Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 17:30:00 UTC
Permalink
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do?
Follow the Constitution. Accept equal rights as axiomatic.
None of this stops them from doing their job.
Knowing that a person can just refuse to speak at all and that can be
the end of things, how does that square with security, from preventing
child traffickers, drug traffickers, terrorists, etc. from coming
across?
Compare your comments there with your earlier comments about you feeling
YOU had the right to not speak to the police talked to you about your
harassment.
Your lie here aside, I've acknowledged they have the right to remain
silent, the question is what should be done about it. People like you
refuse to respond so grownups necessarily take matters in hand and deal
with it. You don't like that so you piss an moan about laws you believe
shouldn't be followed <shrug>.
Does it not occur to you that it makes no sense to patrol the
border if someone can just 'silence' their way across? If you're not for
open borders and you won't give CBP what's needed to do the job, then
you *should* be for building a wall. But you're not. So tell me how you
figure you're *not* sending the message that you're for open borders.
How does it work in your mind? The border search exception clearly
doesn't "Follow the Constitution", despite the Martinez-Fuerte ruling as
based on impracticality (pragmatism in action, Snit,), so we know you
must be against it. Your stated positions are clearly contradictory.
<crickets still chirping>
Skeeter
2019-07-26 17:30:08 UTC
Permalink
The losing left supports it, as well as free shit for them.
Notice you offer NO evidence anyone supports it (hint, if you actually
followed the left you could pull up a few examples -- but not many...
and many more denouncing it. Hint: watch the first Democratic debates.)
I did and they all raised there hands when asked.
Cite.
Oh. You made that up.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/every-dem-on-debate-stage-endorses-
publicly-funded-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants/
Snit
2019-07-26 18:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
The losing left supports it, as well as free shit for them.
Notice you offer NO evidence anyone supports it (hint, if you actually
followed the left you could pull up a few examples -- but not many...
and many more denouncing it. Hint: watch the first Democratic debates.)
I did and they all raised there hands when asked.
Cite.
Oh. You made that up.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/every-dem-on-debate-stage-endorses-
publicly-funded-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants/
-----
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders. Then he got ashamed and
attributed it to others.
-----

You went from open borders to caring for those we have detained. But
this shows you know you cannot back Carroll's claim. 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.
Skeeter
2019-07-26 17:32:20 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
A smackdown of his own making, tacitly labeling them bigots. I wonder if
they'd cut him slack if we tell them he's confused on the definition of
the term? ;)
To not contradict me is a smack down in the minds of idiots. Got it.
Are you saying the Mexican border guards are not profiling? Just the
white ones?
Snit
2019-07-26 18:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
A smackdown of his own making, tacitly labeling them bigots. I wonder if
they'd cut him slack if we tell them he's confused on the definition of
the term? ;)
To not contradict me is a smack down in the minds of idiots. Got it.
Are you saying the Mexican border guards are not profiling? Just the
white ones?
No. Seriously, WTF? Did you borrow some of Carroll's pills and glue he
always talks about?
--
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 17:38:06 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
A smackdown of his own making, tacitly labeling them bigots. I wonder if
they'd cut him slack if we tell them he's confused on the definition of
the term? ;)
What actions of theirs are you saying is bigoted? And be specific with
examples of who and what.

But you will not. You are trying to change the topic from you insisting
that you have the right to remain silent when asked about your
harassment but others do not have that right.
--
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
2019-07-26 17:38:16 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.com says...
"Directly" here doesn't mean they can't pass through other states on the
way to the one where they seek to claim asylum. It just means they can't
stop in one of those states to establish residence there, and then later
still claim asylum from the original situation in yet another.
Border-jumpers have been offered refuge in Mexico, and refused it, heading to
the US instead. Only Mexicans can come "directly" into the US, but that's an
entirely different problem.
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
Wealthy white presidents make the best laws and, when The President
makes the laws, people don't lose time from their jobs voting for
congressional representatives.
--
Grizzly H.
Snit
2019-07-26 17:38:46 UTC
Permalink
I have no obligation to do ANY research for him. I made a clear and
simple point: Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing
so based on the color of skin or race is bigotry.
Have you tried to sneak across the border lately? Because if you did and
got caught you would be detained and profiled, no matter what color you
are.
That would not be profiling based on race... and hence is not even on topic.
--
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 18:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I have no obligation to do ANY research for him. I made a clear and
simple point: Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing
so based on the color of skin or race is bigotry.
Have you tried to sneak across the border lately? Because if you did and
got caught you would be detained and profiled, no matter what color you
are.
That would not be profiling based on race... and hence is not even on topic.
It's plenty on topic but you tend to divert when refuted.
Snit
2019-07-26 17:39:39 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
Nor of anything else to do with their profiles. Of course. Why would I
bring that up out of the blue? Why do you?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything about their race.
You accuse them of profiling people other than white, yet they are
brown. Now spin away coward.
Accuse WHOM? You have not even given a name of someone no less spoken of
a given person's actions. You are asking me to judge a whole group of
people to try to show bigotry. Oy. Do you understand how you just shot
yourself in the foot?
--
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 18:47:00 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
Nor of anything else to do with their profiles. Of course. Why would I
bring that up out of the blue? Why do you?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything about their race.
You accuse them of profiling people other than white, yet they are
brown. Now spin away coward.
Rather than spin Snit ran from this.
Snit
2019-07-26 17:41:32 UTC
Permalink
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. 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
2019-07-26 17:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
Let's get back on topic. Otherwise law-abiding people should
answer gun control laws with civil disobedience. If you're a
peaceful gun owner and some knuckle dragging legislature says
you have to give up your semiautomatic sporting rifle and your
20-round magazines, and submit yourself for registration as a
gun owner, you should not comply.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
Let's get back on topic. Otherwise law-abiding people should
answer gun control laws with civil disobedience. If you're a
peaceful gun owner and some knuckle dragging legislature says
you have to give up your semiautomatic sporting rifle and your
20-round magazines, and submit yourself for registration as a
gun owner, you should not comply.
And there you have it! ;)
Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛
2019-07-26 18:01:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:48:40 -0600, LO AND BEHOLD; Just Wondering
<***@jw.com> determined that the following was of great importance and
subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<W1H_E.88814$***@fx07.iad>:

✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 7/26/2019 11:41 AM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 7/26/19 10:24 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 2019-07-26, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 7/26/19 10:00 AM, Skeeter wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ that, right?
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Let's get back on topic. Otherwise law-abiding people should answer gun
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ control laws with civil disobedience. If you're a peaceful gun owner
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ and some knuckle dragging legislature says you have to give up your
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ semiautomatic sporting rifle and your 20-round magazines, and submit
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ yourself for registration as a gun owner, you should not comply.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡

that would be easy but gun nuts have to yammer about their guns instead of just having them and STFU-ing about them.
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]

THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Snit
2019-07-26 18:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head. Fair enough.
Let's get back on topic.  Otherwise law-abiding people should
answer gun control laws with civil disobedience.
The reason many gun nuts say they need their guns is to fight against
the government when it gets out of control.

We are there.

Time to put up or shut up. If you are not going to NOW stand up, with
peaceful protests at first, to stop the abuse going on in our government
then what value is your argument?

Where is the NRA in demanding that laws be passed to work to reduce
Russian influence?

Where is the NRA in demanding that gerrymandering be ended?

Where is the NRA in demanding that our for-profit prison system be
ended... a system that has helped make the US have 25% of the world's
prison population?

Where is the NRA in demanding that non-white kids not be abused?

