Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
chrisv
2019-07-25 17:30:44 UTC
Permalink
It's extremely dishonest of you to attack someone as "partisan"
because they did not, years ago, address this particular issue in a
Linux advocacy group, "Steve".
(snipped, unread)
Idiot.
Does anyone else notice that the "Steve Carroll" snit has just *got*
to have the last word? No matter how inconsequential my post was?
Even if I post "snipped, unread", and nothing else, he responds!
"Steve's" response to the above was deleted, unead.

But let me guess: He attacked me because I posted something besides
"snipped, unread", as if I didn't realize that. As if I wasn't
(obviously!) referring to posts where I don't post something besides
the "snipped, unread".

That's "Steve" for you. Always looking to attack, no matter how
ridiculous.

"Steve" regularly demonstrates *dire* thinking skills.
If the snit gets in the last word, it helps him to think that he
"won".
I'll let the snit have it, now.
Snit
2019-07-25 17:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 19:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
%
2019-07-25 19:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
but if you follow it , it will lead back to him
mixed nuts
2019-07-25 20:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
but if you follow it , it will lead back to him
All roads lead to Trump.
--
Grizzly H.
%
2019-07-25 20:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by mixed nuts
Post by %
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
but if you follow it , it will lead back to him
All roads lead to Trump.
i was trying to say that ,
but did want to get told ,
to stay out of the whitehouse ,
they check me for matches you know
Janithor
2019-07-25 20:42:34 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by mixed nuts
Post by %
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
but if you follow it , it will lead back to him
All roads lead to Trump.
The most revealing statement you've ever made.
mixed nuts
2019-07-25 22:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janithor
Post by mixed nuts
Post by %
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any
of these kids are. Right wingers in general are the
biggest terrorist threat the US faces. By Carroll's
standards, for "security" we should round up all
right wingers and toss them in cells where they are
abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in
congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also
often bigoted against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
but if you follow it , it will lead back to him
All roads lead to Trump.
The most revealing statement you've ever made.
He's like the Orange Julio Cesare driving his Rubicon 4x4 across the
Delaware. Did you know Melanija speaks all the fluent languages so she
knows what the Hessians are saying on the way to The Eternal City to
create fantastic jobs?
--
Grizzly H.
Janithor
2019-07-26 00:22:23 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by mixed nuts
Post by Janithor
Post by mixed nuts
Post by %
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any
of these kids are. Right wingers in general are the
biggest terrorist threat the US faces. By Carroll's
standards, for "security" we should round up all right wingers
and toss them in cells where they are
abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in
congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also
often bigoted against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
but if you follow it , it will lead back to him
All roads lead to Trump.
The most revealing statement you've ever made.
He's like the Orange Julio Cesare driving his Rubicon 4x4 across the
Delaware.  Did you know Melanija speaks all the fluent languages so she
knows what the Hessians are saying on the way to The Eternal City to
create fantastic jobs?
4 minutes to Wapner! They're going to make legal history, Ray, LEGAL
HISTORY!
Snit
2019-07-25 21:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
I noted Trump AND his bigoted enablers. Such as yourself.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
I noted Trump AND his bigoted enablers. Such as yourself.
I don't give a damn about what you noted, I was talking about the lying
Muslim in congress who hates white men and this country.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
I noted Trump AND his bigoted enablers. Such as yourself.
I don't give a damn about what you noted,
Sure... you just troll without reading what people write. Agreed.
Post by Skeeter
I was talking about the lying
Muslim in congress who hates white men and this country.
Oh, you are just trolling. Got it.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Trump is a FAR bigger risk to our security than any of these kids are.
Right wingers in general are the biggest terrorist threat the US faces.
By Carroll's standards, for "security" we should round up all right
wingers and toss them in cells where they are abused.
Not unlike having white men hating mooslums in congress?
If you mean Muslims, then yes... right wingers are also often bigoted
against Muslims.
You spun that nice, typical lib tactic.
What spin? Trump and his bigoted enablers are Islamaphobic.
I wasn't talking about Trump.
I noted Trump AND his bigoted enablers. Such as yourself.
I don't give a damn about what you noted,
I was talking about the lying
Muslim in congress who hates white men and this country.
Snit ran from this because his trolling was outted by me.
Snit
2019-07-25 17:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Now? He's been doing it since at least 2003 that I've seen... and
undoubtedly much longer than that.
There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?
More slander, do you have proof?
This forum. Yesterday.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 19:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Now? He's been doing it since at least 2003 that I've seen... and
undoubtedly much longer than that.
There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?
More slander, do you have proof?
This forum. Yesterday.
So none, ok then.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Now? He's been doing it since at least 2003 that I've seen... and
undoubtedly much longer than that.
There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?
More slander, do you have proof?
This forum. Yesterday.
So none, ok then.
See: you lie.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Now? He's been doing it since at least 2003 that I've seen... and
undoubtedly much longer than that.
There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?
More slander, do you have proof?
This forum. Yesterday.
So none, ok then.
See: you lie.
No, you posted no proof.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Now? He's been doing it since at least 2003 that I've seen... and
undoubtedly much longer than that.
There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?
More slander, do you have proof?
This forum. Yesterday.
So none, ok then.
See: you lie.
Skeeter ran from the evidence he lied.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-25 17:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is. Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 19:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is. Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
I don't snip Snit, you however do. Typical lib tactic.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is. Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
I don't snip Snit, you however do. Typical lib tactic.
You are lying... but let us get back to the topic:

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is. Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
I don't snip Snit, you however do. Typical lib tactic.
Snit knew he was guilty and ran from this.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is.  Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
I don't snip Snit, you however do. Typical lib tactic.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Skeeter ran. Of course. He knows he cannot defend his view.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is.  Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
I don't snip Snit, you however do. Typical lib tactic.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Skeeter ran. Of course. He knows he cannot defend his view.
What view? That you snip to your own convenience?
Snit
2019-07-25 23:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Slander now Snit?
It's stuff like the above that makes that thing what it is.  Shitty
trolls of the human variety do not go to such depths.
Carroll insisted child abuse -- a felony -- should not be seen as actual
abuse unless someone is caught and convicted (a standard completely
different than the one he uses for poor non-whites who seek asylum). His
defense of child abuse in this way certainly suggests he may very well
be a child abuser. Who else would defend them like that?
That's not what he said. You accuse someone of something you need to
provide proof. Something the left doesn't understand. <take Kavanaugh
for instance>
Read what you snipped in your post where you falsely accused me of slander.
I don't snip Snit, you however do. Typical lib tactic.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Skeeter ran. Of course. He knows he cannot defend his view.
Skeeter cried when he saw this.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-25 17:30:46 UTC
Permalink
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst, and not even that for those needing asylum.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 18:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!

Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?

"Depending on the jurisdiction, examples of misdemeanors may include:
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>

Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
Snit
2019-07-25 21:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights even if
they, or their parents, MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor.

It is never OK to deny people human rights.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.

No matter how much you want to put me on the defensive for being
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that humans should be granted human rights, you know
you will NEVER defend your argument against that.
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read. Seriously. I mean WTF? Even for you that is just bizarre
nonsense... but you will do ANYTHING to change the topic from your
support for child abuse and your suggestion that you have engaged in
child abuse.
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights tied to people breaking the law... and you are
insisting it is OK to deny people human rights because they MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor, but it is NOT OK to even be against felony
child abuse. You defend child abuse.
--
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.
benj
2019-07-25 22:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights even if
they, or their parents, MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor.
It is never OK to deny people human rights.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
No matter how much you want to put me on the defensive for being
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that humans should be granted human rights, you know
you will NEVER defend your argument against that.
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read. Seriously. I mean WTF? Even for you that is just bizarre
nonsense... but you will do ANYTHING to change the topic from your
support for child abuse and your suggestion that you have engaged in
child abuse.
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights tied to people breaking the law... and you are
insisting it is OK to deny people human rights because they MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor, but it is NOT OK to even be against felony
child abuse. You defend child abuse.
So you think Obama camps and insufficient funding engineered by
Democrats are child abuse? Obama and the democrats didn't think so when
they set this system up.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights even if
they, or their parents, MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor.
It is never OK to deny people human rights.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
No matter how much you want to put me on the defensive for being
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that humans should be granted human rights, you know
you will NEVER defend your argument against that.
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read. Seriously. I mean WTF? Even for you that is just
bizarre nonsense... but you will do ANYTHING to change the topic from
your support for child abuse and your suggestion that you have engaged
in child abuse.
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights tied to people breaking the law... and you
are insisting it is OK to deny people human rights because they MIGHT
have committed a misdemeanor, but it is NOT OK to even be against
felony child abuse. You defend child abuse.
So you think Obama camps and insufficient funding engineered by
Democrats are child abuse? Obama and the democrats didn't think so when
they set this system up.
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).

I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.

Period.

Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights even if
they, or their parents, MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor.
It is never OK to deny people human rights.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
No matter how much you want to put me on the defensive for being
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that humans should be granted human rights, you know
you will NEVER defend your argument against that.
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read. Seriously. I mean WTF? Even for you that is just
bizarre nonsense... but you will do ANYTHING to change the topic from
your support for child abuse and your suggestion that you have engaged
in child abuse.
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights tied to people breaking the law... and you
are insisting it is OK to deny people human rights because they MIGHT
have committed a misdemeanor, but it is NOT OK to even be against
felony child abuse. You defend child abuse.
So you think Obama camps and insufficient funding engineered by
Democrats are child abuse? Obama and the democrats didn't think so when
they set this system up.
Snit can't refute this so he does his copy/paste spam in hopes we won't
notice.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a
misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights even if
they, or their parents, MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor.
It is never OK to deny people human rights.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since
seeking asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the
corporate socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER
back child abuse as you do.
No matter how much you want to put me on the defensive for being
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that humans should be granted human rights, you know
you will NEVER defend your argument against that.
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving,
discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read. Seriously. I mean WTF? Even for you that is just
bizarre nonsense... but you will do ANYTHING to change the topic from
your support for child abuse and your suggestion that you have
engaged in child abuse.
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights tied to people breaking the law... and you
are insisting it is OK to deny people human rights because they MIGHT
have committed a misdemeanor, but it is NOT OK to even be against
felony child abuse. You defend child abuse.
So you think Obama camps and insufficient funding engineered by
Democrats are child abuse? Obama and the democrats didn't think so
when they set this system up.
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).
I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.
Period.
Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
Skeeter responded to say he had no response. Which is weird.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights even if
they, or their parents, MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor.
It is never OK to deny people human rights.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since
seeking asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the
corporate socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER
back child abuse as you do.
No matter how much you want to put me on the defensive for being
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that humans should be granted human rights, you know
you will NEVER defend your argument against that.
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read. Seriously. I mean WTF? Even for you that is just
bizarre nonsense... but you will do ANYTHING to change the topic from
your support for child abuse and your suggestion that you have
engaged in child abuse.
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights tied to people breaking the law... and you
are insisting it is OK to deny people human rights because they MIGHT
have committed a misdemeanor, but it is NOT OK to even be against
felony child abuse. You defend child abuse.
So you think Obama camps and insufficient funding engineered by
Democrats are child abuse? Obama and the democrats didn't think so
when they set this system up.
Snit ran from this because it made his pussy hat wilt.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 00:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights
And you're 'noting' it when the subtopic is now legality and the
misdemeanor, fool.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read.
I've read... and have been aware that a misdemeanor is an illegal act.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights
LOL! You're the guy who brought in the subtopic of "A misdemeanor at worst".
Sober up, Snit ;)
Snit
2019-07-26 00:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst
LOL!
Are you actually arguing it's OK because it *may* be only a misdemeanor?
I am noting it is NOT acceptable to deny people human rights
And you're 'noting' it when the subtopic is now legality and the
misdemeanor, fool.
And the felony child abuse you excuse, saying that unless one is not
just known to be guilty but proved so in a court of law it should not be
seen as child abuse.

Why would anyone but a child abuser push your crap?
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault,
disorderly conduct, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a
firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some
jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, and other
similar crimes."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor>
Or are you trying to argue that a misdemeanor means it isn't "illegal"?
Learn to read.
I've read... and have been aware that a misdemeanor is an illegal act.
Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise. But you cannot
understand what you read.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
You *do* recognize the argument here is 'legal' vs 'illegal', right?
The topic is human rights
LOL! You're the guy who brought in the subtopic of "A misdemeanor at worst".
Sober up, Snit ;)
Ah, you read four words and ignored the whole message. You are playing
your idiotic games again. Still.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.

And, yes, I know you will run -- YOU know you cannot back your idiotic
and immoral view.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 19:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst, and not even that for those needing asylum.
It is for anyone who does it. If I commit a misdemeanor I go to jail and
am separated from my kids.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst, and not even that for those needing asylum.
It is for anyone who does it. If I commit a misdemeanor I go to jail and
am separated from my kids.
No, you do not generally go to jail for a misdemeanor, but even if you
do, your children are not likely to be abused.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will
denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst, and not even that for those needing asylum.
It's a federal crime, and "seeking asylum" is not a defense
to the crime.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will
denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst, and not even that for those needing asylum.
It's a federal crime, and "seeking asylum" is not a defense
to the crime.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yup and it says nothing about crossing a river to enter illegally.
Snit
2019-07-25 23:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yup and it says nothing about crossing a river to enter illegally.
It says you can be in the U.S. and apply for asylum.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yup and it says nothing about crossing a river to enter illegally.
It says you can be in the U.S. and apply for asylum.
It does not say you can enter illegally.
Snit
2019-07-26 00:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yup and it says nothing about crossing a river to enter illegally.
It says you can be in the U.S. and apply for asylum.
It does not say you can enter illegally.
If you are in the US you can apply... and then it does not matter how
you entered. But, sure, we should be welcoming them in at the ports of
entry to avoid the confusion here... streamline the process, make it
safer and cheaper, etc. We do not.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yup and it says nothing about crossing a river to enter illegally.
It says you can be in the U.S. and apply for asylum.
It does not say you can enter illegally.
If you are in the US you can apply... and then it does not matter how
you entered.
Sure it matters. An alien who violates 8 U.S. Code § 1325 doesn't
get a "get out of jail free" card by invoking 8 U.S. Code § 1158.
That alien could get asylum and also get a six months jail sentence.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Snit
2019-07-26 01:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yup and it says nothing about crossing a river to enter illegally.
It says you can be in the U.S. and apply for asylum.
It does not say you can enter illegally.
If you are in the US you can apply... and then it does not matter how
you entered.
Sure it matters.  An alien who violates 8 U.S. Code § 1325 doesn't
get a "get out of jail free" card by invoking 8 U.S. Code § 1158.
That alien could get asylum and also get a six months jail sentence.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Have examples of that happening... from say before Trump?
--
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.
mixed nuts
2019-07-25 23:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
I heard it was millions.
--
Grizzly H.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mixed nuts
Post by Skeeter
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
I heard it was millions.
Stop watching fake news.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by mixed nuts
Post by Skeeter
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
I heard it was millions.
Stop watching fake news.
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/19/yale-study-shows-23-million-illegal-immigrants/
January 19, 2018
Yale Professor: ‘22.8 Million Undocumented’ Aliens Live in
America—Double Official Estimates'
Janithor
2019-07-25 23:39:11 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by mixed nuts
Post by Skeeter
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
I heard it was millions.
Whatever it is, we should have zero border controls. None. Anyone who
wants to cross into the US should be able to do so completely unscreened
and unimpeded. Anything else would be racist.

Then we need to have free health care, free food, free housing, and free
education through grad school, for anyone on US soil. Anything less
would be...racist.

Word.
%
2019-07-25 23:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janithor
x-no-archive: yes
Post by mixed nuts
Post by Skeeter
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
But instead they cross illegally by the 1000s.
I heard it was millions.
Whatever it is, we should have zero border controls.  None.  Anyone who
wants to cross into the US should be able to do so completely unscreened
and unimpeded.  Anything else would be racist.
Then we need to have free health care, free food, free housing, and free
education through grad school, for anyone on US soil.  Anything less
would be...racist.
Word.
any good jail will give you that
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will
denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
And crossing other than an entry point is illegal...
A misdemeanor at worst, and not even that for those needing asylum.
It's a federal crime, and "seeking asylum" is not a defense
to the crime.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Someone could simultaneously be able to apply for asylum AND
also be charged with a violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1325. He
could get asylum, beginning with a six-month stint in a
federal jail.
Sn!pe
2019-07-25 17:33:43 UTC
Permalink
[...]

Is this the real Steve Carroll or just another instance of Snit?
--
^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
Snit
2019-07-25 17:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sn!pe
[...]
Is this the real Steve Carroll or just another instance of Snit?
Carroll even posted with his main account.
--
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.
Scatboi g8dgc
2019-07-25 18:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sn!pe
[...]
Is this the real Steve Carroll or just another instance of Snit?
You mammy gimme good clit.
LOL
Gr!pe
2019-07-25 19:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sn!pe
[...]
Is this the real Steve Carroll or just another instance of Snit?
You mammy gimme good clit. <---[skidmark]
LOL <---[skidmark]
"Captain" Neal Warren operates these sock-puppets:-

"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <***@home.fake>
"Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <***@usa.com>
"Scatboi g8dgc" <***@noneya.none>

- and countless others.
--
Gr!pe

As a courtesy to disinterested parties I'm taking over
Sn!pe's duties when responding to Crapstain Neal Warren
alias Gergory Hall / The Great Cornholio / Skiddyboi
fake g8dgc, et al. I urge all those who prefer not to
read this drivel to immediately throw this parody persona
into your killfiles. Thank you for your kind attention.

P. S. Nobody likes a poopyhead.

[followup set]
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 17:36:12 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
When it's proven I will denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven
guilty.
Do you hold the same standard for immigrants?
Immigrants who illegally crossed the border, you mean.
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
Being that I'm not interested in *your* version of 'justice' (a Lord of
the Flies spinoff or some such) I'll readily admit I'm good going with
the presumption of innocence concept.
Accept when it comes to non-whites seeking asylum.
What does skin color have to do with anything and why are you so
preoccupied with it?
You know you don't really belong
in this country, right?
Notice there is no presumption of innocence in your comment there.
You think I have a problem with pointing out that people who don't
believe in the presumption of innocence don't belong in a country that's
based on it? If you're also into things like stoning women for cheating
you don't belong here, either <shrug>.
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally
If they are *across* the border and lack documentation it's what's known
as 'self evident', genius. Forget about you knowing anything about 'the
law', you can't display even a modicum of common sense.
One is not required to carry documentation in this country.
Never said they were but if they lack documentation... away they go,
no court proceeding required, as it should be.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/02/do-you-have-to-carry-id-with-you-at-all-times.html
-----
Do You Have to Carry ID With You at All Times?
I would expect to have to in the event I was challenged at the border
trying to regain access to the U.S. from Mexico, as would anyone with a
working brain.
...
Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal.
A thing which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. While
"the legal status of Arizona's immigration laws" may be "questionable",
the concept of citizenship remains intact. Conflating legal citizens
with people who are not citizens only makes you look more clueless... if
that's even possible.

