > out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's > > > > > what your 'argument' boils down to... > > > > > > > > Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your > > > > claims > > > > > > You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend > > > what you read... take your choice: > > > > > > "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by > > > throwing even more money at it ..." > > > > > > From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be > > > solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph > > > of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea" > > > > > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." > > > > Flawed quotation > > The hell it is. > > >, as the statement did not end there with a period, > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. My apologies - I had read the part which supported your not ever claiming "100%" claim, which did continue on: "...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." > > but rather had a comma and continued, stating: > > Wrong, it ended with a period and was a self contained statement. > > > " looks like it could be at least part of a better solution than > > our current, feeble attempts." > > Wrong. Its further down in the same paragraph: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/syvxfy3vfUA/ti45xNxhAgAJ> And is the only sentence that actually refers to 100%. > > And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts > > are "feeble" > > They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying > about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it. The facts are that there's already been a 90% reduction ... and yet you're trying to claim that its all been "FEEBLE" and needs even more. This is the proof that this topic has never been about immigration policy, but that it has _always_ been about white supremacist bigotry and fascist aspirations to illegally create a new white apartheid. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 15:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <49f9b960-3c54-46a7-b34f-9229cef84a5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463386 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've already answered this absurd question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cite, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to read. > > > > > > > > > > That's plainly not a cite. > > > > > > > > There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the > > > > 'question' wasn't addressed. > > > > > > Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. > > > > Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. > > Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'. > > > I did provide > > enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they > > read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're > > more reasonable than you). > > If true, then why don't you ELI5 to all of us if your > "enough info" was _effectively_ a "yes" or a "no". > > > > (snip red herring attempts) > > dodge. > > > > > > > > But then, you don't even understand the implications of your > > > > > > own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it > > > > > > out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's > > > > > > what your 'argument' boils down to... > > > > > > > > > > Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your > > > > > claims > > > > > > > > You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend > > > > what you read... take your choice: > > > > > > > > "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by > > > > throwing even more money at it ..." > > > > > > > > From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be > > > > solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph > > > > of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea" > > > > > > > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." > > > > > > Flawed quotation > > > > The hell it is. > > > > >, as the statement did not end there with a period, > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > My apologies - I had read the part which supported your not > ever claiming "100%" claim, which did continue on: > > > "...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." > > > > > > > but rather had a comma and continued, stating: > > > > Wrong, it ended with a period and was a self contained statement. > > > > > " looks like it could be at least part of a better solution than > > > our current, feeble attempts." > > > > Wrong. > > Its further down in the same paragraph: > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/syvxfy3vfUA/ti45xNxhAgAJ> > > And is the only sentence that actually refers to 100%. > > > > > And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts > > > are "feeble" > > > > They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying > > about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. > > Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it. > > The facts are that there's already been a 90% reduction ... and yet > you're trying to claim that its all been "FEEBLE" and needs even more. > > This is the proof that this topic has never been about immigration > policy, but that it has _always_ been about white supremacist bigotry > and fascist aspirations to illegally create a new white apartheid. > > > -hh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <fmre6tF8stoU3@mid.individual.net>, Snit wrote: >> Steve Carroll (Snit): >> For most I would say the comment is worth looking into. Of course, >> given that it's chrisv I would ignore that doubt and go straight >> to 'lie' because that's most of what chrisv does. Meaning no >> evidence is required to deem it dishonest. So what's chrisv's >> system for the flooding deluge? AppleScript? That is the only tool >> he knows, isn't it? He must be abusing it to create these goofy >> "obsession" garbage posts. My hypothesis, chrisv took Steven >> Petruzzellis's code that he stole and pretended was his... he's >> feeding it Steven Petruzzellis's posts, grabbing offensive >> paragraphs, then altering those using automated reinforcement >> learning and then he hand posts them because his insomnia enables >> him to do that practically endlessly. > >> The content is a bunch of randomized bullshit. That points to one >> person. Real discussion will be destroyed once the trolls >> overpopulate. That, and there will always be a butthurt insomniac >> or two in an open news group (hint: chrisv). The specifics of the >> bullshit aside, we have all seen who routinely gets angry when he >> does not get a response. > >> -- >> Best CMS Solution of 2017! >> https://www.facebook.com/JonasEklundh >> https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012978552519 >> https://youtu.be/GPPqvw8iEBs >> Jonas Eklundh Communication > > Why do you link to Sandman's FB page? And you do so in the same post > you point to a link to his trolling. > Why? Did he leave COLA because of you? So cute, Snit thinks he can make me leave COLA :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJbD6/mAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRjLYH+we67Zx/z0UtJtVFvIZJ/Kki 0ljOcqQgkGmhkW63ifRT6J3Lzk7JHiUs9I5ZLD09MGvk8ZIU8ZNhS7QKfGxrLJA2 k1JrXzrB+Ko6u56WOqeRMM3R17GsYDIxqwzWfzLwceGxs78Ikpjnd1J4pW1nq7yK hP/oVHenewp54mZIhb8e0eZWZasVLiKwSsO22Rr1NcJku4UrD25yNtrth+SH1ZRk 0U7X0KtHwKDE6MqlnZxexxKg+6sbdKwrn1C2oPSFc+7AtnaUfauPP0+dyrgD1rG3 +P3BkDk0eZsRgmC8kqEzCiveEk9zarSrJqLGjn3WOYiZa+aqzN9UqUCnblaFe+o= =kqoW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Get Rich Slow! http://www.5z8.info/-php-deactivate_phishing_filter-48-_e3m8dt_malicious-cookie https://youtu.be/qwb1Ez0GWMA Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 16:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ftmevhFjnubU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463386 |
On 8/16/18 3:05 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've already answered this absurd question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite, please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Learn to read.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's plainly not a cite.
>>>>
>>>> There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the
>>>> 'question' wasn't addressed.
>>>
>>> Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer.
>>
>> Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer.
>
> Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'.
A glimmer... but he will ALWAYS play his games.
>> I did provide
>> enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they
>> read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're
>> more reasonable than you).
>
> If true, then why don't you ELI5 to all of us if your
> "enough info" was _effectively_ a "yes" or a "no".
Carroll cannot figure out the answer but it is your fault for not... but
if you do you are speaking for him.
It it fun watching him play this game with others.
>> (snip red herring attempts)
>
> dodge.
>
>
>>>>>> But then, you don't even understand the implications of your
>>>>>> own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it
>>>>>> out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's
>>>>>> what your 'argument' boils down to...
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your
>>>>> claims
>>>>
>>>> You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend
>>>> what you read... take your choice:
>>>>
>>>> "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by
>>>> throwing even more money at it ..."
>>>>
>>>> From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be
>>>> solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph
>>>> of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea"
>>>>
>>>> "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced."
>>>
>>> Flawed quotation
>>
>> The hell it is.
>>
>>> , as the statement did not end there with a period,
>>
>> Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period.
>
> My apologies - I had read the part which supported your not
> ever claiming "100%" claim, which did continue on:
...
His actual comments:
-----
I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully
convinced. 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.
-----
Then he went into how many people die of drug overdoses, and jumped to:
-----
So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You
don't believe that it might be time to try something
more aggressive? Or do you think we should
decriminalize all drugs? Open the border and take
whatever additional hits there are to take?
-----
Now he wants to push the idea that he never showed support. He *did*
show confusion and the like, but there is clear support there.
