Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 15:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:55:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:28:57 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:08:11 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
It's entirely possible. There are similarities. It may be one of
Snit's "transwoman personas" where- as Big Dog postulated- an overdose
of lavender oil resulted in the nascency of Kensi. I suppose one could
trace her usenet activities if one was so inclined.
I recall seeing someone referring to her as a female and so I did the
same and there was no protest. However, Kensi is very confused by sex
and gender so it's hard to tell. Most leftists seem like women anyway.
Kensi/Nads is Paul Derbyshire from Pembroke Canada. He/she/it will post
a "proof kook" response but it has been proven many times.
I thought the Nadega or whatever it was was similarly stupid. Paul,
eh? Canada explains a lot.
Sure it's not "Pauline?"
Oh, was this the one who claimed to have a PhD is physics or
something?
Kensi <Nads> claims such but has yet to provide an inkling of proof.
Also the fake FNVW known as Libtard is also a sock of the infamous
Nads/Kensi sybian riding duo.
I will have to go through my filters and make sure none of those are
being ignored! LOL
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.free.newsservers/aRYJrLEg03Y
That's our kicktoy.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?

So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-28 16:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
When you do, let them know we've been unable to confirm if Snit is
armed or not. Tell them to prepare for the worst, given his mental
health issues. Once he begins huffing essential oils, there's no
telling how he'll react to a simple knock on his door.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
?sex ed? is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in ? yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
When you do, let them know we've been unable to confirm if Snit is
armed or not. Tell them to prepare for the worst, given his mental
health issues. Once he begins huffing essential oils, there's no
telling how he'll react to a simple knock on his door.
They informed me that he is already under investigation. Time will tell
I guess.
Snit
2019-07-28 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
What type of attention are you looking for here? Can you be more clear?
--
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
2019-07-28 22:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
So this "group" has a "leader"?
The group many of them are in — yes. Most youth organizations do. No, I
will not be more specific and help Carroll track them down and harass them.
Post by Skeeter
So now you invite gang members in to your house. Very interesting.
You cannot think of any youth focused groups other than gangs. That in
itself is scary.
You allow young children into your house and discuss gay and lesbo
stuff. In most places that would cause an investigation. I shall report
this behavior.
Snit hid again because the law has contacted him.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 15:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 15:58:26 UTC
Permalink
<https://abcnews.go.com/International/guatemalan-mother-begs-soldier-enter-us/story?id=64570713>
We may not want to believe it's possible but this woman could be the
mule carrying the biological agent that would've been released into the
local reservoir near Snit's drinking water (if karma is a thing ;) I'm
only half joking here... what do you suggest we do? Is there no middle
ground in your mind?
Hevonpaska.
Seriously, this is your argument? "<science fiction scenario>, therefore
we should suspend habeas corpus?"
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
      - Benjamin Franklin
He later backpedaled
If true, you should be able to show where I 'frontpedaled', right?
So let's see a quote where I claim people have no right to remain silent
(which is silly on its face because you can't *make* someone talk).
To 'kensi': I thought the asking of this hyperbolic hypothetical was
rather obvious but I'll clarify it for you, it was written in an effort
to ascertain the OP's thoughts on the level of restriction on the CBP
(but that doesn't mean I don't consider security job #1 of my gov't).
Regarding Franklin's famous quote, I'd submit that the "those" being
referenced are not members of the group known as "ourselves" in the
preamble of the U.S. Constitution. I'm assuming that this is among a
number of things recognized by the SCOTUS when giving something like the
border search exception a green light... the same goes for things like
Clinton's IIRIRA (even the 1st Congress recognized the need for border
searches and how they might rub up against the Constitution). To your
"habeas corpus" statement, Clinton already did that with the AEDPA.
Of course... I figure, at some point, you'll be forced ro recognize
reality.
pointing out evil acts by Clinton or Obama
as if this somehow means you win.
What would (or did I) "win"?
I don't know why I must keep repeating this, but: Clinton was not a
saint. Obama was not a saint.
The point here is, they're realists... all those who sat as POTUS and
remained silent about things like this know what part of their job is.
IOW, I believe that this doctrine does *not* 'follow the U.S.
Constitution' (providing we give full 4th Amendment protection to
non-citizens)
We should. Indeed, we must. The Founders did.
? The Founders prescribed a head tax, the idea of giving millions who
want to cross a bunch of free stuff would be appalling to them. (the 1st
Congress implemented methods to collect the tax).
The entire Bill of Rights
hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ourselves" is used in the context of *why* the Constitution is being
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony... it's not merely child-like (only a
very young child might suggest it) it's flat out loony. You realize
that, right? Are you a U.S. citizen (or a citizen of *any* country that
uses Constitutional law)? If yes, you *should* know this basic aspect of
reality (read: fact).
It enjoins the *US Government* from
doing a wide variety of things *to anyone*.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting, as such, it has
*nothing* to do with people who are *not* U.S. citizens. That the gov't
has decided to afford non-citizens certain rights is not as strong a
guarantee as it is to citizens. IOW, the "Bill of Rights" didn't do what
you claimed, some version of the Congress/SCOTUS came along *later* and
said, 'OK, we'll give *these* rights to non-citizens'... but the "Bill
of Rights" doesn't say squat about non-citizens.
Notably, this means even
people living in foreign countries far away (thus making "extraordinary
rendition" unConstitutional, among other things).
I know what it means and, unlike you, I'm also aware that it was the
You left out how all people are created equal. All. And how you excluded
darker skinned people — citizens or not — in your view of “we”, saying it
was acceptable in your view to profile people by race as non-citizens.
You also insist you have the right to not self incriminate when the police
question you about your harassment of others but say people of other races
should be forced to self incriminate on threat of being detained.
You backed yourself in a corner again so out came your attacks and your
socks and your use of the N-word and more.
Time for another of your public breakdowns.
Carroll snipped and ran. Of course.
--
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
2019-07-28 15:58:33 UTC
Permalink
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Snit
2019-07-28 16:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.