Trust me, you've made it clear as crystal, you want open borders...
that's another reason you don't belong here. It's silly to fund a gov't
to protect you while not securing your borders. You know that, right? Or
did you think the creation of a federal gov't was solely to foster the
Utopian dream where everyone can come, all will be paid for (somehow...)
and we can all sing Kumbaya every night while clutching our comfort
bears and stuffing lavender leaves up our nostrils?
Snit
2019-07-25 17:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
When it's proven I will denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven
guilty.
Do you hold the same standard for immigrants?
Immigrants who illegally crossed the border, you mean.
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
Being that I'm not interested in *your* version of 'justice' (a Lord of
the Flies spinoff or some such) I'll readily admit I'm good going with
the presumption of innocence concept.
Accept when it comes to non-whites seeking asylum.
What does skin color have to do with anything and why are you so
preoccupied with it?
Do you back the abuse of white children (other than perhaps your own,
given how you have suggested you are a child abuser)?
Post by Steve Carroll
You know you don't really belong
in this country, right?
Notice there is no presumption of innocence in your comment there.
You think I have a problem with pointing out that people who don't
believe in the presumption of innocence don't belong in a country that's
based on it? If you're also into things like stoning women for cheating
you don't belong here, either <shrug>.
You give the presumption of innocence to whites but not non-whites. To
the rich but not the poor.

Then you ask what color has to do with YOUR OWN VIEWS.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Post by Steve Carroll
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally
If they are *across* the border and lack documentation it's what's known
as 'self evident', genius. Forget about you knowing anything about 'the
law', you can't display even a modicum of common sense.
One is not required to carry documentation in this country.
Never said they were but if they lack documentation... away they go,
no court proceeding required, as it should be.
So you must carry ID or be detained in your view... even though you just
said we do not have to carry ID?

You contradicted yourself in the same sentence!
Post by Steve Carroll
https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/02/do-you-have-to-carry-id-with-you-at-all-times.html
-----
Do You Have to Carry ID With You at All Times?
I would expect to have to in the event I was challenged at the border
trying to regain access to the U.S. from Mexico, as would anyone with a
working brain.
...
Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal.
A thing which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.

Seriously, your reading skills have gone downhill. I did not think that
was possible.
Post by Steve Carroll
While
"the legal status of Arizona's immigration laws" may be "questionable",
the concept of citizenship remains intact. Conflating legal citizens
with people who are not citizens only makes you look more clueless... if
that's even possible.
Trust me, you've made it clear as crystal, you want open borders...
This is you speaking FOR me. You do that a lot.
Post by Steve Carroll
that's another reason you don't belong here. It's silly to fund a gov't
to protect you while not securing your borders. You know that, right? Or
did you think the creation of a federal gov't was solely to foster the
Utopian dream where everyone can come, all will be paid for (somehow...)
and we can all sing Kumbaya every night while clutching our comfort
bears and stuffing lavender leaves up our nostrils?
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).

I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.

Period.

Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 18:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
When it's proven I will denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven
guilty.
Do you hold the same standard for immigrants?
Immigrants who illegally crossed the border, you mean.
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
Being that I'm not interested in *your* version of 'justice' (a Lord of
the Flies spinoff or some such) I'll readily admit I'm good going with
the presumption of innocence concept.
Accept when it comes to non-whites seeking asylum.
What does skin color have to do with anything and why are you so
preoccupied with it?
Do you back the abuse of white children
Why are you asking? Did you already forget that you told me my position
on this and gave 'evidence' (which was absurd, naturally) for it?

(snip rehash)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
If they are *across* the border and lack documentation it's what's known
as 'self evident', genius. Forget about you knowing anything about 'the
law', you can't display even a modicum of common sense.
One is not required to carry documentation in this country.
Never said they were but if they lack documentation... away they go,
no court proceeding required, as it should be.
So you must carry ID or be detained in your view... even though you just
said we do not have to carry ID?
**Look below...
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/02/do-you-have-to-carry-id-with-you-at-all-times.html
-----
Do You Have to Carry ID With You at All Times?
**(Here's what I "said" about ID at the border)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
I would expect to have to in the event I was challenged at the border
trying to regain access to the U.S. from Mexico, as would anyone with a
working brain.
...
Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal.
A thing which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope, the carrying of an ID that shows you're a citizen of another
country doesn't automatically mean you're 'legally' entering this one.
Why are you even in this discussion when it's clear you don't know squat
about it?
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
While
"the legal status of Arizona's immigration laws" may be "questionable",
the concept of citizenship remains intact. Conflating legal citizens
with people who are not citizens only makes you look more clueless... if
that's even possible.
Trust me, you've made it clear as crystal, you want open borders...
This is you speaking FOR me. You do that a lot.
Nah... you spoke loud and clear.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
that's another reason you don't belong here. It's silly to fund a gov't
to protect you while not securing your borders. You know that, right? Or
did you think the creation of a federal gov't was solely to foster the
Utopian dream where everyone can come, all will be paid for (somehow...)
and we can all sing Kumbaya every night while clutching our comfort
bears and stuffing lavender leaves up our nostrils?
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids
That's not an answer, Rainman.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.

Oy.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vagrancy/
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 23:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)

"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."

You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-25 23:31:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 23:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-25 23:44:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:36:10 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I'd have to agree. When he can't explain what he's talking about, you
know he's just repeating the sounds- he doesn't really know what the
words mean.
Snit
2019-07-26 00:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I repeat the things you run from. And you keep running... because you
know your crap cannot be supported. Then you beg me to follow you down
every rabbit hole where you play semantic games and otherwise make a
fool of yourself.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 00:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I repeat the things you run from.
No, I snip your repetitive drivel. There is no "human right" that gives
anyone on the planet the ability to enter any country they want at any
time of their choosing with no questions asked. That's the BS you're
pushing and no one is buying.
Snit
2019-07-26 00:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I repeat the things you run from.
No, I snip your repetitive drivel. There is no "human right" that gives
anyone on the planet the ability to enter any country they want at any
time of their choosing with no questions asked. That's the BS you're
pushing and no one is buying.
Of note: nobody has ever said, suggested, hinted, or implied what you
just attribute to me, at least that I have seen. I certainly have not.

You simply lie nonstop... and why? Because you know you cannot defend
your pro-child-abuse stance, nor can you explain why you decided child
abuse was not even a felony unless you were prosecuted and found guilty.
The obvious reason: you are suggesting YOU have engaged in child abuse.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 00:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I repeat the things you run from.
No, I snip your repetitive drivel. There is no "human right" that gives
anyone on the planet the ability to enter any country they want at any
time of their choosing with no questions asked. That's the BS you're
pushing and no one is buying.
Of note: nobody has ever said, suggested, hinted, or implied what you
just attribute to me, at least that I have seen. I certainly have not.
Well, someone using the name "Snit" is ranting about "human rights" and
trying to lump it in with a bunch of other crap <shrug>.
Snit
2019-07-26 01:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I repeat the things you run from.
No, I snip your repetitive drivel. There is no "human right" that gives
anyone on the planet the ability to enter any country they want at any
time of their choosing with no questions asked. That's the BS you're
pushing and no one is buying.
Of note: nobody has ever said, suggested, hinted, or implied what you
just attribute to me, at least that I have seen. I certainly have not.
Well, someone using the name "Snit" is ranting about "human rights" and
trying to lump it in with a bunch of other crap <shrug>.
You can change the topic, but I never said what you attributed to me.
You lied. You made things up. You do that often.

At this point there is no topic but your trolling -- which is how you
ALWAYS steer conversations. So I am going back to a real topic:

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.

And you will run. 100% predictable.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-26 00:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.? It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
If he didn't get all his info from the Alexandria
Occasionally-Cognizant Newsletter he'd know that.
I don't know where he gets it but I know he often just parrots things,
he always has. I'm thinking a perch for his next birthday.
I repeat the things you run from. And you keep running... because you
know your crap cannot be supported. Then you beg me to follow you down
every rabbit hole where you play semantic games and otherwise make a
fool of yourself.
Carroll ran from this. LOL! He has no idea how meta-absurd he is.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-26 00:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.?
When talking about people *in* the US it never is about crossing the
border given how they are already *in* the US.

But you are just playing idiotic games now.