When they NRA and its followers actually back what they say then I will
take them seriously... but for now the big gun argument has been shown
to be a complete and utter farce. It is not at all about fighting back
against a government out of control. That is a lie.
If you're a
peaceful gun owner and some knuckle dragging legislature says
you have to give up your semiautomatic sporting rifle and your
20-round magazines, and submit yourself for registration as a
gun owner, you should not comply.
You should be marching in the street for equal rights and putting your
effort where you claim it is for your right to guns. If you do not fight
for the right for others to live free and have their vote count then why
do you think others should come to your rescue other than because you
think you have special entitlements.
--
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 17:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head.
LOL! Being that he swore to uphold them, I'll give ya this one.

Me: 101,247,912

Snit: 1

;)

But, seriously, why are you running from *so* much here? You used to
have a stronger backbone. Old age catching up with you? You have to be
aware that you're 'prescription' (not that kind) limiting CBP ability
is tantamount to open borders so why not just admit it's what you
want?
Snit
2019-07-26 18:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
I am not a libtard, I believe in the rule of law.
Great: so how do you want to deal with Trump's law breaking?
Why would that be a problem for a person who just stated that not all
laws should be followed? You're making no sense... again. You know that,
right?
The concept of civil disobedience goes over your head.
LOL! Being that he swore to uphold them, I'll give ya this one.
Me: 101,247,912
Snit: 1
;)
But, seriously, why are you running from *so* much here? You used to
have a stronger backbone. Old age catching up with you? You have to be
aware that you're 'prescription' (not that kind) limiting CBP ability
is tantamount to open borders so why not just admit it's what you
want?
I have no obligation to follow you down every rabbit hole as you run.
Here are two questions you repeatedly run from:

1) Why not speak more about your self incriminating crap about how child
abuse is not a crime in your view unless you get caught?

2) Can you explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but not
right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist threat
the country faces?

But you will ALWAYS run and try to change topics.
--
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 18:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
2) Can you explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but not
right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist threat
the country faces?
He never said that, you did. I see a pattern forming here.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short of
mathematical and physics stuff.
1.  Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
But more reliable than your empty denial... and keep in mind there are
many reports and pictures. Yes, pictures can be manipulated, too.

And also keep in mind that there are often only eye witness accounts of
people entering unless they are on a camera somewhere!
2.  What you offer isn't eyewitness testimony, it's hearsay within
hearsay within hearsay.  And it was collected, and reported, by
people with a built-in bias.  It wouldn't even be admissible in
court.
This is not a court... this is us looking at evidence and their claims
are FAR more powerful than your utterly empty denials.
3.  It sure does get proofier than that.  Photographs would be
proofier.  The article does have three photos, but they don't show
abuse or any human rights violation.  Police reports would be
proofier - none there.  Court records - none.  Even objective
eyewitnesses would be better - there are none.
All more powerful than your empty denials. And remember this is just one
article on it... there are MANY more. You can get many images here (yes,
images can be faked but they are more conclusive than your denial):

https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+abuse+camps+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyMi0l9PjAhVLKqwKHWERB_cQ_AUIECgB&biw=960&bih=766&dpr=2
--
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 18:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short of
mathematical and physics stuff.
1.  Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
But more reliable than your empty denial... and keep in mind there are
many reports and pictures. Yes, pictures can be manipulated, too.
And also keep in mind that there are often only eye witness accounts of
people entering unless they are on a camera somewhere!
I didn't deny, I asked for proof. There's a big difference.
So far you haven't offered proof. Without it, I am entitled
to be skeptical.
Post by Snit
2.  What you offer isn't eyewitness testimony, it's hearsay within
hearsay within hearsay.  And it was collected, and reported, by
people with a built-in bias.  It wouldn't even be admissible in
court.
This is not a court... this is us looking at evidence and their claims
are FAR more powerful than your utterly empty denials.
Again, I didn't deny, I asked for proof. A reporter saying an
unidentified someone told him that some unidentified attorney told
him that some unidentified person told HIM something at an unidentified
time and place isn't even evidence, much less proof. But that's all
you've dished up so far.
Post by Snit
3.  It sure does get proofier than that.  Photographs would be
proofier.  The article does have three photos, but they don't show
abuse or any human rights violation.  Police reports would be
proofier - none there.  Court records - none.  Even objective
eyewitnesses would be better - there are none.
All more powerful than your empty denials. And remember this is just one
article on it... there are MANY more. You can get many images here (yes,
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+abuse+camps+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyMi0l9PjAhVLKqwKHWERB_cQ_AUIECgB&biw=960&bih=766&dpr=2
Yes, your search pulls up lots of photos. I don't see a single one
of them that actually shows anyone being abused. How about you pick
out just one that you think exemplifies your claim and post a link
to it?
Snit
2019-07-26 19:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short
of mathematical and physics stuff.
1.  Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
But more reliable than your empty denial... and keep in mind there are
many reports and pictures. Yes, pictures can be manipulated, too.
And also keep in mind that there are often only eye witness accounts
of people entering unless they are on a camera somewhere!
I didn't deny, I asked for proof.
Glad you do not deny that there is very strong evidence. Evidence beyond
any reasonable doubt, really. Evidence in the form of quotes from those
in the concentration camps, images of the concentration camps, reporters
from multiple sources who visited the concentrations camps, and reports
from others who were allowed into the concentration camps.

Excellent to see us find a place of agreement.
Post by Just Wondering
There's a big difference.
So far you haven't offered proof.  Without it, I am entitled
to be skeptical.
And I am free to note your claim of skepticism is meaningless in the
face of overwhelming evidence.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
2.  What you offer isn't eyewitness testimony, it's hearsay within
hearsay within hearsay.  And it was collected, and reported, by
people with a built-in bias.  It wouldn't even be admissible in
court.
This is not a court... this is us looking at evidence and their claims
are FAR more powerful than your utterly empty denials.
Again, I didn't deny, I asked for proof.
Glad you are not denying what is shown in pictures, what multiple
reporters from different well respected agencies have said, and what
those held in the concentration camps are saying.
Post by Just Wondering
A reporter saying an
unidentified someone told him that some unidentified attorney told
him that some unidentified person told HIM something at an unidentified
time and place isn't even evidence, much less proof.  But that's all
you've dished up so far.
I have offered FAR more than you have to show that ANY of them crossed
the border illegally, no less all of them. In fact we know not all
did... at least one is a US citizen who was held for close to a month
and did not cross the border.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
3.  It sure does get proofier than that.  Photographs would be
proofier.  The article does have three photos, but they don't show
abuse or any human rights violation.  Police reports would be
proofier - none there.  Court records - none.  Even objective
eyewitnesses would be better - there are none.
All more powerful than your empty denials. And remember this is just
one article on it... there are MANY more. You can get many images here
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+abuse+camps+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyMi0l9PjAhVLKqwKHWERB_cQ_AUIECgB&biw=960&bih=766&dpr=2
Yes, your search pulls up lots of photos.  I don't see a single one
of them that actually shows anyone being abused.
At least on my system the story the first pic came from:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border

No real blankets, no less cots.

And we can find much more info in seconds:

https://www.nationalmemo.com/doctor-says-detention-centers-for-migrant-children-resemble-torture-facilities/
-----
Doctor Says Detention Centers For Migrant Children Resemble ‘Torture
Facilities’
-----

In my previous list I forgot the comments of doctors. I am sure there
are others I forgot and you would ignore.