Notice how you do not call him out on that.
--
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
2019-07-28 16:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Snit
2019-07-28 16:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.

It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.

Steve Carroll:
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----

He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.

But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Steve Carroll
2019-07-28 16:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 18:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.

Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.

It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
it's an allegation until proven otherwise. I realize you
want a fascist state (while hypocritically claiming your 'opponents'
do) but we don't have one... yet.
Post by Snit
Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes
And people allege that all sorts of crimes have been committed. Got a
point? No, you don't.
Post by Snit
-- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
Unless your point is to hold them accountable without giving them a
'Water is wet!', there's just no need to point out that people do bad
things. We have the rule of law here, Snit, your insane paranoia aside,
I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with that.
--
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
2019-07-28 20:34:37 UTC
Permalink
%
2019-07-28 20:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication.
As you've already engaged in an informal version of "adjudication" to
make your allegation (at the least, you *should* have assessed *some*
form of evidence), I changed nothing. Of course, it is *you*, so it's
possible your emotions just went into overdrive and you never bothered
to check things out at all.
Post by Snit
Not biting.
adjudication
1: the act or process of adjudicating a dispute
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjudication>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court)
adjudicate
3. to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon)
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adjudicate>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... sitting in "judgment"
but not *as* a "judge" capable of hearing cases in the legal system, it's
a thing!).
judgment
He regretted his hasty judgment"
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/judgement?s=t>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... you should like this
one, Mr. Hasty... also, note how there is a "Law" entry... for people
with a clue that's a pretty big clue!)
So unless you're now going to claim that those you accuse are not
disputing it (good luck with that one!) you haven't just 'bitten',
you're past the digestion stage and into letting your sh*t out into the
world so people like me can correct you on it by holding a dictionary in
front of you and applying the common sense that 'OF COURSE' you 'judged'
the material you looked at to make your determination (your 'finding' or
'opinion'). Only an idiot would suggest he's done otherwise if he was
stupid enough to mention that he had "evidence", "proof", etc. And if he
didn't have "evidence"? His name was probably Michael Glasser.
it doesn't matter what his name is ,
he's got you hooked on replying to him ,
no matter what he calls himself
Snit
2019-07-29 00:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can
be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication.
As you've already engaged in an informal version of "adjudication" to
make your allegation (at the least, you *should* have assessed *some*
form of evidence), I changed nothing. Of course, it is *you*, so it's
possible your emotions just went into overdrive and you never bothered
to check things out at all.
Post by Snit
Not biting.
adjudication
1: the act or process of adjudicating a dispute
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjudication>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court)
adjudicate
3. to sit in judgment (usually followed by upon)
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adjudicate>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... sitting in "judgment"
but not *as* a "judge" capable of hearing cases in the legal system, it's
a thing!).
judgment
He regretted his hasty judgment"
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/judgement?s=t>
(note: no mention of the law, a judge or a court... you should like this
one, Mr. Hasty... also, note how there is a "Law" entry... for people
with a clue that's a pretty big clue!)