And below you babble off topic, play victim, and otherwise push your
idiotic games. NOBODY said, suggested, hinted, or implied you do not
need documents to go from one country to another.
Post by Steve Carroll
It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
See: below you note you cannot understand what is written here -- BEING
IN PUBLIC is not the same as crossing a border.
Post by Steve Carroll
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 00:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.?
When talking about people *in* the US it never is about crossing the
border given how they are already *in* the US.
So you're arguing that no one should be profiled? Good luck with that
one! If someone is "in* but if it appears they may have just crossed
illegally, they will most likely get carded.
Post by Snit
But you are just playing idiotic games now.
No, I was responding to your poor communication. You kept pinging back
and forth between a number of topics, if you complained of profiling I
never saw it.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
See: below you note you cannot understand what is written here -- BEING
IN PUBLIC is not the same as crossing a border.
I don't disagree but the idea that people, including U.S. citizens, will
*never* be confronted to show ID only exists in Utopia.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
Why didn't you address the fact that asylum seekers *willingly* do what
you were complaining about (being denied due process)? Funny how you've
gone mum on that one.
Snit
2019-07-26 01:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Nope
This is how stupid Carroll's semantic games become... where he directly
denies A has everything to do with A.
Oy.
So the topic now isn't about border crossing without being able to show
some kind of documentation a person has been granted the privilege of
temporarily entering the U.S.?
When talking about people *in* the US it never is about crossing the
border given how they are already *in* the US.
So you're arguing that no one should be profiled?
We should not profile by race or religion.
Post by Steve Carroll
Good luck with that
one! If someone is "in* but if it appears they may have just crossed
illegally, they will most likely get carded.
We can change the topic to all sorts of things, but I was noting -- and
you were disagreeing with me -- about how one is not obligated to carry
ID in the US.

And below you play victim.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
But you are just playing idiotic games now.
No, I was responding to your poor communication. You kept pinging back
and forth between a number of topics, if you complained of profiling I
never saw it.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
It's just about "carrying IDs", with
*nothing* else attached to it? LOL! You're high again, aren't you? ;)
"Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal."
See: below you note you cannot understand what is written here -- BEING
IN PUBLIC is not the same as crossing a border.
I don't disagree but the idea that people, including U.S. citizens, will
*never* be confronted to show ID only exists in Utopia.
"confronted to show ID" -- sure they will be. But they are not legally
obligated to if they are stopped.
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
You cited that earlier, why? Was it to point out that you can't
differentiate between a U.S. citizen traveling around a "nation" he has
the ability to freely travel in and someone who isn't a U.S. citizen
showing up at the border... applying for asylum, according to you... and
some bizarre belief you have that they've no need, nor should they dare
be asked, to identify themself? By the way, when someone applies for
asylum at the border, you're aware they are *willingly* allowing
themself to be taken into custody as part of the process, you know, the
very thing you're complaining about ('jailing' them without due process!
They even take fingerprints, fool), right? Of course you're not, that's
why we see you writing all this ridiculous, child-like drivel ;)
Why didn't you address the fact that asylum seekers *willingly* do what
you were complaining about (being denied due process)? Funny how you've
gone mum on that one.
You do not get to speak for others, and I have not seen quotes from ANY,
no less a spokesperson, saying they are willingly giving up due process.

Face it: you just make shit up non-stop.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
When it's proven I will denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven
guilty.
Do you hold the same standard for immigrants?
Immigrants who illegally crossed the border, you mean.
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
Being that I'm not interested in *your* version of 'justice' (a Lord of
the Flies spinoff or some such) I'll readily admit I'm good going with
the presumption of innocence concept.
Accept when it comes to non-whites seeking asylum.
What does skin color have to do with anything and why are you so
preoccupied with it?
Do you back the abuse of white children (other than perhaps your own,
given how you have suggested you are a child abuser)?
Post by Steve Carroll
You know you don't really belong
in this country, right?
Notice there is no presumption of innocence in your comment there.
You think I have a problem with pointing out that people who don't
believe in the presumption of innocence don't belong in a country that's
based on it? If you're also into things like stoning women for cheating
you don't belong here, either <shrug>.
You give the presumption of innocence to whites but not non-whites. To
the rich but not the poor.
Then you ask what color has to do with YOUR OWN VIEWS.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Post by Steve Carroll
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally
If they are *across* the border and lack documentation it's what's known
as 'self evident', genius. Forget about you knowing anything about 'the
law', you can't display even a modicum of common sense.
One is not required to carry documentation in this country.
Never said they were but if they lack documentation... away they go,
no court proceeding required, as it should be.
So you must carry ID or be detained in your view... even though you just
said we do not have to carry ID?
You contradicted yourself in the same sentence!
Post by Steve Carroll
https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/02/do-you-have-to-carry-id-with-you-at-all-times.html
-----
Do You Have to Carry ID With You at All Times?
I would expect to have to in the event I was challenged at the border
trying to regain access to the U.S. from Mexico, as would anyone with a
working brain.
...
Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal.
A thing which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Carrying IDs has everything to do with carrying IDs.
Seriously, your reading skills have gone downhill. I did not think that
was possible.
Post by Steve Carroll
While
"the legal status of Arizona's immigration laws" may be "questionable",
the concept of citizenship remains intact. Conflating legal citizens
with people who are not citizens only makes you look more clueless... if
that's even possible.
Trust me, you've made it clear as crystal, you want open borders...
This is you speaking FOR me. You do that a lot.
Post by Steve Carroll
that's another reason you don't belong here. It's silly to fund a gov't
to protect you while not securing your borders. You know that, right? Or
did you think the creation of a federal gov't was solely to foster the
Utopian dream where everyone can come, all will be paid for (somehow...)
and we can all sing Kumbaya every night while clutching our comfort
bears and stuffing lavender leaves up our nostrils?
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).
I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.
Period.
Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
Carroll snipped and ran. Of course. He knows his position is completely
unsupportable.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-25 17:36:26 UTC
Permalink
It's not just my belief, it's a fact there are no posts by you on this
topic during the Obama administration and your "position" shows you to
be partisan due to this fact.
You're not being fair, "Steve". The issue wasn't publicized, back
then.
Because of the greater quantity of immigrants coming over, the last
couple years, I'm sure that things have gotten worse. Obviously,
that's not Trump's fault, but it does partially explain the increased
media attention.
Carroll is saying that unless I told *him* I was against something, or
at least did not say so in a forum he saw, then I could not have been
against it, even if the topic never came up in any forum we were talking in.
Once again Carroll is just spewing idiotic shit and showing how entitled
he is and how obsessed he is with me.
Nice but you still didn't say you don't approve of Obama doing the same
that's happening now.
I have repeatedly said:
--------
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).

I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.

Period.
--------

But then you say I have not said that. You fail to understand what you read.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 17:41:27 UTC
Permalink
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
Snit
2019-07-25 17:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 18:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think
You may wanna get to work on that...

(I fixed your post so you would appear at least somewhat responsive)
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-25 18:59:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:49:23 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with,
More Snit insanity
Snit
2019-07-25 21:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now... just
screaming and running and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.

Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that Carroll is OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back
child abuse as he does.
--
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.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-25 23:17:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.

Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.

He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.

And off he goes!

LOL
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-25 23:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.

Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.

Because there *is* no support for them.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
2019-07-25 23:31:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Klaus Schadenfreude <***@null.net> wrote:

<...>
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.
Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.
Because there *is* no support for them.
Wrong! Snit gets plenty of support from his Teddy Bear.
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi and Pandora » the three are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.
POSHLYAK
2019-07-25 23:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.
Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.
Because there *is* no support for them.
From what I can tell, snit and his socks have all the time in the
world to troll usenet so what they do is post reply after reply
after reply hoping to wear the other person down because most people
have a life and can't respond to snit every hour on the hour.
So then when the person finally gives up in order to live his life
snit declares victory.

It's truly a scenario for a mental health study.
--
POSHLYAK
Pronounced - POSH LEE ACK
Combines for the win!
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-25 23:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by POSHLYAK
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.
Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.
Because there *is* no support for them.
From what I can tell, snit and his socks have all the time in the
world to troll usenet so what they do is post reply after reply
after reply hoping to wear the other person down because most people
have a life and can't respond to snit every hour on the hour.
So then when the person finally gives up in order to live his life
snit declares victory.
It's truly a scenario for a mental health study.
I only read a few of his posts, because he's afraid to reply to me any
more, since I treat him like a troll; and because he just repeats the
same thing over and over again. If he's feeling really brave, he'll
reply to someone else I'm conversing with using a personal attack, but
that's about all I can get out of him now. It's sad. I had such high
hopes for him.
POSHLYAK
2019-07-26 00:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by POSHLYAK
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.
Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.
Because there *is* no support for them.
From what I can tell, snit and his socks have all the time in the
world to troll usenet so what they do is post reply after reply
after reply hoping to wear the other person down because most people
have a life and can't respond to snit every hour on the hour.
So then when the person finally gives up in order to live his life
snit declares victory.
It's truly a scenario for a mental health study.
I only read a few of his posts, because he's afraid to reply to me any
more, since I treat him like a troll; and because he just repeats the
same thing over and over again. If he's feeling really brave, he'll
reply to someone else I'm conversing with using a personal attack, but
that's about all I can get out of him now. It's sad. I had such high
hopes for him.
I suspect his first grade teacher said the same thing.
It's been all downhill since.