But you trust they are all law breakers based on ... what?
Post by Just Wondering
How about you pick
out just one that you think exemplifies your claim and post a link
to it?
Sure. And there are many others.
--
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 19:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short
of mathematical and physics stuff.
1.  Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
But more reliable than your empty denial... and keep in mind there
are many reports and pictures. Yes, pictures can be manipulated, too.
And also keep in mind that there are often only eye witness accounts
of people entering unless they are on a camera somewhere!
I didn't deny, I asked for proof.
Glad you do not deny that there is very strong evidence. Evidence beyond
any reasonable doubt, really. Evidence in the form of quotes from those
in the concentration camps, images of the concentration camps, reporters
from multiple sources who visited the concentrations camps, and reports
from others who were allowed into the concentration camps.
Excellent to see us find a place of agreement.
Post by Just Wondering
There's a big difference.
So far you haven't offered proof.  Without it, I am entitled
to be skeptical.
And I am free to note your claim of skepticism is meaningless in the
face of overwhelming evidence.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
2.  What you offer isn't eyewitness testimony, it's hearsay within
hearsay within hearsay.  And it was collected, and reported, by
people with a built-in bias.  It wouldn't even be admissible in
court.
This is not a court... this is us looking at evidence and their
claims are FAR more powerful than your utterly empty denials.
Again, I didn't deny, I asked for proof.
Glad you are not denying what is shown in pictures, what multiple
reporters from different well respected agencies have said, and what
those held in the concentration camps are saying.
Post by Just Wondering
A reporter saying an unidentified someone told him that some
unidentified attorney told
him that some unidentified person told HIM something at an unidentified
time and place isn't even evidence, much less proof.  But that's all
you've dished up so far.
I have offered FAR more than you have to show that ANY of them crossed
the border illegally, no less all of them. In fact we know not all
did... at least one is a US citizen who was held for close to a month
and did not cross the border.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
3.  It sure does get proofier than that.  Photographs would be
proofier.  The article does have three photos, but they don't show
abuse or any human rights violation.  Police reports would be
proofier - none there.  Court records - none.  Even objective
eyewitnesses would be better - there are none.
All more powerful than your empty denials. And remember this is just
one article on it... there are MANY more. You can get many images
here (yes, images can be faked but they are more conclusive than your
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+abuse+camps+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyMi0l9PjAhVLKqwKHWERB_cQ_AUIECgB&biw=960&bih=766&dpr=2
Yes, your search pulls up lots of photos.  I don't see a single one
of them that actually shows anyone being abused.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border
No real blankets, no less cots.
But also no abuse.
Post by Snit
https://www.nationalmemo.com/doctor-says-detention-centers-for-migrant-children-resemble-torture-facilities/
The National Memo and the American Independent. No bias THERE.
(dripping with sarcasm).
The accompanying photo again doesn't show abuse.
Post by Snit
In my previous list I forgot the comments of doctors. I am sure there
are others I forgot and you would ignore.
But you trust they are all law breakers based on ... what?
What I trust is that the adults are accused of being law breakers.
And to all appearances, the children they dragged with them are
victims of abuse by them. You say you are against abuse, when
will you cry out against THAT abuse?
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
How about you pick out just one that you think exemplifies
your claim and post a link to it?
Sure. And there are many others.
So do it already.
Snit
2019-07-26 19:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short
of mathematical and physics stuff.
1.  Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.
But more reliable than your empty denial... and keep in mind there
are many reports and pictures. Yes, pictures can be manipulated, too.
And also keep in mind that there are often only eye witness accounts
of people entering unless they are on a camera somewhere!
I didn't deny, I asked for proof.
Glad you do not deny that there is very strong evidence. Evidence
beyond any reasonable doubt, really. Evidence in the form of quotes
from those in the concentration camps, images of the concentration
camps, reporters from multiple sources who visited the concentrations
camps, and reports from others who were allowed into the concentration
camps.
Excellent to see us find a place of agreement.
Post by Just Wondering
There's a big difference.
So far you haven't offered proof.  Without it, I am entitled
to be skeptical.
And I am free to note your claim of skepticism is meaningless in the
face of overwhelming evidence.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
2.  What you offer isn't eyewitness testimony, it's hearsay within
hearsay within hearsay.  And it was collected, and reported, by
people with a built-in bias.  It wouldn't even be admissible in
court.
This is not a court... this is us looking at evidence and their
claims are FAR more powerful than your utterly empty denials.
Again, I didn't deny, I asked for proof.
Glad you are not denying what is shown in pictures, what multiple
reporters from different well respected agencies have said, and what
those held in the concentration camps are saying.
Post by Just Wondering
A reporter saying an unidentified someone told him that some
unidentified attorney told
him that some unidentified person told HIM something at an unidentified
time and place isn't even evidence, much less proof.  But that's all
you've dished up so far.
I have offered FAR more than you have to show that ANY of them crossed
the border illegally, no less all of them. In fact we know not all
did... at least one is a US citizen who was held for close to a month
and did not cross the border.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
3.  It sure does get proofier than that.  Photographs would be
proofier.  The article does have three photos, but they don't show
abuse or any human rights violation.  Police reports would be
proofier - none there.  Court records - none.  Even objective
eyewitnesses would be better - there are none.
All more powerful than your empty denials. And remember this is just
one article on it... there are MANY more. You can get many images
here (yes, images can be faked but they are more conclusive than
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+abuse+camps+trump&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyMi0l9PjAhVLKqwKHWERB_cQ_AUIECgB&biw=960&bih=766&dpr=2
Yes, your search pulls up lots of photos.  I don't see a single one
of them that actually shows anyone being abused.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border
No real blankets, no less cots.
But also no abuse.
Post by Snit
https://www.nationalmemo.com/doctor-says-detention-centers-for-migrant-children-resemble-torture-facilities/
The National Memo and the American Independent.  No bias THERE.
(dripping with sarcasm).
The accompanying photo again doesn't show abuse.
Post by Snit
In my previous list I forgot the comments of doctors. I am sure there
are others I forgot and you would ignore.
But you trust they are all law breakers based on ... what?
What I trust is that the adults are accused of being law breakers.
But no evidence they are law breakers. And no evidence they have even
been formally charged?

Do you have ANYTHING? Reports from reputable sources? Images? Doctors
comments? Anything at all?

I bet not.
Post by Just Wondering
And to all appearances, the children they dragged with them are
victims of abuse by them.
A claim you will never back. See, you want evidence but reject:

* Pictures of crappy conditions in the concentration camps.
* Reports from multiple reputable organizations.
* Comments from doctors who have visited the concentration camps.
* Reports from others who have visited the concentration camps.
* Quotes from the people in the concentration camps.
Post by Just Wondering
You say you are against abuse, when
will you cry out against THAT abuse?
About your unsupported claims of abuse. If it turns out to be true I do
not back it. But think of what you DO back: 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 Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
How about you pick out just one that you think exemplifies
your claim and post a link to it?
Sure. And there are many others.
So do it already.
Done. Repeatedly. But here is more.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1372&bih=978&tbm=nws&ei=XVs7XfzoIJCGtQXQkp_wDg&q=detention+camps+usa&oq=detention+camps+&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l10.2632.5705.0.9276.11.6.5.0.0.0.118.567.4j2.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.191....0.i9zaZit9AWg

Lots there. Tons. And government propaganda denying it. Like the Nazis did.
--
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 20:06:28 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
In my previous list I forgot the comments of doctors. I am sure there
are others I forgot and you would ignore.
But you trust they are all law breakers based on ... what?
What I trust is that the adults are accused of being law breakers.
And to all appearances, the children they dragged with them are
victims of abuse by them. You say you are against abuse, when
will you cry out against THAT abuse?
Not fitting his anti-Trump narrative, he won't.