--
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 | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 16:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <cf43e55c-ce13-411e-b4e4-a7db71e5dc4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463386 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've already answered this absurd question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cite, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to read. > > > > > > > > > > That's plainly not a cite. > > > > > > > > There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the > > > > 'question' wasn't addressed. > > > > > > Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. > > > > Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. > > Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'. How I answered your absurd question isn't relevant to your lies regarding what I claimed (which is *why* you're even talking about this ridiculous red herring). > > I did provide > > enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they > > read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're > > more reasonable than you). > > If true There is no "if". > > > > > > But then, you don't even understand the implications of your > > > > > > own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it > > > > > > out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's > > > > > > what your 'argument' boils down to... > > > > > > > > > > Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your > > > > > claims > > > > > > > > You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend > > > > what you read... take your choice: > > > > > > > > "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by > > > > throwing even more money at it ..." > > > > > > > > From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be > > > > solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph > > > > of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea" > > > > > > > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." > > > > > > Flawed quotation > > > > The hell it is. > > > > >, as the statement did not end there with a period, > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > My apologies It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still lying about my motives. > - I had read the part which supported your not > ever claiming "100%" claim, which did continue on: > > > "...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." As of yet, I've seen nothing that would cause me to change my mind. > > > but rather had a comma and continued, stating: > > > > Wrong, it ended with a period and was a self contained statement. > > > > > " looks like it could be at least part of a better solution than > > > our current, feeble attempts." > > > > Wrong. > > Its further down in the same paragraph: > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/syvxfy3vfUA/ti45xNxhAgAJ> > > And is the only sentence that actually refers to 100%. That and the presence of "could" be (which I did write, as opposed to 'will' be, which I didn't write); somehow, from that less than 100% and "could be", you came away with: "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved " - hh You're either unable to comprehend what you've read or you're lying. Being that you've not rescinded this absurdity I'm going with the latter, as also evidenced by your lies about my motives. > > > And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts > > > are "feeble" > > > > They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying > > about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. > > Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it. Trust me, I got that you're also taking issue with my labeling the efforts "feeble". It was your 'justified' (in your mind) responses, which included lying about what I said and tossing out absurd statements about Nazis and dog whistles that prompted me to "ignore it" and much of the rest of your blowhard bullsh*t. Obviously the word 'bigot' has now replaced the word 'Hitler' so congratulations to all of you idiots who've worked so hard to make that happen. > The facts are that there's already been a 90% reduction You're certainly free to believe those are "all" of the "facts". > ... and yet > you're trying to claim that its all been "FEEBLE" and needs even more. Whatever.... you've already made it clear to me that you want completely open borders, no wall or fence... <8d05dec7-a0a1-4c6d-829f-b9418d9babfe@googlegroups.com> ... so the idea of strengthening the border at all isn't something you'd ever be agreeing to anyway. And I'm fine with that, in fact, had you just been up front about it from the start I'd have no cause to label you for the liar you obviously are, providing that you didn't *also* lie about my motives (but, unfortunately, you did that, too). > This is the proof that this topic has never been about immigration > policy, but that it has _always_ been about white supremacist bigotry > and fascist aspirations to illegally create a new white apartheid. In your diseased mind, I don't doubt this is "proof" of that bizarre, unsubstantiated allegation. I suspect what's really happening is you have a severe case of 'white man's guilt' and you're overcompensating for it by turning border discussions into a racial issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 16:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ftmgifFk1eoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463394 |
On 8/16/18 4:30 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
...
>>> Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer.
>>
>> Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'.
>
> How I answered your absurd question isn't relevant to your lies
> regarding what I claimed (which is *why* you're even talking
> about this ridiculous red herring).
Ah, so you claimed to answer yes or no, then admitted you had not, then
blamed -hh for not figuring out what you might mean, and now blame your
lack of an answer on HIM.
Why not just answer the question? Do you even know what it is now?
>>> I did provide
>>> enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they
>>> read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're
>>> more reasonable than you).
>>
>> If true
>
> There is no "if".
That is not a yes or a no, but you will just play victim until the end
of time.
...
>> My apologies
>
> It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still
> lying about my motives.
What you said:
-----
I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully
convinced. 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.
-----
Then you went into how many people die of drug overdoses, and jumped to:
-----
So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You
don't believe that it might be time to try something
more aggressive? Or do you think we should
decriminalize all drugs? Open the border and take
whatever additional hits there are to take?
-----
And now you want to denounce all support. You are playing your usual games.
...
>>> They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying
>>> about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up.
>>
>> Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it.
>
> Trust me,
LOL! People simply are not as stupid as you need them to be!
> I got that you're also taking issue with my labeling the efforts
> "feeble". It was your 'justified' (in your mind) responses, which included
> lying about what I said and tossing out absurd statements about Nazis
> and dog whistles that prompted me to "ignore it" and much of the rest
> of your blowhard bullsh*t. Obviously the word 'bigot' has now replaced
> the word 'Hitler' so congratulations to all of you idiots who've worked
> so hard to make that happen.
You back openly bigoted comments and you showed support for the wall
even though you could not offer reasoning without referring to the dog
whistles.
...
>> This is the proof that this topic has never been about immigration
>> policy, but that it has _always_ been about white supremacist bigotry
>> and fascist aspirations to illegally create a new white apartheid.
>
> In your diseased mind, I don't doubt this is "proof" of that bizarre,
> unsubstantiated allegation. I suspect what's really happening is you
> have a severe case of 'white man's guilt' and you're overcompensating
> for it by turning border discussions into a racial issues.
Somehow our less secure border, with more fair skinned people, is not an
issue you ever show any concern about... no less want to spend billions
of dollars of other people's money as you speak about having difficulty
putting food on the table.