The thought of snit being a camp counselor is sick.
I wonder how many little boys he was diddling.
--
POSHLYAK
Pronounced - POSH LEE ACK
Combines for the win!
%
2019-07-26 00:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by POSHLYAK
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by POSHLYAK
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.
Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.
Because there *is* no support for them.
From what I can tell, snit and his socks have all the time in the
world to troll usenet so what they do is post reply after reply
after reply hoping to wear the other person down because most people
have a life and can't respond to snit every hour on the hour.
So then when the person finally gives up in order to live his life
snit declares victory.
It's truly a scenario for a mental health study.
I only read a few of his posts, because he's afraid to reply to me any
more, since I treat him like a troll; and because he just repeats the
same thing over and over again. If he's feeling really brave, he'll
reply to someone else I'm conversing with using a personal attack, but
that's about all I can get out of him now. It's sad. I had such high
hopes for him.
I suspect his first grade teacher said the same thing.
It's been all downhill since.
The thought of snit being a camp counselor is sick.
I wonder how many little boys he was diddling.
besides you
Snit
2019-07-26 00:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by POSHLYAK
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by POSHLYAK
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
CNN is William Buckley compared to Snit.
Snit cares about trolling, and part of that is making wild claims and
running away without supporting them.
Because there *is* no support for them.
From what I can tell, snit and his socks have all the time in the
world to troll usenet so what they do is post reply after reply
after reply hoping to wear the other person down because most people
have a life and can't respond to snit every hour on the hour.
So then when the person finally gives up in order to live his life
snit declares victory.
It's truly a scenario for a mental health study.
I only read a few of his posts, because he's afraid to reply to me any
more, since I treat him like a troll; and because he just repeats the
same thing over and over again. If he's feeling really brave, he'll
reply to someone else I'm conversing with using a personal attack, but
that's about all I can get out of him now. It's sad. I had such high
hopes for him.
I suspect his first grade teacher said the same thing.
It's been all downhill since.
The thought of snit being a camp counselor is sick.
I wonder how many little boys he was diddling.
Can you be more specific with the type of attention you are begging 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.
Snit
2019-07-26 00:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend your
position.
--
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.
%
2019-07-26 00:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend your
position.
do you like fried bacon
Snit
2019-07-26 00:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat
"interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend
your position.
do you like fried bacon
Yes.
--
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.
%
2019-07-26 01:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat
"interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend
your position.
do you like fried bacon
Yes.
i'm watching the snit show
vallor
2019-07-26 02:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to
court either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby
they've acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're
just out of your depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd
you think happens? After the cookie and lemonade they just pat
them on the back and say 'Now don't forget, you have a hearing
on the 20th of next month". Grow a brain, Snit... this is like
having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat
"interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of
non-white kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts
of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied
to redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations
because their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though
since seeking asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot
back the corporate socialism that you are OK with, and even worse
I will NEVER back child abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse
tied to redistribution of money to the for-profit prison
corporations because their parents MIGHT have committed a
misdemeanor (though since seeking asylum is legal that is not even
a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument
that he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are
CNN copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend
your position.
do you like fried bacon
Yes.
i'm watching the snit show
is it in color this season?
--
-v
%
2019-07-26 02:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by vallor
Post by %
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to
court either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby
they've acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're
just out of your depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd
you think happens? After the cookie and lemonade they just pat
them on the back and say 'Now don't forget, you have a hearing
on the 20th of next month". Grow a brain, Snit... this is like
having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of
non-white kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts
of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied
to redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations
because their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though
since seeking asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot
back the corporate socialism that you are OK with, and even worse
I will NEVER back child abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse
tied to redistribution of money to the for-profit prison
corporations because their parents MIGHT have committed a
misdemeanor (though since seeking asylum is legal that is not even
a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument
that he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are
CNN copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend
your position.
do you like fried bacon
Yes.
i'm watching the snit show
is it in color this season?
it depends which newsreader you use
Snit
2019-07-26 02:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat
"interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
See: you feel the need to lie about me. You know you cannot defend
your position.
do you like fried bacon
Yes.
i'm watching the snit show
All snit all day... the theme of COLA... I wish it was not the case.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-26 00:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:54:06 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
The immigrants being held captive and abused have not gone to court
either. So release them, right?
No, because they never show up.
So no presumption of innocence like Carroll claims to support.
And you don't believe they've signed a document(s) whereby they've
acknowledged their status? See what I mean... you're just out of your
depth on this topic, as you often are. What'd you think happens? After
the cookie and lemonade they just pat them on the back and say 'Now
don't forget, you have a hearing on the 20th of next month". Grow a
brain, Snit... this is like having a discussion with a 11 year old.
Can't you up things a bit... make it at least somewhat "interesting"?
I do not think ANYTHING defends the child abuse you back of non-white
kids, or, based on your own suggestions, your own acts of child abuse.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
Carroll ran from this. Of course. He is in full troll mode now.
Irony meters all over the world have just gone up in flames.
Post by Snit
.. just
screaming and running
Like Snit does with his "corporate socialism" comments, among many
others.
Post by Snit
and playing victim. And why? He knows he cannot
back his views.
Note how Snit can only attack him personally and NOT offer any facts.
Sound familiar?
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
He'll run from this, as he usually does.
Post by Snit
I cannot back the corporate
socialism
And there is his desperate, fake "corporate socialism" argument that
he uses when all else fails.
And off he goes!
LOL
Snit has no care for non white children or our own homeless, Snit
trolls, he cares nothing about others and his views on politics are CNN
copys.
Snit hid from this because it embarrasses him.
Siri Cruise
2019-07-26 02:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Carroll and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given).
Snit has now gone off the deep end. While he doesn't make the
shrieking "concentration camp" claim here, he's comparing the ICE
facilities to "for profit prisons" without ANYTHING to back his claim.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565318778/big-money-as-private-immigrant-jails-boo
m

The Joe Corley Detention Facility is a sprawling complex surrounded by shiny
concertina wire located in Conroe, Texas -- about an hour north of Houston.

ICE spends more than $2 billion a year on immigrant detention through private
jails like this one.

The Corley facility is owned by GEO Group, the nation's largest private prison
company.

ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service pay GEO $32 million a year to house, feed and
provide medical care for a thousand detainees.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 17:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-25 18:03:48 UTC
Permalink
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where would
they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Uh... legal vs illegal doesn't disappear, Snit.
Yet you and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
I don't get, why
continue to appear *this* clueless when you know you're going to be
smacked around for it? Can't you get your maso rocks off where you don't
do this much damage to your rep?
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 17:51:35 UTC
Permalink
It's not just my belief, it's a fact there are no posts by you on this
topic during the Obama administration and your "position" shows you to
be partisan due to this fact.
You're not being fair, "Steve". The issue wasn't publicized, back
then.
Because of the greater quantity of immigrants coming over, the last
couple years, I'm sure that things have gotten worse. Obviously,
that's not Trump's fault, but it does partially explain the increased
media attention.
Carroll is saying that unless I told *him* I was against something, or
at least did not say so in a forum he saw, then I could not have been
against it, even if the topic never came up in any forum we were talking in.
So point to you doing so in any forum. Should be simple if you've done
it, right?
Snit
2019-07-25 18:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
It's not just my belief, it's a fact there are no posts by you on this
topic during the Obama administration and your "position" shows you to
be partisan due to this fact.
You're not being fair, "Steve". The issue wasn't publicized, back
then.
Because of the greater quantity of immigrants coming over, the last
couple years, I'm sure that things have gotten worse. Obviously,
that's not Trump's fault, but it does partially explain the increased
media attention.
Carroll is saying that unless I told *him* I was against something, or
at least did not say so in a forum he saw, then I could not have been
against it, even if the topic never came up in any forum we were talking in.
So point to you doing so in any forum. Should be simple if you've done
it, right?
See above (and previous posts in this thread).
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 18:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
It's not just my belief, it's a fact there are no posts by you on this
topic during the Obama administration and your "position" shows you to
be partisan due to this fact.
You're not being fair, "Steve". The issue wasn't publicized, back
then.
Because of the greater quantity of immigrants coming over, the last
couple years, I'm sure that things have gotten worse. Obviously,
that's not Trump's fault, but it does partially explain the increased
media attention.
Carroll is saying that unless I told *him* I was against something, or
at least did not say so in a forum he saw, then I could not have been
against it, even if the topic never came up in any forum we were talking in.
So point to you doing so in any forum. Should be simple if you've done
it, right?
See above (and previous posts in this thread).
So you're willing to prove that you're *so* out of it (I concede
"willing" may be the wrong word here) that you didn't understand I was
in reference to "during the Obama administration", as is still shown in
this post (above)?
Snit
2019-07-25 21:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
It's not just my belief, it's a fact there are no posts by you on this
topic during the Obama administration and your "position" shows you to
be partisan due to this fact.
You're not being fair, "Steve".  The issue wasn't publicized, back
then.
Because of the greater quantity of immigrants coming over, the last
couple years, I'm sure that things have gotten worse.  Obviously,
that's not Trump's fault, but it does partially explain the increased
media attention.
Carroll is saying that unless I told *him* I was against something, or
at least did not say so in a forum he saw, then I could not have been
against it, even if the topic never came up in any forum we were talking in.
So point to you doing so in any forum. Should be simple if you've done
it, right?
See above (and previous posts in this thread).
Carroll ran from this... snipped and spewed attacks.

You repeatedly try to speak FOR me... making up absurd views and
attributing them to me, even when those views are directly contrary to
what I have noted my views are:

I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).

I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.

Period.

Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
--
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.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 17:54:59 UTC
Permalink
It's extremely dishonest of you to attack someone as "partisan"
because they did not, years ago, address this particular issue in a
Linux advocacy group, "Steve".
(snipped, unread)
Idiot.
Does anyone else notice that the "Steve Carroll" snit has just *got*
to have the last word? No matter how inconsequential my post was?
Even if I post "snipped, unread", and nothing else, he responds!
If the snit gets in the last word, it helps him to think that he
"won".
Stop projecting, Snit Jr. (Snit Sr. once tried this same 'argument' in
CSMA... ask him how it went ;)
It went with you going on and on and on and on
All threads with you in them do that. The point is, you're the one who
projected that it was a "win" to get the last word... which everyone
already knew was a huge part of your MO, Rainman (same goes for
"chrisv" with his 'snip unread' BS).