Notably, he never complained about child abuse during the Obama
administration, not even when the ACLU sued them over it.
Snit
2019-07-26 22:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
In my previous list I forgot the comments of doctors. I am sure there
are others I forgot and you would ignore.
But you trust they are all law breakers based on ... what?
What I trust is that the adults are accused of being law breakers.
And to all appearances, the children they dragged with them are
victims of abuse by them. You say you are against abuse, when
will you cry out against THAT abuse?
Not fitting his anti-Trump narrative, he won't.
You call a pro-equal-right and pro-human-rights worldview an anti-Trump
view... which shows what you think of Trump. Fair enough.
Post by Steve Carroll
Notably, he never complained about child abuse during the Obama
administration, not even when the ACLU sued them over it.
You never spoke of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others during that time.
--
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 23:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Notably, he never complained about child abuse during the Obama
administration, not even when the ACLU sued them over it.
You never spoke of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others during that time.
Because it never happened.
Snit
2019-07-26 23:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Notably, he never complained about child abuse during the Obama
administration, not even when the ACLU sued them over it.
You never spoke of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others during that time.
Because it never happened.
While you might claim to be one of Carroll's socks, you are 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.
Skeeter
2019-07-26 23:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Notably, he never complained about child abuse during the Obama
administration, not even when the ACLU sued them over it.
You never spoke of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others during that time.
Because it never happened.
While you might claim to be one of Carroll's socks, you are not.
I never claimed that liar.
Snit
2019-07-26 23:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Notably, he never complained about child abuse during the Obama
administration, not even when the ACLU sued them over it.
You never spoke of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others during that time.
Because it never happened.
While you might claim to be one of Carroll's socks, you are not.
I never claimed that liar.
See above where you speak for Carroll.
--
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 18:14:32 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.com says...
"Directly" here doesn't mean they can't pass through other states on the
way to the one where they seek to claim asylum. It just means they can't
stop in one of those states to establish residence there, and then later
still claim asylum from the original situation in yet another.
Border-jumpers have been offered refuge in Mexico, and refused it, heading to
the US instead. Only Mexicans can come "directly" into the US, but that's an
entirely different problem.
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
By law you have the right to asylum and the right to not self-incriminate.
But you don't have the right to cross illegally.
Well, the legal right... moral might be different. But even ignoring
that, you do have the right to cross a border legally.

Not sure why you need things put on such a dumbed down level.
You trying to twist that to say this means open borders is you showing a
failure to respect the law.
I didn't say that, you did.
I am noting your twisting.
But you know what, not all laws SHOULD be followed. Slavery was once
legal you know.
Admission that you refuse to follow the law makes my point above.
I believe in civil disobedience.
--
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 18:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 18:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Seems to me he's gone a step further, civil disobedience, as defined by
Snit, means you can go buy yourself a machine gun if you'd like, screw
the paperwork (and the 1934 Firearms Act) ;)
Skeeter
2019-07-26 19:02:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <qhfidc$p81$***@dont-email.me>, "Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none
says...
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Seems to me he's gone a step further, civil disobedience, as defined by
Snit, means you can go buy yourself a machine gun if you'd like, screw
the paperwork (and the 1934 Firearms Act) ;)
I can drink and drive too, I don't agree with the law.
Snit
2019-07-26 19:30:07 UTC
Permalink
says...
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Seems to me he's gone a step further, civil disobedience, as defined by
Snit, means you can go buy yourself a machine gun if you'd like, screw
the paperwork (and the 1934 Firearms Act) ;)
I can drink and drive too, I don't agree with the law.
You can. And there are consequences.
--
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 22:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
says...
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Seems to me he's gone a step further, civil disobedience, as defined by
Snit, means you can go buy yourself a machine gun if you'd like, screw
the paperwork (and the 1934 Firearms Act) ;)
I can drink and drive too, I don't agree with the law.
You can. And there are consequences.
It's just civil disobedience.
%
2019-07-26 22:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
says...
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Seems to me he's gone a step further, civil disobedience, as defined by
Snit, means you can go buy yourself a machine gun if you'd like, screw
the paperwork (and the 1934 Firearms Act) ;)
I can drink and drive too, I don't agree with the law.
You can. And there are consequences.
It's just civil disobedience.
doesn't even hurt anyone else just you
Snit
2019-07-26 19:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
Seems to me he's gone a step further, civil disobedience, as defined by
Snit, means you can go buy yourself a machine gun if you'd like, screw
the paperwork (and the 1934 Firearms Act) ;)
Keep in mind you made that up... it is not something I ever said.

What I did say was this:
-----
The reason many gun nuts say they need their guns is to fight against
the government when it gets out of control.

We are there.

Time to put up or shut up. If you are not going to NOW stand up, with
peaceful protests at first, to stop the abuse going on in our government
then what value is your argument?

Where is the NRA in demanding that laws be passed to work to reduce
Russian influence?

Where is the NRA in demanding that gerrymandering be ended?

Where is the NRA in demanding that our for-profit prison system be
ended... a system that has helped make the US have 25% of the world's
prison population?

Where is the NRA in demanding that non-white kids not be abused?

When they NRA and its followers actually back what they say then I will
take them seriously... but for now the big gun argument has been shown
to be a complete and utter farce. It is not at all about fighting back
against a government out of control. That is a lie.
-----

But you will run.
--
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 19:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
I believe in civil disobedience.
Then if I am a peaceful law abiding citizen, and I owned a legally
purchased modern semiautomatic sporting rifle, and some Morlock of
a legislature passed a law saying I had to register as a gun owner,
and had to surrender my rifle and my 30 round magazines, you agree
that I should not comply.
You asked this before... and I responded.

-----
The reason many gun nuts say they need their guns is to fight against
the government when it gets out of control.

We are there.

Time to put up or shut up. If you are not going to NOW stand up, with
peaceful protests at first, to stop the abuse going on in our government
then what value is your argument?

Where is the NRA in demanding that laws be passed to work to reduce
Russian influence?

Where is the NRA in demanding that gerrymandering be ended?

Where is the NRA in demanding that our for-profit prison system be
ended... a system that has helped make the US have 25% of the world's
prison population?

Where is the NRA in demanding that non-white kids not be abused?

When they NRA and its followers actually back what they say then I will
take them seriously... but for now the big gun argument has been shown
to be a complete and utter farce. It is not at all about fighting back
against a government out of control. That is a 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
2019-07-26 18:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
By law you have the right to asylum and the right to not self-incriminate.
But you don't have the right to cross illegally.
Well, the legal right... moral might be different. But even ignoring
that, you do have the right to cross a border legally.
Duh....what a spin doctor you are.
Snit
2019-07-26 19:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
By law you have the right to asylum and the right to not self-incriminate.
But you don't have the right to cross illegally.
Well, the legal right... moral might be different. But even ignoring
that, you do have the right to cross a border legally.
Duh....what a spin doctor you are.
The fact you think it is "spin" to note it is legal to cross a border
legally, and illegal to do so illegally, show how lost you are on the topic.
--
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 22:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Laws don't mean anything to the losing left, they want their law not the
peoples.
By law you have the right to asylum and the right to not self-incriminate.
But you don't have the right to cross illegally.
Well, the legal right... moral might be different. But even ignoring
that, you do have the right to cross a border legally.
Duh....what a spin doctor you are.
The fact you think it is "spin" to note it is legal to cross a border
legally, and illegal to do so illegally, show how lost you are on the topic.
Damn you do nothing but spin and attempt to move the goal posts.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-26 18:15:51 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-07-26, Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on (and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
Snit
2019-07-26 18:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on
This is a direct lie on your part.