So unless you're now going to claim that those you accuse are not
disputing it (good luck with that one!) you haven't just 'bitten',
you're past the digestion stage and into letting your sh*t out into the
world so people like me can correct you on it by holding a dictionary in
front of you and applying the common sense that 'OF COURSE' you 'judged'
the material you looked at to make your determination (your 'finding' or
'opinion'). Only an idiot would suggest he's done otherwise if he was
stupid enough to mention that he had "evidence", "proof", etc. And if he
didn't have "evidence"? His name was probably Michael Glasser.
it doesn't matter what his name is ,
he's got you hooked on replying to him ,
no matter what he calls himself
You can have him.
--
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
2019-07-29 00:20:58 UTC
Permalink
On 7/28/19 11:04 AM, Snit wrote:> On 7/28/19 9:47 AM, Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place
they can be sure they are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to
his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse
is not, in his view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
Steve Carroll: >>> ----->>> Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated... >>> ----->>>
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are
not caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That
is your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest
you did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put
in prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and
your whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple
wives who left you.
Carroll ran from this and pretended that by "adjudication" I must have
meant noting what he admits to in this group and not him being legally
adjudicated. More of his idiotic semantic games.

Bottom line, Carroll's comment is utter bullshit:

Steve Carroll:
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated...
-----

The fact he pushes this crap is scary... and likely ties into his
belittling of his kids in public, and his whining about his estrangement
from them. And also might tie into why multiple wives of his have left him.
--
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
2019-07-29 01:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
On 7/28/19 11:04 AM, Snit wrote:> On 7/28/19 9:47 AM, Steve Carroll
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place
they can be sure they are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse
is not, in his view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
Steve Carroll: >>> ----->>> Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
adjudicated... >>> ----->>>
He is 100% wrong.
I'm not wrong,
Bullshit. If you engage in child abuse it is wrong EVEN IF you are not
caught.
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That
is your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest
you did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put
in prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and
your whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple
wives who left you.
Carroll ran from this and pretended that by "adjudication" I must have
meant noting what he admits to in this group and not him being legally
adjudicated. More of his idiotic semantic games.
    -----
    Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been
    adjudicated...
    -----
The fact he pushes this crap is scary... and likely ties into his
belittling of his kids in public, and his whining about his estrangement
from them. And also might tie into why multiple wives of his have left him.
Carroll snipped and ran from this. He wants to distance himself from his
obvious suggestion he engages is, or engaged in, child abuse.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 22:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
Need a tissue Snit?
Snit
2019-07-29 00:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Below you change topics to adjudication. Not biting. No. Nobody said,
suggested, hinted, or implied that all crimes are adjudicated. That is
your straw man. The fact is if you abused children, as you suggest you
did, it is STILL a felony, even if you were never caught or put in
prison for it.
It does, however, tie into your public belittling of your kids and your
whining about your estrangement from them. And your multiple wives who
left you.
Need a tissue Snit?
It is worth crying over kids being abused, but currently I am not.
Thanks for asking.

How about you? Do you have any feelings for abused kids?

And have you figured out that New York City is within 100 miles of the
border of the country?

Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----

Seriously, that was one of your better nonsense claims. You will have to
work hard to beat it!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
You sure do project about child abuse a lot, does this fit into the fact
that you invite children into your home to discuss sex matters with
them?
Snit
2019-07-28 18:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
You sure do project about child abuse a lot, does this fit into the fact
that you invite children into your home to discuss sex matters with
them?
What type of attention are you looking for with this trolling?
--
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
2019-07-28 22:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
For kids with parents like you — my house is s place they can be sure they
are safe at.
I am willing to bet Epstein said the same thing to his"children".
Irrelevant. But the fact Carroll has said that child abuse is not, in his
view, a crime unless you are caught is.
Notice how you do not call him out on that.
Because he never said that, you did. You admitted to being like Epstein.
Remember, Carroll is responsible for his own words... EVEN IF you deny it.
It is not my job to get you to be reasonable.
-----
Notably, it isn't considered child abuse until it's been adjudicated...
-----
He is 100% wrong. Child abuse happens without anyone outside the family
knowing about it, no less it ever being adjudicated. People commit all
sorts of crimes -- including misdemeanors and felonies -- without being
caught, tried, and convicted.
But Carroll wants to pretend his own actions are fine unless he is found
guilty in a court. In the past he has spoken of "law worship" -- his
moral development never grew past right and wrong being based on what
the authority finds out.
You sure do project about child abuse a lot, does this fit into the fact
that you invite children into your home to discuss sex matters with
them?
Snit hid from this. LE might have already contacted him.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:59:14 UTC
Permalink
<https://abcnews.go.com/International/guatemalan-mother-begs-soldier-enter-us/story?id=64570713>
We may not want to believe it's possible but this woman could be the
mule carrying the biological agent that would've been released into the
local reservoir near Snit's drinking water (if karma is a thing ;) I'm
only half joking here... what do you suggest we do? Is there no middle
ground in your mind?
Hevonpaska.
Seriously, this is your argument? "<science fiction scenario>, therefore
we should suspend habeas corpus?"
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
      - Benjamin Franklin
He later backpedaled
If true, you should be able to show where I 'frontpedaled', right?
So let's see a quote where I claim people have no right to remain silent
(which is silly on its face because you can't *make* someone talk).
To 'kensi': I thought the asking of this hyperbolic hypothetical was
rather obvious but I'll clarify it for you, it was written in an effort
to ascertain the OP's thoughts on the level of restriction on the CBP
(but that doesn't mean I don't consider security job #1 of my gov't).
Regarding Franklin's famous quote, I'd submit that the "those" being
referenced are not members of the group known as "ourselves" in the
preamble of the U.S. Constitution. I'm assuming that this is among a
number of things recognized by the SCOTUS when giving something like the
border search exception a green light... the same goes for things like
Clinton's IIRIRA (even the 1st Congress recognized the need for border
searches and how they might rub up against the Constitution). To your
"habeas corpus" statement, Clinton already did that with the AEDPA.
Of course... I figure, at some point, you'll be forced ro recognize
reality.
pointing out evil acts by Clinton or Obama
as if this somehow means you win.
What would (or did I) "win"?
I don't know why I must keep repeating this, but: Clinton was not a
saint. Obama was not a saint.
The point here is, they're realists... all those who sat as POTUS and
remained silent about things like this know what part of their job is.
IOW, I believe that this doctrine does *not* 'follow the U.S.
Constitution' (providing we give full 4th Amendment protection to
non-citizens)
We should. Indeed, we must. The Founders did.
? The Founders prescribed a head tax, the idea of giving millions who
want to cross a bunch of free stuff would be appalling to them. (the 1st
Congress implemented methods to collect the tax).
The entire Bill of Rights
hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the term
"ourselves" is used in the context of *why* the Constitution is being
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people" on
the planet is off the chart loony... it's not merely child-like (only a
very young child might suggest it) it's flat out loony. You realize
that, right? Are you a U.S. citizen (or a citizen of *any* country that
uses Constitutional law)? If yes, you *should* know this basic aspect of
reality (read: fact).
It enjoins the *US Government* from
doing a wide variety of things *to anyone*.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S. citizens
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting, as such, it has
*nothing* to do with people who are *not* U.S. citizens. That the gov't
has decided to afford non-citizens certain rights is not as strong a
guarantee as it is to citizens. IOW, the "Bill of Rights" didn't do what
you claimed, some version of the Congress/SCOTUS came along *later* and
said, 'OK, we'll give *these* rights to non-citizens'... but the "Bill
of Rights" doesn't say squat about non-citizens.
Notably, this means even
people living in foreign countries far away (thus making "extraordinary
rendition" unConstitutional, among other things).
I know what it means and, unlike you, I'm also aware that it was the
Snit snipped and ran.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 15:59:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:08:11 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
Ah, now you run to your lie about me using socks as you do. You backed
yourself in a corner and are lashing out. Another of your very public
breakdowns.
Hi Joel.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:00:26 UTC
Permalink
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
Snit
2019-07-28 16:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
--
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
2019-07-28 17:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 18:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they live'
still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing bigotry
even as you talk about your support of treating people differently based
on their race.