(snip more 'woe is me' BS by Snit)
Snit
2019-07-25 18:02:13 UTC
Permalink
It's extremely dishonest of you to attack someone as "partisan"
because they did not, years ago, address this particular issue in a
Linux advocacy group, "Steve".
(snipped, unread)
Idiot.
Does anyone else notice that the "Steve Carroll" snit has just *got*
to have the last word?  No matter how inconsequential my post was?
Even if I post "snipped, unread", and nothing else, he responds!
If the snit gets in the last word, it helps him to think that he
"won".
Stop projecting, Snit Jr. (Snit Sr. once tried this same 'argument' in
CSMA... ask him how it went ;)
It went with you going on and on and on and on contradicting yourself
and making a complete and total ass. And when I would not let it go you
became obsessed for over a decade and harassed me and then my family and
co-workers and employers and clients and more, until your family held an
intervention and the police got involved.
Even then you could not stop yourself fully... you ignored me for a bit,
and as far as I know have not gone outside of Usenet since then, but you
still follow me around lying.
Carroll asked a question about how it went for me to respond to his
non-stop obsessive trolling. I answered honestly. Carroll ran.

Carroll does not like the truth of his actions being noted.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:24:24 UTC
Permalink
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
If you think that, then ... why did they keep going?
To escape poverty. In search of economic betterment. Which may
be a powerful motivator, but it does not make them refugees and
does not entitle them to asylum. Dragging little children
along is abusive to the children. If US citizens did the same
things to their children, they would be charged with criminal
child abuse and separated from their children pending trial.
chrisv
2019-07-25 19:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Dragging little children
along is abusive to the children. If US citizens did the same
things to their children, they would be charged with criminal
child abuse and separated from their children pending trial.
Were the pioneers, of the American west, also abusing their children?
--
"Gosh, that's an interesting set of expectations when you try to make
mere survival to be synonymous with success." - lying asshole "-hh"
%
2019-07-25 19:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Just Wondering
Dragging little children
along is abusive to the children. If US citizens did the same
things to their children, they would be charged with criminal
child abuse and separated from their children pending trial.
Were the pioneers, of the American west, also abusing their children?
yes and stopping them from doing anything is obstruction
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 20:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Just Wondering
Dragging little children
along is abusive to the children. If US citizens did the same
things to their children, they would be charged with criminal
child abuse and separated from their children pending trial.
Were the pioneers, of the American west, also abusing their children?
There are a lot of things that people did to their children
150 years ago, that if they did today they would be charged
with child abuse.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 20:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Sn!pe
2019-07-25 21:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> wrote:

[...]

I'm curious, Steve; did you see my post about three hours ago
in this thread where I asked if you are the -real- Steve Carroll?

Snit responded that yes, you are. I'm just a bit surprised that
you didn't answer for yourself. If it helps, it was in:-

Message-ID: <1oba8u2.6o19q11ivx9s8N%***@gmail.com>
--
^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sn!pe
[...]
I'm curious, Steve; did you see my post about three hours ago
in this thread where I asked if you are the -real- Steve Carroll?
Snit responded that yes, you are. I'm just a bit surprised that
you didn't answer for yourself. If it helps, it was in:-
Carroll has been having a hard time keeping track of all of his socks.
--
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.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:50:24 UTC
Permalink
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
If you think that, then ... why did they keep going?
To escape poverty.  In search of economic betterment.  Which may
be a powerful motivator, but it does not make them refugees and
does not entitle them to asylum.  Dragging little children
along is abusive to the children.  If US citizens did the same
things to their children, they would be charged with criminal
child abuse and separated from their children pending trial.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged
in child abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Libel. Slander is the spoken form of defamation. Libel is
the written form.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged
in child abuse.
Slander now Snit?
Libel.  Slander is the spoken form of defamation.  Libel is
the written form.
So Carroll engages in libel. Fair enough.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:46:36 UTC
Permalink
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
Snit
2019-07-25 22:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
By all means quote what you see as the relevant section... I did not
even click.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
By all means quote what you see as the relevant section... I did not
even click.
Because the truth hurts you. Snit asks for proof and refuses to read it
when provided because he knows it will make him look stupid.
Snit
2019-07-25 23:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
By all means quote what you see as the relevant section... I did not
even click.
Because the truth hurts you.
It does hurt knowing the us is abusing children as a part of its
corporate socialism. Absolutely.

It is called having feelings for others and believing in equal rights.
Post by Skeeter
Snit asks for proof and refuses to read it
when provided because he knows it will make him look stupid.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
By all means quote what you see as the relevant section... I did not
even click.
Because the truth hurts you.
It does hurt knowing the us is abusing children as a part of its
corporate socialism. Absolutely.
It is called having feelings for others and believing in equal rights.
Post by Skeeter
Snit asks for proof and refuses to read it
when provided because he knows it will make him look stupid.
Snit ran from this because he knows it's the truth.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
Where did you see that as the stated reason for asylum? Cite, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States
8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum
Siri Cruise
2019-07-26 02:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
Fleeing poverty in search of better economic opportunity is not
grounds for asylum.
And you don't think a judge can apply the law fairly therefore iDJT is forced to
usurp the law.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:50:27 UTC
Permalink
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't. You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"

Mueller: "That is correct."
-----

He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
The only reason he did not is he believes he cannot.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
The only reason he did not is he believes he cannot.
Face it, it was a flop and he appeared he never even read his own
report. He didn't even know what Fusion GPS was.
mixed nuts
2019-07-26 02:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
The only reason he did not is he believes he cannot.
Face it, it was a flop and he appeared he never even read his own
report. He didn't even know what Fusion GPS was.
That's because he was very conflicted, presumably, and didn't get the
highly classified memo that The President declassified to "LOCK HER UP".
--
Grizzly H.
Snit
2019-07-25 23:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
The only reason he did not is he believes he cannot.
Skeeter ran from this.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
The only reason he did not is he believes he cannot.
Nope. Mueller never made the determination whether Trump committed a
crime. In other words, he doesn't have evidence of that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-clarifies-comments-on-whether-he-could-indict-trump/ar-AAENVUI?li=BBnbcA1

The former FBI director had said in his report he never reached a
decision on whether Trump could or should be charged with obstruction
because of the OLC guidance.

In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House
Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to
"correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach
a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
Snit
2019-07-26 01:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
The only reason he did not is he believes he cannot.
Nope.  Mueller never made the determination whether Trump committed a
crime.
Nor could he. He did determine there was evidence enough to indict, but
he cannot do so to a sitting president.

But this is the evidence that could be used to impeach... and would be
if there was ANY chance of the Republicans upholding their oath. Nobody
thinks they would.
In other words, he doesn't have evidence of that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-clarifies-comments-on-whether-he-could-indict-trump/ar-AAENVUI?li=BBnbcA1
The former FBI director had said in his report he never reached a
decision on whether Trump could or should be charged with obstruction
because of the OLC guidance.
In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House
Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to
"correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach
a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied he did so. There is enough
evidence to have a trial though.
--
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.
mixed nuts
2019-07-25 23:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
He said he's not allowed to say that because of a 1973 memo.
--
Grizzly H.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by mixed nuts
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
He had the evidence to indict but does not feel he has the authority to
do so to a sitting president.
So he never said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
He said he's not allowed to say that because of a 1973 memo.
No, Snit lied, it's that simple.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get their
asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
is president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-clarifies-comments-on-whether-he-could-indict-trump/ar-AAENVUI?li=BBnbcA1

In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House
Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to
"correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach
a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier
opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on
Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we
would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a
crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
* * *
Earlier, during the Judiciary hearing, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of
Colorado also asked Mueller about charging Trump.

"Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else
with obstruction of justice?" Buck asked.

"We did not make that calculation," Mueller said, citing the OLC opinion.

You're really not very good at this sort of thing.
Snit
2019-07-26 01:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get
their asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting is
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-clarifies-comments-on-whether-he-could-indict-trump/ar-AAENVUI?li=BBnbcA1
In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House
Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to
"correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach
a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier
opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on
Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we
would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a
crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
    * * *
Earlier, during the Judiciary hearing, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of
Colorado also asked Mueller about charging Trump.
"Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else
with obstruction of justice?" Buck asked.
"We did not make that calculation," Mueller said, citing the OLC opinion.
     You're really not very good at this sort of thing.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"

Mueller: "That is correct."
-----

I was asked to show that text. I showed it. Mueller did not indict Trump
BECAUSE he feels he cannot do so to a sitting president. If he could he
would have.

The evidence is there to do so... but we have to wait until he is out of
office... hopefully after his first term.