I called you a bigot for spewing bigoted crap about promoting profiling
and saying others should not have the rights you demanded when the
police spoke to you about you harassing people.
Post by Steve Carroll
(and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
--
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 18:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on
This is a direct lie on your part.
You"
"We should not profile by race or religion."

Me:
"How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?"

You:
"Without bigotry."
Post by Snit
I called you a bigot
... based on the question of mine I just quoted above.

I then asked the obvious followup:

"In your mind profiling is bigotry?"

And you 'responded' (non-responsively) with:

"Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.

And those who face such bigotry face nonstop micro aggression daily.

Then you cry when they respond to such aggression.

But you are a bigot who..." - Snit

<***@mid.individual.net>

IOW, once again, reality just isn't with you.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
Snit
2019-07-26 18:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on
This is a direct lie on your part.
You"
"We should not profile by race or religion."
"How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?"
"Without bigotry."
And then you argued we need bigotry. 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
Post by Snit
I called you a bigot
.... based on the question of mine I just quoted above.
"In your mind profiling is bigotry?"
"Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
And those who face such bigotry face nonstop micro aggression daily.
Then you cry when they respond to such aggression.
But you are a bigot who..." - Snit
IOW, once again, reality just isn't with you.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
--
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 18:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on
This is a direct lie on your part.
You"
"We should not profile by race or religion."
"How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?"
"Without bigotry."
And then you argued we need bigotry.
So why didn't you quote it?
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
I called you a bigot
.... based on the question of mine I just quoted above.
"In your mind profiling is bigotry?"
"Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
And those who face such bigotry face nonstop micro aggression daily.
Then you cry when they respond to such aggression.
But you are a bigot who..." - Snit
IOW, once again, reality just isn't with you.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(and
understanding why, even if I don't like the idea). This means you are
necessarily (albeit, tacitly) calling border agents who engage in it
bigots (it's just common sense, Snit). Notably, you're doing so while
using the definition of the word I supplied (because you refused to
supply one), which means the agents are, according to you, doing their
jobs based on "intolerance" of "skin color and race". I'd like to see
you prove that in enough cases (I'm sure there may be some) where it
could reasonably be considered systemic but I'm not holding my breath.
As far as your breath is concerned, you should probably stay away from
open flames ;)
Skeeter
2019-07-26 18:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
This is a direct lie on your part.
You"
"We should not profile by race or religion."
"How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?"
"Without bigotry."
And then you argued we need bigotry.
No he didn't. Show me a mid where he said "we need bigotry"


You're crashing hard Snit.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
(snip)
I said nothing of any sub-group of border patrol. You made that up. Keep
in mind you are lying.
You called me a bigot for merely acknowledging profiling goes on
This is a direct lie on your part.
You"
"We should not profile by race or religion."
"How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?"
"Without bigotry."
And then you argued we need bigotry. 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 snipped and ran from this, then lied and said I have not quoted
his posts. He is flip flopping like a fish out of water and running like
a crazed lemur. :)
--
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 18:18:36 UTC
Permalink
says...
We should not profile by race or religion.
How do you propose that will work, you know, when you're charged with
something like securing the border?
Without bigotry.
In your mind profiling is bigotry?
Stopping my darker skinned friends and not me, and doing so based on the
color of skin or race is bigotry. Sure.
Based on what definition of the word bigotry?
Based on it being a clear example of bigotry
Until you supply a definition of the term as you are using it, I'm
going with the one I supplied. Can you prove that the stopping of people
based on how they look is tied to an "intolerance" of those people, as
opposed to people charged with border security merely doing something
logical in pursuit of their job goals? You're aware that you're calling a
*helluva* lot of people, many of them hispanic/latino, bigots, right?
Seems to me you'd want to at least know what the term means <shrug>.
There are many hispanic border patrol. No mention of that by the Snit.
Nor of anything else to do with their profiles. Of course. Why would I
bring that up out of the blue? Why do you?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-citizens-academy-20180323-
htmlstory.html
Almost 1/2 are hispanic.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/26/fact-check-are-half-of-all-
border-patrol-agents-hispanic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
Smackdown on the Snit.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied anything about their race.
And below you go of into la-la land.
Are you trying to pretend there isn't profiling going on by border
agents?
I am sure there is by some.
Or are you trying to pretend you're not aware of it?
Here I will not you have gone completely off into la-la land.
If CBP came
upon a group of what appear to be Asians playing Pokemon Go in the
desert, tossing candy wrappers in their wake, and 30 yards away sat a
group at rest with a trail of Gallo beer cans leading up to them, what
should they do if they can only deal with one group because they assume
the other will leave before they get to them?
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.

Wait. You have suggested YOU have engaged in child abuse with your
claims you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you get caught.
Scratch that last part.
--
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 18:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Snit
2019-07-26 19:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year. And like Trump, I should not have
to pay income taxes on that, right?

So send'm my way and they will be treated MUCH better. I am serious... I
would welcome them in a heartbeat.
--
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 20:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year. And like Trump, I should not have
to pay income taxes on that, right?
So send'm my way and they will be treated MUCH better. I am serious... I
would welcome them in a heartbeat.
Snit admits he favors mistreating immigrants for money.
Snit
2019-07-26 22:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year. And like Trump, I should not have
to pay income taxes on that, right?
So send'm my way and they will be treated MUCH better. I am serious... I
would welcome them in a heartbeat.
Snit admits he favors mistreating immigrants for money.
At this point you are just lying to get attention.
--
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 23:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year. And like Trump, I should not have
to pay income taxes on that, right?
So send'm my way and they will be treated MUCH better. I am serious... I
would welcome them in a heartbeat.
Snit admits he favors mistreating immigrants for money.
At this point you are just lying to get attention.
You said you would charge 775 for each one. You admitted it.
Snit
2019-07-26 23:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year. And like Trump, I should not have
to pay income taxes on that, right?
So send'm my way and they will be treated MUCH better. I am serious... I
would welcome them in a heartbeat.
Snit admits he favors mistreating immigrants for money.
At this point you are just lying to get attention.
You said you would charge 775 for each one. You admitted it.
That is the going rate for POOR care. I would offer much better care...
so if anything should be paid more.