--
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 | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 17:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <7e453ee2-6267-441c-b35a-b138960446d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463397 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 8/16/18 4:30 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>> Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. > >> > >> Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'. > > > > How I answered your absurd question isn't relevant to your lies > > regarding what I claimed (which is *why* you're even talking > > about this ridiculous red herring). > > Ah, so you claimed to answer yes or no, then admitted you had not, then > blamed -hh for not figuring out what you might mean, and now blame your > lack of an answer on HIM. > > Why not just answer the question? Do you even know what it is now? > > >>> I did provide > >>> enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they > >>> read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're > >>> more reasonable than you). > >> > >> If true > > > > There is no "if". > > That is not a yes or a no, but you will just play victim until the end > of time. > > ... > >> My apologies > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still > > lying about my motives. > What you said: > ----- > I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully > convinced. 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. > ----- > > Then you went into how many people die of drug overdoses, and jumped to: > ----- > So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You > don't believe that it might be time to try something > more aggressive? Or do you think we should > decriminalize all drugs? Open the border and take > whatever additional hits there are to take? > ----- > > And now you want to denounce all support. You are playing your usual games. > > ... > >>> They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying > >>> about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. > >> > >> Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it. > > > > Trust me, > > LOL! People simply are not as stupid as you need them to be! > > > I got that you're also taking issue with my labeling the efforts > > "feeble". It was your 'justified' (in your mind) responses, which included > > lying about what I said and tossing out absurd statements about Nazis > > and dog whistles that prompted me to "ignore it" and much of the rest > > of your blowhard bullsh*t. Obviously the word 'bigot' has now replaced > > the word 'Hitler' so congratulations to all of you idiots who've worked > > so hard to make that happen. > > You back openly bigoted comments and you showed support for the wall > even though you could not offer reasoning without referring to the dog > whistles. > > ... > >> This is the proof that this topic has never been about immigration > >> policy, but that it has _always_ been about white supremacist bigotry > >> and fascist aspirations to illegally create a new white apartheid. > > > > In your diseased mind, I don't doubt this is "proof" of that bizarre, > > unsubstantiated allegation. I suspect what's really happening is you > > have a severe case of 'white man's guilt' and you're overcompensating > > for it by turning border discussions into a racial issues. > > Somehow our less secure border, with more fair skinned people, is not an > issue you ever show any concern about... no less want to spend billions > of dollars of other people's money as you speak about having difficulty > putting food on the table. > > > -- > 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> So, yeah, I buy into my own make believe world, fully knowing Doomsdrzej aka Sliver Slimer has been fooled, because it makes me reconsider my code, improving it. I am well aware the stuff I link to from this group is absolute beginner level; that said, it works. It was Doomsdrzej aka Sliver Slimer who was publicly asking how better to mask his trolling. The pathological liar does it every time. Then the flood begins. Because the wimp just has to run to other groups to get the attention he's not getting here. Like most in COLA, Doomsdrzej aka Sliver Slimer relies on biased science to concoct positions on politics. As such, he only believes and consents to the media claims which also are the ones which describe education in kind and brave slant. I'm getting more posts hidden then show. I'm guessing the pea-brained Mac cultist is proving the advocates right again. Yawn. Same old brain-dead trolls. -- Puppy Videos http://www.5z8.info/boobs_j0v3qo_dont-just-drizzle http://www.5z8.info/facebook-of-sex_w4l4wg_bomb Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 03:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <9d46c3cf-b9fb-4252-8bac-a18ee0f0305a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463394 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:30:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've already answered this absurd question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cite, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's plainly not a cite. > > > > > > > > > > There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the > > > > > 'question' wasn't addressed. > > > > > > > > Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. > > > > > > Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. > > > > Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'. > > How I answered your absurd question isn't relevant to your lies > regarding what I claimed (which is *why* you're even talking > about this ridiculous red herring). Once again, Steve stumbles across a truth: he is correct in that his avoidance of the yes/no question has nothing to do with later points, including if some of these may also be lies he's made. > > > I did provide > > > enough info for anyone who could comperhend what they > > > read to see how it relates to "yes or no" (providing they're > > > more reasonable than you). > > > > If true > > There is no "if". Yet there still has been no "yes" or "no". > > > > > > > But then, you don't even understand the implications of your > > > > > > > own argument so its pointless to ask that of you. I'll lay it > > > > > > > out in the hopes you get someone to explain it to you. Here's > > > > > > > what your 'argument' boils down to... > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering that I've done little more than to challenge your > > > > > > claims > > > > > > > > > > You've lied about my claims, either that or you failed to comprehend > > > > > what you read... take your choice: > > > > > > > > > > "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by > > > > > throwing even more money at it ..." > > > > > > > > > > From my very first post I made it clear that not "all" would be > > > > > solved. In fact, in the very first sentence of my first paragraph > > > > > of that first post I stated I wasn't fully convinced of the idea" > > > > > > > > > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." > > > > > > > > Flawed quotation > > > > > > The hell it is. > > > > > > >, as the statement did not end there with a period, > > > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > My apologies > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still > lying about my motives. Your motives became clear when you claimed the current enforcement to be "feeble", despite the indicated 90% reduction reported over the past eighteen years (since 2000), and coupled with how you've been unable (or unwilling) to provide objective metrics that quantify how you've allegedly been harmed. Nor even an anecdote for that matter. As such, this therefore isn't about economics or tax rates or petty crime or any other conventional measure that's blind to race/religion/etc. Through the process of elimination ... as well as not ignoring the bigoted dog whiles of the Administration who you're supporting ... application of the reasonable person standard means that the only relevant topic remaining is that it has to do with the composition of the immigrants themselves, which in this era have been non-whites coming in from non-European countries - - and this is especially so for the SW border location for the Wall. > > - I had read the part which supported your not > > ever claiming "100%" claim, which did continue on: > > > > > > "...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." > > As of yet, I've seen nothing that would cause me to change my mind. Just what information could actually 'change the mind' of a bigot? > "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved " - hh > > You're either unable to comprehend what you've read or you're lying. > Being that you've not rescinded this absurdity I'm going with the latter, > as also evidenced by your lies about my motives. As already noted, literary hyperbola. But the numbers are now showing that that hyperbola is much closer to the literal truth, because even though you claimed that you would be content with a 30% (or even 25%) reduction, its already been reduced by 90%, yet you're still not satisfied. So at what point can you possibly finally be satisfied? 91%? 92%? 93%? 94%? 95%? 96%? 97%? 98%? 99%? Other than literally 100%, there's only nine other choices remaining, so try to commit to which one it is your objective, non-moving target. > > > > And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts > > > > are "feeble" > > > > > > They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying > > > about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. > > > > Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it. > > Trust me, I got that you're also taking issue with my labeling the efforts > "feeble". Of course, because it just isn't supported at all by the facts. It was your 'justified' (in your mind) responses, which included > lying about what I said and tossing out absurd statements about Nazis > and dog whistles that prompted me to "ignore it" and much of the rest > of your blowhard bullsh*t. Obviously the word 'bigot' has now replaced > the word 'Hitler' so congratulations to all of you idiots who've worked > so hard to make that happen. > > > The facts are that there's already been a 90% reduction > > You're certainly free to believe those are "all" of the "facts". Goalpost Move. > > > ... and yet > > you're trying to claim that its all been "FEEBLE" and needs even more. > > Whatever.... you've already made it clear to me that you want completely > open borders, no wall or fence... Putting words in someone else's mouth again. There are alternatives, such as the current Status Quo, which has already reduced the 2000 peak by over 90%. It therefore strikes as quite odd why someone who _claimed_ that they would be content with a 30% or even 25% reduction calls this -90% performance "feeble" and is demanding even more -- even though they've also never been able to objectively identify just how they are being harmed by the current levels - - or even the higher levels from roughly two decades ago. Of course, that wouldn't be odd at all if socio-economic metrics was never their concern in the first place, but merely that they're another old racist white guy who's just finally starting to realize that over 50% of healthcare workers today are non-whites, so when its his time to go to the Nursing Home, he's going to be cared for and touched constantly by non-whites. There's a common escape for your problem. Let's see if you figure it out. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 07:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <fto4qvFs1nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463484 |