Now he COULD be impeached, but the Republicans will *never* uphold their
oaths. That is 100% predictable (on this issue, at least).
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get
their asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting is
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-clarifies-comments-on-whether-he-could-indict-trump/ar-AAENVUI?li=BBnbcA1
In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House
Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to
"correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not
reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier
opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on
Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we
would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a
crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
     * * *
Earlier, during the Judiciary hearing, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of
Colorado also asked Mueller about charging Trump.
"Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone
else with obstruction of justice?" Buck asked.
"We did not make that calculation," Mueller said, citing the OLC opinion.
      You're really not very good at this sort of thing.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
I was asked to show that text. I showed it. Mueller did not indict Trump
BECAUSE he feels he cannot do so to a sitting president. If he could he
would have.
The evidence is there to do so... but we have to wait until he is out of
office... hopefully after his first term.
You poor benighted thing, you can't even understand (as I pointed
out) that Mueller clarified and corrected the statement you so
blithely toss about.
Snit
2019-07-26 01:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
And you assume way to much cupcake. Did you see the libs get
their asses handed to them at the hearing today?
The Republicans refused to uphold their oaths when the material was in
writing... why would they change their tune when it was spoken?
Mooler proved it was a hoax and an attempt of the left to remove Trump
because he won.
Mueller said he would have indicted Trump if he could.
Please provide an actual Mueller quote where he said that.
But you won't.  You won't because you can't, because Mueller
has never said that.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting is
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-clarifies-comments-on-whether-he-could-indict-trump/ar-AAENVUI?li=BBnbcA1
In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House
Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to
"correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.
"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not
reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier
opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based
on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided
we would not make a determination as to whether the President
committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our
decision today."
     * * *
Earlier, during the Judiciary hearing, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of
Colorado also asked Mueller about charging Trump.
"Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone
else with obstruction of justice?" Buck asked.
"We did not make that calculation," Mueller said, citing the OLC opinion.
      You're really not very good at this sort of thing.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1154044886057775105
-----
Rep. Lieu: "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is
because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting
president. Correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
-----
I was asked to show that text. I showed it. Mueller did not indict
Trump BECAUSE he feels he cannot do so to a sitting president. If he
could he would have.
The evidence is there to do so... but we have to wait until he is out
of office... hopefully after his first term.
You poor benighted thing, you can't even understand (as I pointed
out) that Mueller clarified and corrected the statement you so
blithely toss about.
He made clarified but did not contradict. Sure.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:53:45 UTC
Permalink
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yes, it is legal to seek asylum, even if you're in the country
illegally. But it's still a crime to cross the border illegally and
"seeking asylum" is not a defense to the crime. Escaping poverty,
seeking a better economic life, is not grounds for asylum.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally, when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
And it is legal to do even if you are in the US.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at
a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply
for, or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
Yes, it is legal to seek asylum, even if you're in the country
illegally.  But it's still a crime to cross the border illegally and
"seeking asylum" is not a defense to the crime.  Escaping poverty,
seeking a better economic life, is not grounds for asylum.
You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 19:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Carroll ran from this. It is clear why... he realizes his claim that
child abuse is not REALLY child abuse unless you are caught suggests
that he is a child abuser.
Carroll has posted the idea that he is a child abuser, someone who
engages in or has engaged in a felony activity.
And now that he realizes he posted this he is going to snip any
reference to it.
Like where you snipped his reply refuting it?
There is no defense for child abuse...
Yet you defend child abuse by people from Central America
who abuse their children by dragging them two thousand miles
across Mexico.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Complete and utter bullshit... and suggests YOU have engaged in child
abuse.
Carroll ran from this. It is clear why... he realizes his claim that
child abuse is not REALLY child abuse unless you are caught suggests
that he is a child abuser.
Carroll has posted the idea that he is a child abuser, someone who
engages in or has engaged in a felony activity.
And now that he realizes he posted this he is going to snip any
reference to it.
Like where you snipped his reply refuting it?
There is no defense for child abuse...
Yet you defend child abuse by people from Central America
who abuse their children by dragging them two thousand miles
across Mexico.
This is a direct lie about my view.

You and other right wingers are defending felony child abuse tied to
redistribution of money to the for-profit prison corporations because
their parents MIGHT have committed a misdemeanor (though since seeking
asylum is legal that is not even a given). I cannot back the corporate
socialism that you are OK with, and even worse I will NEVER back child
abuse as you do.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 20:06:25 UTC
Permalink
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where would
they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders, that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal? They
don't have that idea. They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where
would they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
, that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal?  They
don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 22:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where
would they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
, that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal?  They
don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
No. You have to apply at an embassy or at a port of entry.
Snit
2019-07-25 22:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where
would they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
, that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal?  They
don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
No. You have to apply at an embassy or at a port of entry.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----

Nope.
--
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.
Skeeter
2019-07-25 23:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where
would they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
, that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal?  They
don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
No. You have to apply at an embassy or at a port of entry.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Snit ran from this because it ruins his view.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so tired
and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country which has
some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there. Where
would they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
  From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal?  They
don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
No. You have to apply at an embassy or at a port of entry.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
It's not legal to violate 8 U.S. Code § 1325. If you do, you may
or may not be entitled to asylum (economic hardship isn't grounds
for asylum), but you still committed a crime to gain entry into
the USA.
vallor
2019-07-26 01:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so
tired and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country
which has some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go
there. Where would they get the idea the US is in any way such a
country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
  From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
that they actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal? 
They don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's
not OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
No. You have to apply at an embassy or at a port of entry.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at
a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for,
or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
It's not legal to violate 8 U.S. Code § 1325. If you do, you may or may
not be entitled to asylum (economic hardship isn't grounds for asylum),
but you still committed a crime to gain entry into the USA.
Where did you pick up your law degree, Mr. Esq.?
--
-v
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
A Guatemalan who marches his child from Guatemala's northern
border to Mexico's northern border has committed child abuse.
Not if it's to get them to safety away from a more dangerous situation.
It's not.  They escaped whatever danger there was in Guatemala
when they entered Mexico.
And then they came to America... these huddled masses who are so
tired and poor, yearning to breathe free, need to find a country
which has some major symbol suggesting it is OK for them to go there.
Where would they get the idea the US is in any way such a country?
Where would they get the idea that USA has open borders
From right wingers who keep lying about people wanting that.
Post by Just Wondering
, that they
actually think their illegal border is crossing is legal?  They
don't have that idea.  They KNOW it's illegal. They KNOW it's not
OK just to come here without a passport or visa or some other
official federal government imprimatur to their border crossing.
It is legal to cross a border to seek asylum.
Whether someone crosses legally or illegally, and whether
someone can request asylum once across the border, are two
unrelated questions. "I seek asylum" is not a defense to
violating 8 U.S. Code § 1325.
Just Wondering
2019-07-25 20:12:04 UTC
Permalink
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will
denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally,
when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
The minute it has been deteremined by a USCIS agent, *not* a judge in a
courtroom proceeding, which is what Crackhead seems to believe should
happen, and if you lack any documentation (i.e. border crossing card)
you are here 'illegally' and you can be deported, no court proceeding
required. Snit would have the U.S. taxpayer pony up the $$ for every
single person who merely *claims* they need asylum to get free food,
free medical care, free representation at a (more costly) trial, etc.
This is insanity, of course, which is why you'll find someone like him
pushing it.
Notice you speak FOR me instead of reading what I say.
Where, in your mind, do you believe you've conveyed the idea that you're
opposing what I've just written above?
Where have you said you are opposed to killing Jews. Nowhere. By your
logic it is fair to say you are OK with killing Jews.
But your logic is idiotic.
You work to speak FOR me, and others, instead of actually reading and
understanding what they write.
Then you accuse people of slander for noting what you say --
demonstration your gross victim mentality.
And look below where you double down on speaking FOR me... making up a
ton of shit and attributing it to me. You lie about my views.
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).
I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.
Period.
Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
Actually, your position is worse
than the above, you would consider anyone coming across "innocent" of
attempting to gain access to our country and do so because you somehow
*know* that every single one of them isn't a terrorist, has only good
intentions, etc., forget about the fact that they may be in league with
drug or human traffic smuggling or whatever. We just don't need to look
because, well... people are in trouble, dammit! Clue time for you, some
people are *always* gonna be in trouble... but you don't upend measures
of security because that's idiotic. You don't belong here, Snit, I'm not
sure where you do belong but it definitely isn't here. Maybe if we still
had enough insane asylums we could find a place for you...
"There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?" - Snit
And you have no answer. None. Your own comments suggest you are a child
abuser.
That's pretty good evidence that your mind is gone. Accurately stating
the reality that an event of child abuse, which is a legal term, must be
determined by a set of rules whereby the alleged perpetrator is presumed
innocent until that person has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, is backed by a long history across many so societies that "This
right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies
and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes
and constitutions:"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence>
IOW, you're not only out of step with basic legal reality, you're so
detached from other realities that you conflate things that find you
arriving at 'conclusions' that are beyond the absurd. Someone really
needs to control your access to your meds IMO.
So where is the presumption of innocence for non-white poor people?
It arises at the time a person accused of a crime is in court
being tried on the charges against him. It means that the accused doesn't
have to prove he's innocent, that the prosecutor must prove
he is guilty, It has nothing to do with what goes on during
pretrial investigations, arrests, and detentions.
Snit
2019-07-25 21:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will
denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally,
when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
The minute it has been deteremined by a USCIS agent, *not* a judge in a
courtroom proceeding, which is what Crackhead seems to believe should
happen, and if you lack any documentation (i.e. border crossing card)
you are here 'illegally' and you can be deported, no court proceeding
required. Snit would have the U.S. taxpayer pony up the $$ for every
single person who merely *claims* they need asylum to get free food,
free medical care, free representation at a (more costly) trial, etc.
This is insanity, of course, which is why you'll find someone like him
pushing it.
Notice you speak FOR me instead of reading what I say.
Where, in your mind, do you believe you've conveyed the idea that you're
opposing what I've just written above?
Where have you said you are opposed to killing Jews. Nowhere. By your
logic it is fair to say you are OK with killing Jews.
But your logic is idiotic.
You work to speak FOR me, and others, instead of actually reading and
understanding what they write.
Then you accuse people of slander for noting what you say --
demonstration your gross victim mentality.
And look below where you double down on speaking FOR me... making up a
ton of shit and attributing it to me. You lie about my views.
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations
only makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though
for those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents
did so).
I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.
Period.
Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
Actually, your position is worse
than the above, you would consider anyone coming across "innocent" of
attempting to gain access to our country and do so because you somehow
*know* that every single one of them isn't a terrorist, has only good
intentions, etc., forget about the fact that they may be in league with
drug or human traffic smuggling or whatever. We just don't need to look
because, well... people are in trouble, dammit! Clue time for you, some
people are *always* gonna be in trouble... but you don't upend measures
of security because that's idiotic. You don't belong here, Snit, I'm not
sure where you do belong but it definitely isn't here. Maybe if we still
had enough insane asylums we could find a place for you...
"There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?" - Snit
And you have no answer. None. Your own comments suggest you are a
child abuser.
That's pretty good evidence that your mind is gone. Accurately stating
the reality that an event of child abuse, which is a legal term, must be
determined by a set of rules whereby the alleged perpetrator is presumed
innocent until that person has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, is backed by a long history across many so societies that "This
right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies
and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes
and constitutions:"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence>
IOW, you're not only out of step with basic legal reality, you're so
detached from other realities that you conflate things that find you
arriving at 'conclusions' that are beyond the absurd. Someone really
needs to control your access to your meds IMO.
So where is the presumption of innocence for non-white poor people?
It arises at the time a person accused of a crime is in court
They have not gone to court... and are being abused.