And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.

You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Continuously
whining on usenet about a law you don't like won't make it go away,
there are more effective venues for that.
--
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
2019-07-28 20:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 00:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you
stunt CBP from ascertaining necessary info or insist on
full 4th amendment protection for non-citizens it's
tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no reason
to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then
we have a huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he
cannot assume that that person is a "jumper". Without
some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked
of the police speaking to you about your harassment of
others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the
border, given how about 65% of the US population lives within 100
miles of a border, and about 75% of Hispanics, why should they
not be free to “wander around” where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they
live' still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing
bigotry even as you talk about your support of treating people
differently based on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Carroll snipped and ran as he tried to change topics to the law and not
his bigotry. Of course.
--
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
2019-07-28 22:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they live'
still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
A bigoted law you approve of... but then deny you are backing bigotry
even as you talk about your support of treating people differently based
on their race.
And with your socks you get even worse, including using the N-word.
You are openly bigoted and then cry victim when it is called out.
Continuously
whining on usenet about a law you don't like won't make it go away,
there are more effective venues for that.
Snit ignored this, the truth hurts him.
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 23:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public

property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
We've been over this already, 'free to “wander around” where they live'
still means they're subject to the border search doctrine.
Continuously whining on usenet about a law you don't like won't make
it go away, there are more effective venues for that.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public
property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
  If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
I said nothing of crossing the border, nor going anywhere else they are
not supposed to. These are people going to their home, their work, their
grocery stores... 65% of Americans live within 100 miles of a border...
and 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea that it is OK to profile
Hispanics IN THEIR OWN HOME TOWN and demand they carry ID or risk being
detained, or even merely stopped for doing NOTHING, is simply not
acceptable to anyone who is for equal rights.
--
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
2019-07-29 00:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-29 01:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Where the land is private property, or is fenced-in public
property, the general public is NOT free to wander around
on it.
  If you cross the US-Mexico border illegally, no matter
who owns it you're not free to wander around on it.
I said nothing of crossing the border,
Look up in this post. See all that talk about "open border",
You making false claims against others. Sure. You lie. So what.

But then we talked about profiling people by race -- racism... bigotry.
And you backed it. And then we talked about the "border" being anything
within 100 miles of the border.

And then I noted that this means about 65% of all Americans... or, of
those being profiled, 75% of all Hispanics.

Yes: 3 out of 4 Hispanic Americans... CITIZENS... can be profiled and
stopped as the go to work or to their home, as they go shopping or to
their church or synagogue or mosque or other house of worship. As they
go about their daily business.

Three out of four Hispanics... you "understand" why it is OK to have
their homes be in "Constitution free" zones even as you demand the
rights you deny others in terms of police speaking to you about your
harassment of others.