On 8/17/18 3:57 AM, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:30:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:05:39 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:52:51 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:35:26 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 5:11:12 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:07:59 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And yet that still doesn't provide a clear "yes" or "no". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've already answered this absurd question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cite, please. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Learn to read. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's plainly not a cite. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no cite for a "yes or no", which doesn't meant the >>>>>> 'question' wasn't addressed. >>>>> >>>>> Your action of 'addressing' is not an actual answer. >>>> >>>> Correction: It wasn't a "yes or "no" answer. >>> >>> Finally, a glimmer of an admission of truth from 'Steve'. >> >> How I answered your absurd question isn't relevant to your lies >> regarding what I claimed (which is *why* you're even talking >> about this ridiculous red herring). > > Once again, Steve stumbles across a truth: he is correct in that > his avoidance of the yes/no question has nothing to do with later > points, including if some of these may also be lies he's made. You see: * Carroll did not answer yes or no. * Carroll claimed he DID give such an answer. * You lied when you said he did not. * Carroll admitted he did not, but that does not mean you did not lie. * Carroll says you should be able to figure out if he meant yes or no Now if you DO make a guess you are speaking for him, and with this whole game note the question is lost. He has "won" by going into meta-debate land, playing victim,, and trying to put you on the defensive. That is his game: vague answers... victim mentality... put others on the defensive. Time and time and time again. ... >> It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still >> lying about my motives. > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current enforcement to > be "feeble", despite the indicated 90% reduction reported over the past > eighteen years (since 2000), and coupled with how you've been unable > (or unwilling) to provide objective metrics that quantify how you've allegedly > been harmed. Nor even an anecdote for that matter. He anecdote is how easy it is to get drugs. He is wanting the wall to solve his personal problems. > As such, this therefore isn't about economics or tax rates or petty crime or > any other conventional measure that's blind to race/religion/etc. Through > the process of elimination ... as well as not ignoring the bigoted dog whiles > of the Administration who you're supporting ... application of the reasonable > person standard means that the only relevant topic remaining is that it > has to do with the composition of the immigrants themselves, which in this > era have been non-whites coming in from non-European countries - - and > this is especially so for the SW border location for the Wall. Add to that his support of Slimer's bigoted nonsense and his non-concern for our Northern border. >>> - I had read the part which supported your not >>> ever claiming "100%" claim, which did continue on: >>> >>> >>> "...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." >> >> As of yet, I've seen nothing that would cause me to change my mind. > > Just what information could actually 'change the mind' of a bigot? Carroll holds you (and others) accountable for his bigoted views. His comments and actions are NEVER his fault (in his mind). >> "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved " - hh >> >> You're either unable to comprehend what you've read or you're lying. >> Being that you've not rescinded this absurdity I'm going with the latter, >> as also evidenced by your lies about my motives. > > As already noted, literary hyperbola. > > But the numbers are now showing that that hyperbola is much closer > to the literal truth, because even though you claimed that you would be > content with a 30% (or even 25%) reduction, its already been reduced > by 90%, yet you're still not satisfied. Excellent point. Carroll is being hypocritical here. > So at what point can you possibly finally be satisfied? 91%? 92%? 93%? > 94%? 95%? 96%? 97%? 98%? 99%? > > Other than literally 100%, there's only nine other choices remaining, so > try to commit to which one it is your objective, non-moving target. LOL! Watch Carroll discover fractions as a distraction. :) >>>>> And note the unsubstantiated claim that the current efforts >>>>> are "feeble" >>>> >>>> They are in my opinion, but what does that have to do with you lying >>>> about about my claims? Nothing, which is why you're bringing it up. >>> >>> Oh, I've brought it up before, but you tried to ignore it. >> >> Trust me, I got that you're also taking issue with my labeling the efforts >> "feeble". > > Of course, because it just isn't supported at all by the facts. How dare you go with the facts over his claims! ... >>> The facts are that there's already been a 90% reduction >> >> You're certainly free to believe those are "all" of the "facts". > > Goalpost Move. As always. ... >> Whatever.... you've already made it clear to me that you want completely >> open borders, no wall or fence... > > Putting words in someone else's mouth again. And he will insist he knows your views better than you do. He has that right.. he gets to say what you WOULD say if only you would say it. Then if you quote him as saying it somehow in his mind it is not his fault he said it. He did this with his comments about having trouble putting food on the table. Somehow it was my fault or whatever that he said that (as if it is a moral failing in the first place). > There are alternatives, such as the current Status Quo, which has already > reduced the 2000 peak by over 90%. > > It therefore strikes as quite odd why someone who _claimed_ that they > would be content with a 30% or even 25% reduction calls this -90% > performance "feeble" and is demanding even more -- even though they've > also never been able to objectively identify just how they are being harmed > by the current levels - - or even the higher levels from roughly two decades ago. The harm is drugs... and he has repeatedly spoken of drug abuse issues. > Of course, that wouldn't be odd at all if socio-economic metrics was never > their concern in the first place, but merely that they're another old racist > white guy who's just finally starting to realize that over 50% of healthcare > workers today are non-whites, so when its his time to go to the Nursing > Home, he's going to be cared for and touched constantly by non-whites. Carroll does try to hide his bigotry... but he is not very good at it. > There's a common escape for your problem. Let's see if you figure it out. -- 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 | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 07:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <d7877edc-f2b7-4274-908d-af4c9eb9aa95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463484 |
(snip rehash of crap) > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > > > My apologies > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still > > lying about my motives. > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current enforcement to > be "feeble" LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know this <eyeroll>. > , despite the indicated 90% reduction At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality (the "indicated"), took you long enough. Here are some of the things I've "said" that you've somehow managed not to see... starting with my very first line in my very first paragraph of my very first post in this thread: "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced." Hmmm... I say "I'm still not fully convinced", yet, I'm apparently willing to do it. What's up with that?! You're saying it's all about 'dog whistles', but could it be something else? Of course, one could also ask the other logical question: Why would I initially disagree with the wall if I'm a "bigot"? That makes no sense to anyone other than you. But that's because have a ready answer for that, too, don't you? You'll claim I was lying right out the gate... you just won't be able to prove it (at least you're consistent). "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." Whoa! I say it "may prove to be a bad idea, but I think it's still worth a shot". Almost sounds like I'm talking about some kind of gamble there, doesn't it? "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." Think, if you can, about why I explicitly used the word "gamble" here, and what's with this recurring 'gambling' theme of mine anyway? Am I talking gambling on the price of 'dog whistles'? To hear you tell it, I *must* be... but... "I'm not fully convinced it will be very effective for drugs, but given the relatively small amount of $$ involved, and the fact that we're pissing up a rope for decades now, I don't feel it's a giant gamble. At the least it'd facilitate realistic discussion between the Dems and the Repubs. The way things stand right now, the Dems aren't trusted *at all* by the Repubs on the immigration issue and that is all but guaranteed to stand with the status quo." Wait... did I switch from gambling on 'dog whistles' to gambling on this? You'll say: 'yes' (which is absurd). From a security standpoint, I'd be fine with building more effective fencing, but giving Trump a wall is probably a better way to begin to facilitate interaction. Is it a "gamble"? Of course, but I think it's one worth taking if interaction gets to the point of turning this into something other than a perpetual voting issue (which is why I wrote "tired of the same old scam" line). But I must be lying about all of this, you know, to cover up my *alleged* "bigotry" that you can't prove exists. Are you familiar with the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrome? Here's what it leads to: <8d05dec7-a0a1-4c6d-829f-b9418d9babfe@googlegroups.com> No matter what you do, even you know you can't get past the logic in that post so you're doubling down on the bigotry angle but you can't show any. Let's look at just a few of the things I have to show for attempting to engage you, I've been... 1 - told things are facts when you can't possibly know. 2 - had my words twisted beyond recognition. 3 - labeled a part of the "ignoraci" (as if *you* have all the answers <eyeroll>). 4 - lumped in with Nazis. 5 - called a "bigot". 6 - falsely told that my "rhetoric has been suggesting a total solution." (you even flatly stated: "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by throwing even more money at it ...", which is total bullsh*t.) 7 - (and am still being) accused of "dodging" how "much" I'm "willing to pay". 8 - accused of lying about being "tired of the same old scam". 9 - accused of not being "Brave" because I refused to accept some goofy bet. 10 - accused of accepting Trump's hyperbola because of his dog whistles. 11 - accused on conflating things by a guy who keeps doing that himself. 12 - eroneously informed there is zero law enforcement on the northern border Face it, "Hugh", you're a sick man, much sicker than you realize. The TDS has you 'arguing' like a lunatic. If all the answers could be found in stats we'd have solved this issue long ago (providing we *want* to). Of course, that's just simple reality... and it's obvious you want none of that... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 09:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <fto9v9F20a1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #463531 |
On 8/17/18 7:38 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> (snip rehash of crap)
>
>>>>> Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period.