I am against violating human rights. Are you?

Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Post by Just Wondering
being tried on the charges against him.  It means that the accused doesn't
have to prove he's innocent, that the prosecutor must prove
he is guilty,  It has nothing to do with what goes on during
pretrial investigations, arrests, and detentions.
--
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.
Just Wondering
2019-07-26 01:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will
denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally,
when in
any cases it is HIGHLY questionable (it is legal to do so to seek
asylum) you do not have the same standard.
It's legal to seek asylum if you do it "legally" you moron.
The minute it has been deteremined by a USCIS agent, *not* a judge in a
courtroom proceeding, which is what Crackhead seems to believe should
happen, and if you lack any documentation (i.e. border crossing card)
you are here 'illegally' and you can be deported, no court proceeding
required. Snit would have the U.S. taxpayer pony up the $$ for every
single person who merely *claims* they need asylum to get free food,
free medical care, free representation at a (more costly) trial, etc.
This is insanity, of course, which is why you'll find someone like him
pushing it.
Notice you speak FOR me instead of reading what I say.
Where, in your mind, do you believe you've conveyed the idea that you're
opposing what I've just written above?
Where have you said you are opposed to killing Jews. Nowhere. By your
logic it is fair to say you are OK with killing Jews.
But your logic is idiotic.
You work to speak FOR me, and others, instead of actually reading and
understanding what they write.
Then you accuse people of slander for noting what you say --
demonstration your gross victim mentality.
And look below where you double down on speaking FOR me... making up
a ton of shit and attributing it to me. You lie about my views.
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations
only makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though
for those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their
parents did so).
I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.
Period.
Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
Actually, your position is worse
than the above, you would consider anyone coming across "innocent" of
attempting to gain access to our country and do so because you somehow
*know* that every single one of them isn't a terrorist, has only good
intentions, etc., forget about the fact that they may be in league with
drug or human traffic smuggling or whatever. We just don't need to look
because, well... people are in trouble, dammit! Clue time for you, some
people are *always* gonna be in trouble... but you don't upend measures
of security because that's idiotic. You don't belong here, Snit, I'm not
sure where you do belong but it definitely isn't here. Maybe if we still
had enough insane asylums we could find a place for you...
"There is no slander in noting what you have said publicly: you suggested
YOU are a child abuser when you tried to defend child abusers saying it
is not really abuse unless the abuser is found guilty in court.
Why would anyone but a child abuser offer such an idiotic defense of
child abuse?" - Snit
And you have no answer. None. Your own comments suggest you are a
child abuser.
That's pretty good evidence that your mind is gone. Accurately stating
the reality that an event of child abuse, which is a legal term, must be
determined by a set of rules whereby the alleged perpetrator is presumed
innocent until that person has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, is backed by a long history across many so societies that "This
right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies
and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes
and constitutions:"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence>
IOW, you're not only out of step with basic legal reality, you're so
detached from other realities that you conflate things that find you
arriving at 'conclusions' that are beyond the absurd. Someone really
needs to control your access to your meds IMO.
So where is the presumption of innocence for non-white poor people?
It arises at the time a person accused of a crime is in court
They have not gone to court... and are being abused.
Whether that is true or false has nothing to do with the presumption
of innocence.
Post by Snit
I am against violating human rights. Are you?
I am not against arresting and detaining someone based on probable
cause that he has committed a crime.
Post by Snit
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations. Actual proof, not some whiny
left-wing liberal snowflake characterizations of conditions.
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
being tried on the charges against him.  It means that the accused
doesn't have to prove he's innocent, that the prosecutor must prove
he is guilty,  It has nothing to do with what goes on during
pretrial investigations, arrests, and detentions.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-25 21:22:59 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-07-25, Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)
But you back the Nazi-like idea people are required to show "their papers".
What countries can be traveled to without any "papers"? Are they all
"Nazi-like" because they want *some* form of "papers"?
Snit
2019-07-25 21:39:16 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
When it's proven I will denounce it. Until it's innocent until proven
guilty.
Do you hold the same standard for immigrants?
Immigrants who illegally crossed the border, you mean.
For those who abuse kids you say: "When it's proven I will denounce it.
Until it's innocent until proven guilty."
Being that I'm not interested in *your* version of 'justice' (a Lord of
the Flies spinoff or some such) I'll readily admit I'm good going with
the presumption of innocence concept.
Accept when it comes to non-whites seeking asylum.
https://www.rescue.org/.../it-legal-cross-us-border-seek...
-----
Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a
port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or
request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
-----
You know you don't really belong
in this country, right?
Notice there is no presumption of innocence in your comment there.
But for those who are accused of crossing the border illegally
If they are *across* the border and lack documentation it's what's known
as 'self evident', genius. Forget about you knowing anything about 'the
law', you can't display even a modicum of common sense.
One is not required to carry documentation in this country.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/02/do-you-have-to-carry-id-with-you-at-all-times.html
-----
Do You Have to Carry ID With You at All Times?
....
Despite the questionable legal status of Arizona's immigration laws,
there is no place in the nation where simply being in public without ID
is illegal.
However, there are several states in which it is an arrestable offense
if you refuse to identify yourself to police. The U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled that these kinds of laws can be legal, as long as the officers had
reasonable suspicion to detain you in the first place.
In states with these laws, like Arizona and Nevada, you may be required
to give police your full legal name. But you don't have to answer any
other questions, and you shouldn't need any form of identification.
-----
But you back the Nazi-like idea people are required to show "their papers".
I am against felony child abuse of non-white kids, and the fact it is
being done by the US government and for-profit prison corporations only
makes it more repulsive to me. The fact their parents MIGHT have
committed a misdemeanor does not in any way make it OK to me (though for
those of you who it does, it has not even been shown their parents did so).
I. AM. AGAINST. CHILD. ABUSE.
Period.
Keep in mind this is what you are arguing against.
Carroll snipped, ran, and change the topic FROM people IN a country
needing papers to needing papers to travel to a DIFFERENT country.

Carroll lies non-stop.
--
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.
Frances J Bagby
2019-07-25 23:44:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:43:14 -0700, Snit
It's not just my belief, it's a fact there are no posts by you on this
topic during the Obama administration and your "position" shows you to
be partisan due to this fact.
You're not being fair, "Steve". The issue wasn't publicized, back
then.
In a word: Bull!
That word isn't going to save your bacon, "Steve".
When you're wrong and I'm calling you out on it, any word works, "chrisv".
The idea there wasn't media attention of the topic of child abuse at the
border then isn't reality, "chrisv".
Obviously it was non-zero, but it wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is
now, "Steve".
There was child abuse under Obama at a level high enough for the ACLU to
file suit, fool. That Obama was a media darling and Trump is their devil
isn't news... nor is the fact that the news is leftist, as I've shown you
in the past.
And nobody here has defended that. Nobody says it is OK.
Remember my view: CHILD ABUSE IS WRONG. PERIOD.
You on the other hand say it should not count as child abuse unless one
is caught and convicted -- suggesting you have engaged in child abuse
yourself.
There's lots of issues in the world to complain about
"Steve".
And why did you ignore my point, that conditions are worse, now,
"Steve"?
Because it has nothing to do with the *existence* of "child abuse",
"chrisv". Aside from that reality, how much "worse" does it need to get
when your administration has a lawsuit filed over it?
(snip faulty assessment by one who calls himself a "liberal")
Snit ignored this, why does Snit run?
Loading...