You are a hypocrite. And a bigot.
"the
border","jumper" and, you know..."The camps" (how does one get in
"But since you bring up the border..."
Do you think he 'brought up' the border for some other reason than why
we've all been talking about "the border" (i.e. "crossing" it, wandering
around in the 100 mile zone, etc.)? Why would anyone need to have "said"
anything *additional* in a conversation *about* the f*cking topic?
Post by Snit
nor going anywhere else they are
not supposed to. These are people going to their home, their work, their
grocery stores... 65% of Americans live within 100 miles of a border...
and 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea that it is OK to profile
Hispanics IN THEIR OWN HOME TOWN and demand they carry ID or risk being
detained, or even merely stopped for doing NOTHING, is simply not
acceptable to anyone who is for equal rights.
So you're saying... if a Norwegian male (who glows in the dark) looks
highly questionable, is standing next to a group of 8 year old Hispanic
girls who all are showing what a federal officer might view as visible
signs of stress, however minor, he should not be allowed to make an
inquiry, ask for ID, etc., if they're 99 miles from the border while
inside of the U.S.?
How far they are from the border is not relevant. If there is probable
cause then you can question someone. As there was with you in terms of
your harassment of others. But you have the right to remain silent and
are not required to show ID... same with others. Your demands for
special entitlements should not be a consideration.
If the guy remains silent should the officer just
walk away so that some politicizing jackass like you will whine how 'he
let those girls die because they weren't white'? How does it work in
that pea of a brain of yours? Some day, when you grow up, you might
realize that the world is a dangerous place and not every security
measure is designed just to take away rights.
Notice how you speak FOR me instead of reading what I write and showing
understanding. And then you accuse me of doing as you do. What a
hypocrite you are.
--
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
2019-07-28 23:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border. It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most. Most of the border
area is desolate and there's no good reason to be just wandering
around there. Even if you're right about the 65% bit, that rules
out 99.99% of them. Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area. Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Snit
Post by Skeeter
I'm saying, among other things I've mentioned, if you stunt CBP from
ascertaining necessary info or insist on full 4th amendment protection
for non-citizens it's tantamount to an open border. If an agent has no
reason to hold a jumper he didn't see cross the border then we have a
huge problem.
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Incorrect. As I've already pointed out, the standard is *lower* than
What standard did you insist applied to you when you talked of the police
speaking to you about your harassment of others?
He wasn't found wandering around the border.
That does not answer the question. But since you bring up the border, given
how about 65% of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border, and
about 75% of Hispanics, why should they not be free to “wander around”
where they live?
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.
I agree -- hence why I say the law is completely wrong. Glad we find
common ground on this. And I think those who back a bigoted law, or
other bigotry, are showing bigotry themselves.
Post by Just Wondering
It's more like
100 yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
I could see that. Even then if you live on a border town you might live
half a mile from the border. But it at least makes more sense.
Post by Just Wondering
Most of the border
area is desolate and there's no good reason to be just wandering
around there.  Even if you're right about the 65% bit, that rules
out 99.99% of them.  Border patrol agents probably know, or should
know, who the property owners are in their patrol area.  Anyone
else is quite possibly a trespasser.
I doubt they know 75% of all Hispanic Americans. The idea of profiling
people merely for their race is wrong.