>>>>
>>>> My apologies
>>>
>>> It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what I stated and you're still
>>> lying about my motives.
>>
>> Your motives became clear when you claimed the current enforcement to
>> be "feeble"
>
> LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that
> 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know
> this <eyeroll>.
Ah, so you want the wall to reduce a problem a certain statistical
amount but you do not think the stats are a valid measure.
WHAT?
Do you not see how absurd and contradictory your comments are?
>> , despite the indicated 90% reduction
>
> At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality
> (the "indicated"), took you long enough.
By all means quote his denial of that.
Oh.
You made it up.
> Here are some of the things I've "said" that you've somehow
> managed not to see... starting with my very first line in my
> very first paragraph of my very first post in this thread:
None of these things include you answering the question with a yes or no
as you said you did, then said you did not, then said he should be able
to figure out, then showed no sign of being able to figure it out for
yourself.
> "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced."
Ah, your selective quoting. Here is the context of that:
-----
I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully
convinced. 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.
-----
Then you went into how many people die of drug overdoses, and jumped to:
-----
So what's your plan, stick with the status quo? You
don't believe that it might be time to try something
more aggressive? Or do you think we should
decriminalize all drugs? Open the border and take
whatever additional hits there are to take?
-----
You used your normal wishy-washy language but your support was quite
clear, even with your "softening" of it with your first contradictory
sentence.
Bottom line: you both back it, do not back it, might back, are not fully
convinced, think we must have it, etc.
> Hmmm... I say "I'm still not fully convinced", yet, I'm
> apparently willing to do it. What's up with that?! You're
> saying it's all about 'dog whistles', but could it be
> something else?
You mocked him for not accepting it. But you say you do not accept it.
Seriously, people are not as stupid as you need them to be.
> Of course, one could also ask the other logical question:
> Why would I initially disagree with the wall if I'm a "bigot"?
> That makes no sense to anyone other than you.
So no bigots can disagree with the wall. None. Not one. Ever.
And that is assuming you ever did disagree and did not say that to do as
you do and distance yourself from your own bigoted crap.
> But that's because have a ready answer for that, too, don't
> you? You'll claim I was lying right out the gate... you just
> won't be able to prove it (at least you're consistent).
Your own words show your "lack of support" was wishy-washy at best.
> "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."
>
> Whoa! I say it "may prove to be a bad idea, but I think it's
> still worth a shot". Almost sounds like I'm talking about some
> kind of gamble there, doesn't it?
Gambling how much of your bigotry you can show without being called out,
maybe.
> "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."
>
> Think, if you can, about why I explicitly used the word "gamble"
> here, and what's with this recurring 'gambling' theme of mine
> anyway? Am I talking gambling on the price of 'dog whistles'? To
> hear you tell it, I *must* be... but...
>
> "I'm not fully convinced it will be very effective for drugs,
> but given the relatively small amount of $$ involved, and the
> fact that we're pissing up a rope for decades now, I don't feel
> it's a giant gamble. At the least it'd facilitate realistic
> discussion between the Dems and the Repubs. The way things stand
> right now, the Dems aren't trusted *at all* by the Repubs on the
> immigration issue and that is all but guaranteed to stand with
> the status quo."
>
> Wait... did I switch from gambling on 'dog whistles' to
> gambling on this? You'll say: 'yes' (which is absurd).
>
> From a security standpoint, I'd be fine with building more
> effective fencing, but giving Trump a wall is probably a better
> way to begin to facilitate interaction. Is it a "gamble"? Of
> course, but I think it's one worth taking if interaction gets to
> the point of turning this into something other than a perpetual
> voting issue (which is why I wrote "tired of the same old scam"
> line). But I must be lying about all of this, you know, to cover
> up my *alleged* "bigotry" that you can't prove exists. Are you
> familiar with the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrome? Here's what
> it leads to:
>
> <8d05dec7-a0a1-4c6d-829f-b9418d9babfe@googlegroups.com>
> No matter what you do, even you know you can't get past the logic
> in that post so you're doubling down on the bigotry angle but you
> can't show any. Let's look at just a few of the things I have to
> show for attempting to engage you, I've been...
You have been called out for your bigotry by multiple people. By YOUR
standards that is proof.
And below you list your games and attribute them to others. It is what
you do... play victim.
> 1 - told things are facts when you can't possibly know.
>
> 2 - had my words twisted beyond recognition.
>
> 3 - labeled a part of the "ignoraci" (as if *you* have all the answers <eyeroll>).
>
> 4 - lumped in with Nazis.
>
> 5 - called a "bigot".
>
> 6 - falsely told that my "rhetoric has been suggesting a total solution." (you even flatly stated: "You've said that this all will somehow finally be solved simply by throwing even more money at it ...", which is total bullsh*t.)
>
> 7 - (and am still being) accused of "dodging" how "much" I'm "willing to pay".
>
> 8 - accused of lying about being "tired of the same old scam".
>
> 9 - accused of not being "Brave" because I refused to accept some goofy bet.
>
> 10 - accused of accepting Trump's hyperbola because of his dog whistles.
>
> 11 - accused on conflating things by a guy who keeps doing that himself.
>
> 12 - eroneously informed there is zero law enforcement on the northern border
>
> Face it, "Hugh", you're a sick man, much sicker than you realize.
Everyone is sick but you, right? And, wait, he is one of the ones you
quote to "prove" your claims about me. How is this working in your
twisted little brain?
> The TDS has you 'arguing' like a lunatic. If all the answers could
> be found in stats we'd have solved this issue long ago (providing
> we *want* to). Of course, that's just simple reality... and it's
> obvious you want none of that... you're the guy suggesting it's no
> longer much of an issue.
