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
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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 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
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)?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Loading...