But since the money is not going to a wealthy corporation there is no
way you will back it. This is a sign of your worship of the wealthy.
--
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 20:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year.
What might be interesting here is if these kids could be shown a picture
of you and have, say, half a dozen 'specially chosen' usenet posts
translated for them... it's a good bet there'd be no takers. You could
probably even get them to sign a statement agreeing to pay to stay where
they are ;)
Snit
2019-07-26 22:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
They should go to your house and talk to you about your harassment of
others and note you have now said the right to remain silent and not
incriminate yourself need not be respected. And then invite both groups
to live with you on your dime so we are not paying $775 per night per
child to abuse them.
How many are living with you Snit?
Send me five. At $775 dollars per night per kid, even with expenses, I
am likely to get $1,000,000+ a year.
What might be interesting here is if these kids could be shown a picture
of you and have, say, half a dozen 'specially chosen' usenet posts
translated for them... it's a good bet there'd be no takers. You could
probably even get them to sign a statement agreeing to pay to stay where
they are ;)
Clearly you are projecting: which is not surprising given how you have
said you do not think child abuse is a crime unless you are caught. It
is. Your defense is absurd.
--
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 18:19:03 UTC
Permalink
says...
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do? I snipped your other 'material' in
an attempt to make you appear somewhat reasonable ;) But I take it that
you're of a mind that the U.S. should have open borders, too. Am I
right?
No. But I do think it should have the Bill of Rights. No unreasonable
searches and seizures, in particular.
I'm only asking for the sake of expediency...
Circumventing the people's rights "for the sake of expediency" always,
ALWAYS leads to tyranny and horror and evil. No matter what the initial
intentions.
Crossing the river is a crime moron.
Seeking asylum is legal.
Crossing illegally isn't.
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
--
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 18:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
says...
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd
arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do? I snipped your other 'material' in
an attempt to make you appear somewhat reasonable ;) But I take it that
you're of a mind that the U.S. should have open borders, too. Am I
right?
No. But I do think it should have the Bill of Rights. No unreasonable
searches and seizures, in particular.
I'm only asking for the sake of expediency...
Circumventing the people's rights "for the sake of expediency" always,
ALWAYS leads to tyranny and horror and evil. No matter what the initial
intentions.
Crossing the river is a crime moron.
Seeking asylum is legal.
Crossing illegally isn't.
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
Getting caught red-handed in the act of crossing illegally, then
saying "I claim asylum", does not make the crossing legal.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
says...
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd
arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do? I snipped your other 'material' in
an attempt to make you appear somewhat reasonable ;) But I take it that
you're of a mind that the U.S. should have open borders, too. Am I
right?
No. But I do think it should have the Bill of Rights. No unreasonable
searches and seizures, in particular.
I'm only asking for the sake of expediency...
Circumventing the people's rights "for the sake of expediency" always,
ALWAYS leads to tyranny and horror and evil. No matter what the initial
intentions.
Crossing the river is a crime moron.
Seeking asylum is legal.
Crossing illegally isn't.
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
Getting caught red-handed in the act of crossing illegally, then
saying "I claim asylum", does not make the crossing legal.
Not sure of the law on this... but I do know child abuse is a felony.
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
2019-07-26 19:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
Getting caught red-handed in the act of crossing illegally, then
saying "I claim asylum", does not make the crossing legal.
Not sure of the law on this..
You have proven you don't know much of anything but CNN koolaid.
Snit
2019-07-26 19:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
Getting caught red-handed in the act of crossing illegally, then
saying "I claim asylum", does not make the crossing legal.
Not sure of the law on this..
You have proven you don't know much of anything but CNN koolaid.
I do not share your obsession with CNN.
--
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 18:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
says...
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do? I snipped your other 'material' in
an attempt to make you appear somewhat reasonable ;) But I take it that
you're of a mind that the U.S. should have open borders, too. Am I
right?
No. But I do think it should have the Bill of Rights. No unreasonable
searches and seizures, in particular.
I'm only asking for the sake of expediency...
Circumventing the people's rights "for the sake of expediency" always,
ALWAYS leads to tyranny and horror and evil. No matter what the initial
intentions.
Crossing the river is a crime moron.
Seeking asylum is legal.
Crossing illegally isn't.
And crossing legally is. You are at like a 1st grade level in
understanding.
The ones in detention camps did not cross legally.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Things like the border search exception aside... I'm clearly asking what
*should* a CBP officer be able to do?
Follow the Constitution. Accept equal rights as axiomatic.
None of this stops them from doing their job.
Knowing that a person can just refuse to speak at all and that can be
the end of things, how does that square with security, from preventing
child traffickers, drug traffickers, terrorists, etc. from coming
across?
Compare your comments there with your earlier comments about you feeling
YOU had the right to not speak to the police talked to you about your
harassment.
Your lie here aside,
Here you make false accusations.
Post by Steve Carroll
I've acknowledged they have the right to remain
silent,
Then we are in agreement. Great.
Post by Steve Carroll
the question is what should be done about it.
You should be charged with harassment and then given due process.
Complete due process. No abuse even for you. Same with others.

Equal rights.
Post by Steve Carroll
People like you
refuse to respond so grownups necessarily take matters in hand and deal
with it. You don't like that so you piss an moan about laws you believe
shouldn't be followed <shrug>.
Does it not occur to you that it makes no sense to patrol the
border if someone can just 'silence' their way across? If you're not for
open borders and you won't give CBP what's needed to do the job, then
you *should* be for building a wall. But you're not. So tell me how you
figure you're *not* sending the message that you're for open borders.
How does it work in your mind? The border search exception clearly
doesn't "Follow the Constitution", despite the Martinez-Fuerte ruling as
based on impracticality (pragmatism in action, Snit,), so we know you
must be against it. Your stated positions are clearly contradictory.
1) Why not speak more about your self incriminating crap about how child
abuse is not a crime in your view unless you get caught?

2) Can you explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but not
right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist threat
the country faces?

But you will ALWAYS run and try to change topics.
Post by Steve Carroll
<crickets still chirping>
Yup... you will ALWAYS run.
--
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 18:45:37 UTC
Permalink
On 2019-07-26, Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
I've acknowledged they have the right to remain
silent,
Then we are in agreement. Great.
Despite your repeated attempts to pretend otherwise, I never disagreed.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
the question is what should be done about it.
You should
... I don't work for the CBP.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
People like you
refuse to respond so grownups necessarily take matters in hand and deal
with it. You don't like that so you piss an moan about laws you believe
shouldn't be followed <shrug>.
Does it not occur to you that it makes no sense to patrol the
border if someone can just 'silence' their way across? If you're not for
open borders and you won't give CBP what's needed to do the job, then
you *should* be for building a wall. But you're not. So tell me how you
figure you're *not* sending the message that you're for open borders.
How does it work in your mind? The border search exception clearly
doesn't "Follow the Constitution", despite the Martinez-Fuerte ruling as
based on impracticality (pragmatism in action, Snit,), so we know you
must be against it. Your stated positions are clearly contradictory.
<crickets still chirping>
Yup... you will ALWAYS run.
LOL! I'm the one that stated his position here.
Snit
2019-07-26 18:53:20 UTC
Permalink
On 7/26/19 11:35 AM, Snit wrote:
...
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
Compare your comments there with your earlier comments about you feeling
YOU had the right to not speak to the police talked to you about your
harassment.
Your lie here aside,
Here you make false accusations.
Post by Steve Carroll
I've acknowledged they have the right to remain
silent,
Then we are in agreement. Great.
Carroll now says he agrees to this. Noting his utter and complete
hypocrisy on the issue in comparison to his being questioned about his
harassment clearly made him rethink his position.
Post by Snit
Post by Steve Carroll
the question is what should be done about it.
You should be charged with harassment and then given due process.
Complete due process. No abuse even for you. Same with others.
Equal rights.
Post by Steve Carroll
People like you
refuse to respond so grownups necessarily take matters in hand and deal
with it. You don't like that so you piss an moan about laws you believe
shouldn't be followed <shrug>.
Does it not occur to you that it makes no sense to patrol the
border if someone can just 'silence' their way across? If you're not for
open borders and you won't give CBP what's needed to do the job, then
you *should* be for building a wall. But you're not. So tell me how you
figure you're *not* sending the message that you're for open borders.
How does it work in your mind? The border search exception clearly
doesn't "Follow the Constitution", despite the Martinez-Fuerte ruling as
based on impracticality (pragmatism in action, Snit,), so we know you
must be against it. Your stated positions are clearly contradictory.
1) Why not speak more about your self incriminating crap about how child
abuse is not a crime in your view unless you get caught?
Carroll ran.
Post by Snit
2) Can you explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but not
right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist threat
the country faces?
Carroll now says he is against such profiling... even though he keeps
backing it.
Post by Snit
But you will ALWAYS run and try to change topics.
Post by Steve Carroll
<crickets still chirping>
Yup... you will ALWAYS run.
--
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 18:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Will you denounce the violations being done NOW?
Show me the proof of violations.  Actual proof
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-children-describe-detention_n_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666
Eyewitness testimony. It doesn't get any proofier than that, short of
mathematical and physics stuff.
It's been well-proven that Libtards will lie
The migrant children are "libtards" now, despite being too young to
have even formed any political opinions?!
You don't have migrant children's statements.  You have a reporter's
statement about what unidentified but admittedly biased people said
about what children said.
Even if true, that is more evidence than we have about them crossing the
border illegally.