>
--
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 | 2018-08-20 07:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ab50aa13-be0b-453b-96ae-0aca7179f088@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #463531 |
On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > (snip rehash of crap) > > > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > > > > > My apologies > > > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what > > > I stated and you're still lying about my motives. > > > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current > > enforcement to be "feeble" > > LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that > 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know > this <eyeroll>. > > > , despite the indicated 90% reduction > > At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality > (the "indicated"), took you long enough. And yet you've still not quantitatively articulated just how you're being harmed in any way, particularly relevant to eighteen years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. > ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in addressing it. I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. Still waiting. I've furthermore provided insight into just how much the CBP's budget has increased (3x) and how their arrests have still dropped by 90% over the past 18 years. This data increases the required burden of proof upon the original claimant to make their case. TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy has not objectively substantiated their claims. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 07:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <fu00fuFp79aU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #464145 |
On 8/20/18 7:03 AM, -hh wrote: > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> (snip rehash of crap) >> >>>>>> Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. >>>>> >>>>> My apologies >>>> >>>> It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what >>>> I stated and you're still lying about my motives. >>> >>> Your motives became clear when you claimed the current >>> enforcement to be "feeble" >> >> LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that >> 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know >> this <eyeroll>. >> >>> , despite the indicated 90% reduction >> >> At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality >> (the "indicated"), took you long enough. > > And yet you've still not quantitatively articulated just how > you're being harmed in any way, particularly relevant to eighteen > years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite > ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. He has not been direct but he speaks of having trouble putting food on the table and often speaks of drug abuse problems. His focus on the wall was on drugs coming across the border. Putting two and two together... he is blaming the lack of a wall on his own drug abuse problems. >> ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. > > False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge > problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in > addressing it. > > I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. > Still waiting. > > I've furthermore provided insight into just how much the CBP's budget > has increased (3x) and how their arrests have still dropped by 90% > over the past 18 years. This data increases the required burden of > proof upon the original claimant to make their case. > > > TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy > has not objectively substantiated their claims. Of course he has not. But he will play victim. -- 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 | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 08:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <ec67dd1e-ddbf-4c6b-b31d-031d61c83443@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464145 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:03:37 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > (snip rehash of crap) > > > > > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > > > > > > > My apologies > > > > > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what > > > > I stated and you're still lying about my motives. > > > > > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current > > > enforcement to be "feeble" > > > > LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that > > 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know > > this <eyeroll>. > > > > > , despite the indicated 90% reduction > > > > At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality > > (the "indicated"), took you long enough. > > And yet you've still not quantitatively articulated just how > you're being harmed in any way We're not talking about me here, we're talking about society. > , particularly relevant to eighteen > years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite > ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. Bull. Elsewhere, I've even pointed to a left leaning source you guys favor (Politifact), which could only claim that the spending of 300 billion annually on immigration related issues was "half true". The numbers could actually be larger than 300 billion once you start looking outward. But go ahead and tell me how they're less than that number as based on a '2nd gen' boost, when only 5-10% of that gen gets a college degree (and stands a chance of not being a net negative). > > ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. > > False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge > problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in > addressing it. > > I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. Who, other than you, would I need to prove it to? Even Doty, who's the only other person to take issue with me challenging stats (in general) isn't challenging the idea that there is a ton of drugs, fentanyl included, coming over the border (and that's just what we *know* about, as seen under the "streetlight"). "Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence. The debate is whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it was there.[3] The argument from ignorance for "absence of evidence" isn't necessarily fallacious..." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence> Think, if you can, about the kinds of scenarios it "isn't necessarily fallacious" for. > Still waiting. > > I've furthermore provided insight into just how much the CBP's budget > has increased (3x) and how their arrests have still dropped by 90% > over the past 18 years. So what? It's still feeble compared to what's needed, that much is obvious to anyone without a 'no borders' agenda. > This data increases the required burden of > proof upon the original claimant to make their case. LOL! Your bizarre idea that number always tell all there is to know has you babbling like a loon. > TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy > has not objectively substantiated their claims. Hey airhead?! The U.S. gov't is paying Accenture ~$300 million to help find border patrol agents because they're having trouble finding the level mandated by Congress. Despite this reality, we're supposed to believe some loon on a newsgroup that everything is all 'OK' because... 'the numbers told him so'. You've gone totally batty ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 10:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <7c0063b1-74af-4dbe-822a-ae5e2715d6fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464164 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:32:21 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:03:37 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > (snip rehash of crap) > > > > > > > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > My apologies > > > > > > > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what > > > > > I stated and you're still lying about my motives. > > > > > > > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current > > > > enforcement to be "feeble" > > > > > > LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that > > > 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know > > > this <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > , despite the indicated 90% reduction > > > > > > At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality > > > (the "indicated"), took you long enough. > > > > And yet you've still not quantitatively articulated just how > > you're being harmed in any way > > We're not talking about me here, we're talking about society. Oh, so your claim is instead a "harm to society"? Prove it. > > , particularly relevant to eighteen > > years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite > > ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. > > Bull. Elsewhere, I've even pointed to a left leaning source you guys favor > (Politifact), which could only claim that the spending of 300 billion annually > on immigration related issues was "half true". The numbers could actually > be larger than 300 billion once you start looking outward.... Even if the numbers are off by as much as 50%, it is still (a) more staff & budget, and (b) a huge decline from the 2000 peak. BTW, since you started to use Politifact as a reliable source: "MOSTLY TRUE: Undocumented immigrants less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens" <https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/> > > > ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. > > > > False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge > > problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in > > addressing it. > > > > I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. > > Who, other than you, would I need to prove it to? No one forced you to make you public statement. > Even Doty, ... Meaningless, because your public statement was challenged in public, there's readers who saw that, so they have no particular reason to add their own "me too". > ... that much is obvious to anyone without a 'no borders' agenda. YA false insinuation. You've already been called out on this one. > > This data increases the required burden of > > proof upon the original claimant to make their case. > > LOL! Your bizarre idea ... Continued lack of substantiation noted. > > TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy > > has not objectively substantiated their claims. > > Hey airhead?! The U.S. gov't is paying Accenture ~$300 million > to help find border patrol agents because they're having trouble > finding the level mandated by Congress. Irrelevant, because it ignores how many more agents are *currently* working versus how many back in 2000. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 10:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <756a5be3-bdae-4a32-9ad1-6a6f3c3615f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464183 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:13:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:32:21 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:03:37 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > (snip rehash of crap) > > > > > > > > > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My apologies > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what > > > > > > I stated and you're still lying about my motives. > > > > > > > > > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current > > > > > enforcement to be "feeble" > > > > > > > > LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that > > > > 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know > > > > this <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > > > , despite the indicated 90% reduction > > > > > > > > At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality > > > > (the "indicated"), took you long enough. > > > > > > And yet you've still not quantitatively articulated just how > > > you're being harmed in any way > > > > We're not talking about me here, we're talking about society. > > Oh, so your claim is instead a "harm to society"? > > Prove it. I already have... but people with an open borders agenda wouldn't admit to it; I showed you have an open borders agenda, so you won't be doing so. > > > , particularly relevant to eighteen > > > years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite > > > ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. > > > > Bull. Elsewhere, I've even pointed to a left leaning source you guys favor > > (Politifact), which could only claim that the spending of 300 billion annually > > on immigration related issues was "half true". The numbers could actually > > be larger than 300 billion once you start looking outward.... > > Even if the numbers are off by as much as 50%, Maybe they're low by more than that. > it is still (a) more staff > & budget, and (b) a huge decline from the 2000 peak. > > BTW, since you started to use Politifact as a reliable source: Nah, I'm using a source you should, were you consistent, accept. > "MOSTLY TRUE: Undocumented immigrants less likely to commit crimes > than U.S. citizens" "less likely"? Can the language get any more wishy washy? No matter, your obvious problem here is I don't believe Politifact (*especially* on this issue) , you do. > <https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/> > > > > > > > ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. > > > > > > False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge > > > problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in > > > addressing it. > > > > > > I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. > > > > Who, other than you, would I need to prove it to? > > No one forced you to make you public statement. Regarding that... AGAIN... my first paragraph to this thread: "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. 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." Notably, before I mentioned drugs, I first mentioned (as the bigger, more expensive problem) "illegal immigration", but you went right past that. Despite my having written a better wall (and, again, I'd be fine with a better fence) "looks like it could be at least part of a better solution" and that it "won't be 100% effective", you flatly lied about what I "said": "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)." - hh Your 'argument' is built on this idiotic straw man. Despite my having pointed to sources of data regarding U.S. overdose problems, which are *not* limited to fentanyl, you focused on fentanyl... and not just any, the Chinese stuff, to the exclusion of the stuff coming from Mexico (recall the article I pointed to, entitled: "Most fentanyl is seized on the border"). Regarding those border seizures, they are what we can *see*, as opposed to what we *know* we can *not* see (tunnels, remote land drop offs, etc.). Say, you don't supposed these might be reasons I "said" what I did in the first paragraph I wrote to this thread, do you (other reasons, which I have listed elsewhere, include water and air problems that no wall can deal with)? But you're not trolling or anything <eyeroll>. Or are you what I "said"? An idiot savant. Take your pick. > > Even Doty, ... > > Meaningless, because your public statement was challenged in public, > there's readers who saw that, so they have no particular reason to > add their own "me too". > > > > ... that much is obvious to anyone without a 'no borders' agenda. > > YA false insinuation. Said the guy who ran from this response (that shows you want open borders): <8d05dec7-a0a1-4c6d-829f-b9418d9babfe@googlegroups.com> > You've already been called out on this one. And I've pointed to what you ran from more than once. For a real laugh, go read your response to that post, it makes things clear as a bell. > > > This data increases the required burden of > > > proof upon the original claimant to make their case. > > > > LOL! Your bizarre idea ... > > Continued lack of substantiation noted. Who would I need to substantiate it to? I don't see anyone, other than you, arguing what you're arguing. Not even Doty, who seems to believe that I poo poo all usages of stats (I don't), is pushing what you are. Of course, he saw that you lied about what I "said", so... > > > TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy > > > has not objectively substantiated their claims. > > > > Hey airhead?! The U.S. gov't is paying Accenture ~$300 million > > to help find border patrol agents because they're having trouble > > finding the level mandated by Congress. > > Irrelevant, because it ignores how many more agents are *currently* > working versus how many back in 2000. The fact that we have more now means, in your mind, that it can in no way be feeble relative to the problem? Do you realize how silly that argument is? Of course not, the numbers...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 10:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <fu0d81Fs87jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #464187 |
On 8/20/18 10:34 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >> Oh, so your claim is instead a "harm to society"? >> >> Prove it. > > I already have... but people with an open borders agenda wouldn't Nobody is arguing for an open border. Your claim here is a lie. > admit to it; I showed you have an open borders agenda, so you won't > be doing so. You do not get to "show" his views... HE does. You LIED about his views and he noted you were lying. You do this often, pretending to have the special entitlement to speak for others. >>>> , particularly relevant to eighteen >>>> years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite >>>> ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. >>> >>> Bull. Elsewhere, I've even pointed to a left leaning source you guys favor >>> (Politifact), which could only claim that the spending of 300 billion annually >>> on immigration related issues was "half true". The numbers could actually >>> be larger than 300 billion once you start looking outward.... >> >> Even if the numbers are off by as much as 50%, > > Maybe they're low by more than that. But you have no evidence to suggest that is the case. You just make things up in response to his evidence. >> it is still (a) more staff >> & budget, and (b) a huge decline from the 2000 peak. >> >> BTW, since you started to use Politifact as a reliable source: > > Nah, I'm using a source you should, were you consistent, accept. You are using a source YOU have deemed unreliable (after all fact checking is a liberal thing to do). >> "MOSTLY TRUE: Undocumented immigrants less likely to commit crimes >> than U.S. citizens" > > "less likely"? Can the language get any more wishy washy? It is pretty damn clear... less likely is not as likely to. Duh. > No matter, your obvious problem here is I don't believe Politifact > (*especially* on this issue) , you do. LOL! You run to Politifact when it serves your needs... but then reject it when it does not. And it not that you think one particular article is bad or something... you just play games. >> <https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/> >> >> >> >>>>> ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. >>>> >>>> False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge >>>> problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in >>>> addressing it. >>>> >>>> I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. >>> >>> Who, other than you, would I need to prove it to? >> >> No one forced you to make you public statement. > > Regarding that... AGAIN... my first paragraph to this thread: > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. You start with not accepting it... and then flip-flop: > 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." If you are really concerned about loss of life and injury, let us hear about your view on how to deal with the gun issue. I just toss that in because you would surely flip flop. Oh, all that death and harm is the cost of freedom or some other BS such as a civilian arms race. > Notably, before I mentioned drugs, I first mentioned (as the bigger, more > expensive problem) "illegal immigration" But only on the Southern border... where darker skinned people tend to cross. Not the Northern border where all those people come to the US for health care, right? LOL! > , but you went right past that. > Despite my having written a better wall (and, again, I'd be fine with a > better fence) "looks like it could be at least part of a better solution" > and that it "won't be 100% effective", you flatly lied about what I "said": So even you admit it will not be 100% effective. -hh has shown where the current measures have been, what, 90% effective. What are you looking for? > "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)." - hh > > Your 'argument' is built on this idiotic straw man. What you call evidence. > Despite my having pointed to sources of data regarding U.S. overdose problems, > which are *not* limited to fentanyl, you focused on fentanyl... and not just any, > the Chinese stuff, to the exclusion of the stuff coming from Mexico (recall the > article I pointed to, entitled: "Most fentanyl is seized on the border"). If most is already ceased you have your solution... though one you agree is not going to be 100%. > Regarding those border seizures, they are what we can *see*, as opposed to what > we *know* we can *not* see (tunnels, remote land drop offs, etc.). Which a wall does not impact. Oh. > Say, you don't > supposed these might be reasons I "said" what I did in the first paragraph I wrote > to this thread, do you (other reasons, which I have listed elsewhere, include > water and air problems that no wall can deal with)? But you're not trolling or > anything <eyeroll>. Or are you what I "said"? An idiot savant. Take your pick. Ah, you are the victim, right? I mean how dare -hh use evidence to counter your ignorance! >>> Even Doty, ... >> >> Meaningless, because your public statement was challenged in public, >> there's readers who saw that, so they have no particular reason to >> add their own "me too". >> >> >>> ... that much is obvious to anyone without a 'no borders' agenda. >> >> YA false insinuation. > > Said the guy who ran from this response (that shows you want open borders): You lied about him wanting open borders. Now you want your lie to be used as evidence against HIM, not against YOU. Remember, you lie a lot. You accuse everyone else of lying, including me, but you lie more in a day than you can show me, or I bet -hh, lying in a year. > <8d05dec7-a0a1-4c6d-829f-b9418d9babfe@googlegroups.com> > >> You've