But, really, you want to have your word taken as being stronger than
that of the people being abused, the pictures of the horrible
conditions, the reports from multiple agencies, and reports from others
visiting the concentration camps.

Not gonna happen. Your word does not come close.
--
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 19:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
You don't have migrant children's statements.  You have a reporter's
statement about what unidentified but admittedly biased people said
about what children said.
Even if true, that is more evidence than we have about them crossing the
border illegally.
When you watch everyday on TV <even CNN> many of them crossing illegally
I guess that is all the evidence I need.
Snit
2019-07-26 19:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
You don't have migrant children's statements.  You have a reporter's
statement about what unidentified but admittedly biased people said
about what children said.
Even if true, that is more evidence than we have about them crossing the
border illegally.
When you watch everyday on TV <even CNN> many of them crossing illegally
I guess that is all the evidence I need.
The ones in the pictures. Show they broke any law. The picture here, for
example:

https://www.nationalmemo.com/doctor-says-detention-centers-for-migrant-children-resemble-torture-facilities/

Can you show the people detained broke ANY law. Ever in their lives?

I bet not.

But your standards of evidence will change greatly when it comes to
backing the abuse of children tied to the US government redistributing
money to for-profit prison corporations.
--
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 19:33:55 UTC
Permalink
He was talking about people crossing the border, you moved the goal
posts. We all saw that a long time ago.
He is talking about he does not think others should have the right to be
silent and not self-incriminate that he said he had when the police
talked to him about his harassment of others.
He was talking about fence jumpers, you brought up that other shit to
avoid the spanking you were getting.
Do you think "fence jumpers" have the right to remain silent?
--
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 19:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
He was talking about people crossing the border, you moved the goal
posts. We all saw that a long time ago.
He is talking about he does not think others should have the right to be
silent
Correction: I never 'talked' about 'thinking' that.
Post by Snit
He was talking about fence jumpers, you brought up that other shit to
avoid the spanking you were getting.
Too bad (for him) that it didn't work ;)
Post by Snit
Do you think "fence jumpers" have the right to remain silent?
How do you propose to deny them that right? If someone isn't going to
talk there's nothing a CBP can do about it from a legal standpoint. Of
course, nothing stopping the CBP from taking them in and claiming that
he saw them cross the border, it's his word against the jumper's and we
all know where that leads. Seems to me if you've made the long trip you
wouldn't want to sabotage your chances <shrug>.
Skeeter
2019-07-26 20:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
He was talking about people crossing the border, you moved the goal
posts. We all saw that a long time ago.
He is talking about he does not think others should have the right to be
silent and not self-incriminate that he said he had when the police
talked to him about his harassment of others.
He was talking about fence jumpers, you brought up that other shit to
avoid the spanking you were getting.
Do you think "fence jumpers" have the right to remain silent?
We have the right to profile them.
Snit
2019-07-26 19:35:50 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.com says...
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
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.
Where's your vaunted "presumption of innocence" now, ko0ky?
Carroll does not apply that to poor non-whites.
Reality on border apprehension has nothing to do with me, fool. Look
towards people like the husband of Mrs. Super Predator, that arrogant,
philandering ass who, with a stroke of his pen, signed into being his
infamous crime bill that jailed a generation of young blacks into near
genocidal status (that you like to complain about without ever
mentioning that Dem's name) ... and the IIRIRA's "expedited removal"
proceeding, you know, written back when Dems cared about security over
politics. Maybe you should look into topics like "reasonable suspicion",
"stop and identify", the "Terry doctrine", etc. so you don't appear so
clueless to reality. Utopia is fun to talk about... the problem is, it
doesn't work in practice because it bumps up hard against reality.
How much pasta are you hoping will stick to the wall as you run from your
admission you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you are caught?
You know we don't have 'thought police', right? But hey, at least you
avoided talking about your king in a negative light again.
Notice how you run when your pasta tactic is called out. Why not speak more
about your self incriminating crap about how child abuse is not a crime in
your view unless you get caught?
He never said that trollboi. He said you can't accuse anyone of it
without proof.
Or maybe you can explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but
not right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist
threat the country faces?
I know many brown and black right wingers, explain that.
You won't.
Snit has nothing to contribute but troll tactics.
Greg wants to fuck him... but not in a gay way.
I think he and Greg would do well together, did you know Snit invites
children to his house to discuss gay and lesbian stuff? He said it
himself.
Direct lie on your part.
You said it. No unringing that bell.
Of note: I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied any such thing. But
you lie a lot.
--
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 22:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
@gmail.com says...
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
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.
Where's your vaunted "presumption of innocence" now, ko0ky?
Carroll does not apply that to poor non-whites.
Reality on border apprehension has nothing to do with me, fool. Look
towards people like the husband of Mrs. Super Predator, that arrogant,
philandering ass who, with a stroke of his pen, signed into being his
infamous crime bill that jailed a generation of young blacks into near
genocidal status (that you like to complain about without ever
mentioning that Dem's name) ... and the IIRIRA's "expedited removal"
proceeding, you know, written back when Dems cared about security over
politics. Maybe you should look into topics like "reasonable suspicion",
"stop and identify", the "Terry doctrine", etc. so you don't appear so
clueless to reality. Utopia is fun to talk about... the problem is, it
doesn't work in practice because it bumps up hard against reality.
How much pasta are you hoping will stick to the wall as you run from your
admission you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you are caught?
You know we don't have 'thought police', right? But hey, at least you
avoided talking about your king in a negative light again.
Notice how you run when your pasta tactic is called out. Why not speak more
about your self incriminating crap about how child abuse is not a crime in
your view unless you get caught?
He never said that trollboi. He said you can't accuse anyone of it
without proof.
Or maybe you can explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but
not right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist
threat the country faces?
I know many brown and black right wingers, explain that.
You won't.
Snit has nothing to contribute but troll tactics.
Greg wants to fuck him... but not in a gay way.
I think he and Greg would do well together, did you know Snit invites
children to his house to discuss gay and lesbian stuff? He said it
himself.
Direct lie on your part.
You said it. No unringing that bell.
Of note: I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied any such thing. But
you lie a lot.
Now you're lying. I win this round...moving on.

<snit will snip my response>
Snit
2019-07-26 22:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.com says...
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
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.
Where's your vaunted "presumption of innocence" now, ko0ky?
Carroll does not apply that to poor non-whites.
Reality on border apprehension has nothing to do with me, fool. Look
towards people like the husband of Mrs. Super Predator, that arrogant,
philandering ass who, with a stroke of his pen, signed into being his
infamous crime bill that jailed a generation of young blacks into near
genocidal status (that you like to complain about without ever
mentioning that Dem's name) ... and the IIRIRA's "expedited removal"
proceeding, you know, written back when Dems cared about security over
politics. Maybe you should look into topics like "reasonable suspicion",
"stop and identify", the "Terry doctrine", etc. so you don't appear so
clueless to reality. Utopia is fun to talk about... the problem is, it
doesn't work in practice because it bumps up hard against reality.
How much pasta are you hoping will stick to the wall as you run from your
admission you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you are caught?
You know we don't have 'thought police', right? But hey, at least you
avoided talking about your king in a negative light again.
Notice how you run when your pasta tactic is called out. Why not speak more
about your self incriminating crap about how child abuse is not a crime in
your view unless you get caught?
He never said that trollboi. He said you can't accuse anyone of it
without proof.
Or maybe you can explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but
not right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist
threat the country faces?
I know many brown and black right wingers, explain that.
You won't.
Snit has nothing to contribute but troll tactics.
Greg wants to fuck him... but not in a gay way.
I think he and Greg would do well together, did you know Snit invites
children to his house to discuss gay and lesbian stuff? He said it
himself.
Direct lie on your part.
You said it. No unringing that bell.
Of note: I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied any such thing. But
you lie a lot.
Now you're lying. I win this round...moving on.
<snit will snip my response>
You got busted lying about what I said then declared yourself a winner.
--
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 23:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.com says...
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
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.
Where's your vaunted "presumption of innocence" now, ko0ky?
Carroll does not apply that to poor non-whites.
Reality on border apprehension has nothing to do with me, fool. Look
towards people like the husband of Mrs. Super Predator, that arrogant,
philandering ass who, with a stroke of his pen, signed into being his
infamous crime bill that jailed a generation of young blacks into near
genocidal status (that you like to complain about without ever
mentioning that Dem's name) ... and the IIRIRA's "expedited removal"
proceeding, you know, written back when Dems cared about security over
politics. Maybe you should look into topics like "reasonable suspicion",
"stop and identify", the "Terry doctrine", etc. so you don't appear so
clueless to reality. Utopia is fun to talk about... the problem is, it
doesn't work in practice because it bumps up hard against reality.
How much pasta are you hoping will stick to the wall as you run from your
admission you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you are caught?
You know we don't have 'thought police', right? But hey, at least you
avoided talking about your king in a negative light again.
Notice how you run when your pasta tactic is called out. Why not speak more
about your self incriminating crap about how child abuse is not a crime in
your view unless you get caught?
He never said that trollboi. He said you can't accuse anyone of it
without proof.
Or maybe you can explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but
not right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist
threat the country faces?
I know many brown and black right wingers, explain that.
You won't.
Snit has nothing to contribute but troll tactics.
Greg wants to fuck him... but not in a gay way.
I think he and Greg would do well together, did you know Snit invites
children to his house to discuss gay and lesbian stuff? He said it
himself.
Direct lie on your part.
You said it. No unringing that bell.
Of note: I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied any such thing. But
you lie a lot.
Now you're lying. I win this round...moving on.
You got busted lying about what I said then declared yourself a winner.
I didn't lie about anything, I won and you die out slowly.

Skeet-1
Snit-0
Checkmate
2019-07-26 23:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.com says...
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
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.
Where's your vaunted "presumption of innocence" now, ko0ky?
Carroll does not apply that to poor non-whites.
Reality on border apprehension has nothing to do with me, fool. Look
towards people like the husband of Mrs. Super Predator, that arrogant,
philandering ass who, with a stroke of his pen, signed into being his
infamous crime bill that jailed a generation of young blacks into near
genocidal status (that you like to complain about without ever
mentioning that Dem's name) ... and the IIRIRA's "expedited removal"
proceeding, you know, written back when Dems cared about security over
politics. Maybe you should look into topics like "reasonable suspicion",
"stop and identify", the "Terry doctrine", etc. so you don't appear so
clueless to reality. Utopia is fun to talk about... the problem is, it
doesn't work in practice because it bumps up hard against reality.
How much pasta are you hoping will stick to the wall as you run from your
admission you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you are caught?
You know we don't have 'thought police', right? But hey, at least you
avoided talking about your king in a negative light again.
Notice how you run when your pasta tactic is called out. Why not speak more
about your self incriminating crap about how child abuse is not a crime in
your view unless you get caught?
He never said that trollboi. He said you can't accuse anyone of it
without proof.
Or maybe you can explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but
not right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist
threat the country faces?
I know many brown and black right wingers, explain that.
You won't.
Snit has nothing to contribute but troll tactics.
Greg wants to fuck him... but not in a gay way.
I think he and Greg would do well together, did you know Snit invites
children to his house to discuss gay and lesbian stuff? He said it
himself.
Direct lie on your part.
You said it. No unringing that bell.
Of note: I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied any such thing. But
you lie a lot.
Now you're lying. I win this round...moving on.
<snit will snip my response>
I remember reading something about that a couple of weeks ago.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Checkmate
2019-07-26 23:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <qhf750$19b$***@news.mixmin.net>, ***@sandernistas.edu
says...
says...
You do not get to speak for others
I'm not... it's clear you want open borders, you just won't use that
term, instead, you're drumming up all kinds of absurd arguments to 'say'
it another way.
Open borders means votes for the libtards, non citizen votes.
Carroll brought up the idea of open borders.
No one had to bring it up, it oozes from every pore of your every post.
Do you want border agents, Snit? If you say 'yes', like you should if
you don't want open borders, do you want border agents that can, you
know, actually *do* something about border crossings? If you say 'yes,
(again, like you should) then what do you recommend they do when a
person who doesn't speak English (or speaks it poorly) wearing a shirt
made out of the Guatemalan flag is standing next to a group of people
who appear to be looking for a way to run? IOW, what 'powers' would you
give to them and which would you prevent? We already know you'd bar them
from asking for ID if you could, but what else? Knowing that a person
doesn't *have* to respond at all to the CBP, what course of action
should be available to the CBP officer in that case? Should the concept
of 'reasonable suspicion' not apply? If not, why not?
Because of a little wee something called the Fourth Amendment, that's why
not. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that arresting and detaining a
person requires PROBABLE CAUSE, not just reasonable suspicion.
And if you're against the Fourth Amendment then you're a no-good rotten
anti-American jackbooted goosestepping treasonous treacherous traitor and
quite probably a communist spy. What happened, did you read /1984/ and
mistake it for a how-to manual? You retard.
Why do you always sound like Nads?
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Checkmate
2019-07-26 23:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
@gmail.com says...
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
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.
Where's your vaunted "presumption of innocence" now, ko0ky?
Carroll does not apply that to poor non-whites.
Reality on border apprehension has nothing to do with me, fool. Look
towards people like the husband of Mrs. Super Predator, that arrogant,
philandering ass who, with a stroke of his pen, signed into being his
infamous crime bill that jailed a generation of young blacks into near
genocidal status (that you like to complain about without ever
mentioning that Dem's name) ... and the IIRIRA's "expedited removal"
proceeding, you know, written back when Dems cared about security over
politics. Maybe you should look into topics like "reasonable suspicion",
"stop and identify", the "Terry doctrine", etc. so you don't appear so
clueless to reality. Utopia is fun to talk about... the problem is, it
doesn't work in practice because it bumps up hard against reality.
How much pasta are you hoping will stick to the wall as you run from your
admission you do not see child abuse as a crime unless you are caught?
You know we don't have 'thought police', right? But hey, at least you
avoided talking about your king in a negative light again.
Notice how you run when your pasta tactic is called out. Why not speak more
about your self incriminating crap about how child abuse is not a crime in
your view unless you get caught?
He never said that trollboi. He said you can't accuse anyone of it
without proof.
Or maybe you can explain why you want darker skinned people profiled but
not right wingers even though right wingers are the biggest terrorist
threat the country faces?
I know many brown and black right wingers, explain that.
You won't.
Snit has nothing to contribute but troll tactics.
Greg wants to fuck him... but not in a gay way.
I think he and Greg would do well together, did you know Snit invites
children to his house to discuss gay and lesbian stuff? He said it
himself.
<Cringe> Gee, nothing creepy about *that*... maybe he thinks he's Mister
Rogers.
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Loading...