already been called out on this one. > > And I've pointed to what you ran from more than once. For a real laugh, > go read your response to that post, it makes things clear as a bell. He did not "run" from your lie about him backing open borders, he called you out on your lie. YOU are the one running from being called out. But you are the victim, right? >>>> This data increases the required burden of >>>> proof upon the original claimant to make their case. >>> >>> LOL! Your bizarre idea ... >> >> Continued lack of substantiation noted. > > Who would I need to substantiate it to? You have the burden of proof. Stop insisting you get some special entitlement to not back your claims, esp. when you are attacking people for not agreeing with you. > I don't see anyone, other than > you, arguing what you're arguing. Not even Doty, who seems to believe > that I poo poo all usages of stats (I don't), is pushing what you are. Of > course, he saw that you lied about what I "said", so... You have repeatedly been called out on your lies and other crap. And multiple people have noted your bigoted crap. Stop playing victim and take responsibility. >>>> TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy >>>> has not objectively substantiated their claims. >>> >>> Hey airhead?! The U.S. gov't is paying Accenture ~$300 million >>> to help find border patrol agents because they're having trouble >>> finding the level mandated by Congress. >> >> Irrelevant, because it ignores how many more agents are *currently* >> working versus how many back in 2000. > > The fact that we have more now means, in your mind, that it can in no way > be feeble relative to the problem? Do you realize how silly that argument is? > Of course not, the numbers... You already said you would accept a solution that is not 100%. So what level are you looking for? -- 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 | 2018-08-20 13:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trump the liar |
| Message-ID | <7c3feed8-ef97-40c6-b614-a0ca250e044c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464187 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 1:34:03 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:13:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:32:21 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:03:37 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > (snip rehash of crap) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bullsh*t. You lied about my claims. Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My apologies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not relevant anyway, you've still lied about what > > > > > > > I stated and you're still lying about my motives. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your motives became clear when you claimed the current > > > > > > enforcement to be "feeble" > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Of course! Anyone who disagrees with the idea that > > > > > 'stats are reality' has a nefarious motive, we all know > > > > > this <eyeroll>. > > > > > > > > > > > , despite the indicated 90% reduction > > > > > > > > > > At least you're now growing a clue towards this reality > > > > > (the "indicated"), took you long enough. > > > > > > > > And yet you've still not quantitatively articulated just how > > > > you're being harmed in any way > > > > > > We're not talking about me here, we're talking about society. > > > > Oh, so your claim is instead a "harm to society"? > > > > Prove it. > > I already have... but... Citation missing. Oh, and this retort attempt: "Ask this guy to: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh_TAo1B4T0>" does not cut it. First off, because he's not the poster who made the claim here on COLA. Second, just what does such a link actually prove? That this guy is messed up in the head and that's somehow linked? A link to a guy making claims would only work as substantiation if the claim was that there's people making claims on the Internet. > > > > , particularly relevant to eighteen > > > > years ago, when the rates of immigration were 10x higher despite > > > > ~1/3rd as many enforcement resources. > > > > > > Bull. Elsewhere, I've even pointed to a left leaning source you guys favor > > > (Politifact), which could only claim that the spending of 300 billion annually > > > on immigration related issues was "half true". The numbers could actually > > > be larger than 300 billion once you start looking outward.... > > > > Even if the numbers are off by as much as 50%, > > Maybe they're low by more than that. Or they're higher, which weakens your case even further. > > it is still (a) more staff > > & budget, and (b) a huge decline from the 2000 peak. > > > > BTW, since you started to use Politifact as a reliable source: > > Nah, I'm using a source you should, were you consistent, accept. > > > "MOSTLY TRUE: Undocumented immigrants less likely to commit crimes > > than U.S. citizens" > > "less likely"? Can the language get any more wishy washy? > > No matter, your obvious problem here is I don't believe Politifact > (*especially* on this issue) , you do. > > > <https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/> No, a source is either trusted, or it is not: one don't get to pick & choose based on if you like what a part says. Choose your poison: it is either to accept both, or to accept neither. > > > > > ... you're the guy suggesting it's no longer much of an issue. > > > > > > > > False. I've merely responded to your claims that there's a huge > > > > problem, including your claim that the CBP has been "feeble" in > > > > addressing it. > > > > > > > > I've identified your claims as unsubstantiated & in need of proof. > > > > > > Who, other than you, would I need to prove it to? > > > > No one forced you to make you public statement. > > Regarding that... AGAIN... my first paragraph to this thread: > > "I initially disagreed with the wall, I'm still not fully convinced. 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." Claim made: "feeble". Substantiation for claim still missing. > Notably, before I mentioned drugs, I first mentioned (as the bigger, more > expensive problem) "illegal immigration", but you went right past that. Substantiation of this "bigger" claim ... also missing. Cite please. > Despite my having written a better wall (and, again, I'd be fine with a > better fence) "looks like it could be at least part of a better solution" > and that it "won't be 100% effective", you flatly lied about what I "said": > > "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)." - hh > > Your 'argument' is built on this idiotic straw man. The only thing that you have to complain about is the hyperbola of "all will...be solved", for its a fact that there's been over $1T spent and some metrics have been tracked for decades, such as the number of CBP agents and how many arrests they make, etc. > Despite my having pointed to sources of data regarding U.S. > overdose problems, which are *not* limited to fentanyl, you > focused on fentanyl... and not just any, the Chinese stuff, > to the exclusion of the stuff coming from Mexico (recall the > article I pointed to, entitled: "Most fentanyl is seized on > the border"). Over 90% of the world's fentanyl comes from China. Just where do you think the Mexican cartels get their fentanyl from? > Regarding those border seizures, they are what we can *see*, > as opposed to what we *know* we can *not* see (tunnels, remote > land drop offs, etc.). Say, you don't supposed these might be > reasons I "said" what I did in the first paragraph I wrote to > this thread, do you (other reasons, which I have listed elsewhere, > include water and air problems that no wall can deal with)? But > you're not trolling or anything <eyeroll>. Or are you what I > "said"? An idiot savant. Take your pick. No, because there's also been US seizures successfully made from smuggling in these supposedly "invisible" modes you're trying to claim that aren't being counted. Case in point: Tunnel: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-san-diego/u-s-border-agents-find-smuggling-tunnel-in-san-diego-idUSKCN1B700N> Drone: <https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/20/mexican-drug-cartels-using-drones-to-smuggle-heroi/> <https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/drone-drug-smuggler-gets-12-year-sentence> Hey, a catapult: <https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/us/marijuana-catapult-trnd/index.html> And even a "Submarine": <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/11/u-s-coast-guard-intercepts-semi-submersible-vessel-packed-3-800-pounds-cocaine/939668001/> > > > Even Doty, ... > > > > Meaningless, because your public statement was challenged in public, > > there's readers who saw that, so they have no particular reason to > > add their own "me too". > > > > > ... that much is obvious to anyone without a 'no borders' agenda. > > > > YA false insinuation. > > Said the guy who ran from this response (that shows you want open borders): > > <8d05dec7-a0a1-4c6d-829f-b9418d9babfe@googlegroups.com> No quote provided. Fail. Plus since I'm on GG, I can't find cites by post ID# only, include the relevant Google Groups URL link next time too. > > You've already been called out on this one. > > And I've pointed to what you ran from more than once. For a real laugh, > go read your response to that post, it makes things clear as a bell. > > > > > This data increases the required burden of > > > > proof upon the original claimant to make their case. > > > > > > LOL! Your bizarre idea ... > > > > Continued lack of substantiation noted. > > Who would I need to substantiate it to? I don't see anyone, other than > you, arguing what you're arguing. Not even Doty, who seems to believe > that I poo poo all usages of stats (I don't), is pushing what you are. Of > course, he saw that you lied about what I "said", so... > > > > > TL;DR: the party (you) who made the claims of problems & inadequacy > > > > has not objectively substantiated their claims. > > > > > > Hey airhead?! The U.S. gov't is paying Accenture ~$300 million > > > to help find border patrol agents because they're having trouble > > > finding the level mandated by Congress. > > > > Irrelevant, because it ignores how many more agents are *currently* > > working versus how many back in 2000. > > The fact that we have more now means, in your mind, that it can in no way > be feeble relative to the problem? Do you realize how silly that argument is? > Of course not, the numbers... Mathematically, the number of arrests cannot exceed the number of border crossings, and better resources logically means a higher apprehension success rate. With triple the budget and more than twice as many "boots on the ground" border agents (even before also including deployed National Guard), there is no basis to logically conclude that the CBP force's effectiveness in capturing crossers has declined by at least 90%, or to have any decline at all in their performance, yet you've claimed it is "feeble" without evidence or substantiation. The logical explanation for 100% more agents apprehending 90% fewer immigrants is because there's vastly fewer immigrants attempting to cross. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web