But, sure, if you see someone crossing the border, or right near the
border (your ranges are acceptable to me, with perhaps some exceptions
for needing permission on private property) then that is fine... but
even then profiling by race is wrong.
--
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
2019-07-28 16:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:08:11 -0000 (UTC), Steve Carroll <"Steve
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe she may be referring to the Kensi Method of Discussion®,
where she will reply in a totally different, renamed thread in an
effort to make the conversation difficult if not impossible to follow.
But I don't recall seeing you do that.
I guess I should ask the obvious... is "kensi" just another Snit sock?
I've seen people claiming "kensi" is a she but some of the arguments are
*very* much like those Snit puts up.
Ah, now you run to your lie about me using socks as you do. You backed
yourself in a corner and are lashing out. Another of your very public
breakdowns.
Carroll snipped and ran. Of course.
--
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
2019-07-28 16:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Snit
2019-07-28 16:14:46 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Ideally, the public school system would ensure every important topic was
taught, and would enrol 100% of the population, but there's this whole
"home-schooling" and private schooling thing, especially in the South,
fuelled by a mix of a) bigoted parents who want their kids to go to an
all-white school, b) profit-driven interests wrecking the public school
system and selling an alternative, and c) misogynistic or otherwise
fucked-up parents who specifically want to keep their offspring ignorant
about sexual matters particularly, usually religious kO0ks, and all of
these factions have outsized political clout.
There is a lot of that — but there is also good home schooling. Some
parents want their kids to learn more than the schools teach. If the kids
also are in library groups or sports or scouts or the like research shows
they often do better academically and socially. Takes a strong commitment
from the parents though.
Every *real* developed country, of course, has a universal education
system and a government that responds to bigoted, misogynist, or
otherwise evil or misguided parents' complaints by telling them to go
pound sand. The United States, by contrast, has governments at every
level that bend over backward to appease the most backward, ignorant,
and reactionary citizens in their districts, and also sky-high rates of
teen pregnancy, STDs, and other problems as a consequence.
Colorado handled this well and reduced their term pregnancy and abortion
rates. The right wingers, of course, are against everything they did.
Also, a warning to everyone else: the Carroll k00k is now playing
silent-followup-to games in a desperate attempt to have the last word by
dishonest and sneaky means. Be cautious and make sure to restore any
snecked groups when replying to prove him wrong yet again.
And this includes his sock explosion. He is having one of his very public
breakdowns. He cannot defend the US engaging in bigoted profiling — but
backs it anyway. He cannot defend the US abusing kids (and adults) as a
part of the redistribution of wealth to the rich — but backs it anyway. He
cannot defend his demanding of rights for himself he denies others. He
cannot explain why child abuse is not, to him, a crime unless you are
caught.
So he is doing what he does when he backs himself in a corner — lashing out
with horrid and false accusations and fishing for personal info about
people to use in his harassment.
Carroll snipped and ran from this babbling about me being a "counselor".
I am not (well, I used to be a camp counselor but I doubt that is what
he meant!). Carroll also lied about my views of history, of books, and
more. Just his normal non-stop lies to try to turn the tables away from
his own comments about how child abuse, to him, is not a crime unless
you are caught.
--
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.
Crunchy Coder
2019-07-28 16:14:52 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?







I never said anything of the sort
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-28 16:16:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:14:52 -0400, Crunchy Coder
Post by Crunchy Coder
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids´ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?
Sounds like a SnitLie®.
Skeeter
2019-07-28 16:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crunchy Coder
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?
I never said anything of the sort
Snit twists words to try and appear to be "winning" something. Snit lies
about what he posts.
Snit
2019-07-28 18:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crunchy Coder
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about topics
their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
It is even more basic than that. If one of my kids’ friends notes they have
a crush or is dating someone there is no reason for me to take notes and
make sure their parents know.
Now if they are in a dangerous situation, say dating a teacher or other
older person or whatever, of course I would take action. But for Carroll to
think teens having crushes is something weird and something I need to act
in is insane.
Many of these teens are in a group together and I have talked to the leader
and there will be a focus on some of the things you bring up. The school
“sex ed” is a joke. Will not go into more details in part because Carroll
might figure out what group and harass them.
And keep in mind Carroll has said that child abuse, in his view, is not a
crime unless one is caught. And has talked about his estrangement from his
kids and how multiple wives have left him. He is likely projecting his own
abuse of kids into me.
Where did Steve Carroll say that?
Do you have a msg-id or is this just another one of your lies?
I never said anything of the sort
Why do you use socks to ask me where you said things? Use your common
account.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-28 18:34:58 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.

The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
--
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
2019-07-28 23:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
Post by Snit
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
Post by Snit
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.
So you separate the two? That's pretty racist of you.
Post by Snit
The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
Show me where? If they didn't enter legally and go thru the proper
channels they are not American citizens.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
If he didn't see this person cross the border, then he cannot assume
that that person is a "jumper". Without some sort of probable cause.
Why is such a simple concept apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
A person who is seen near, but not crossing, the border could very
easily be a US citizen, or a legal resident, or etc. ... it's not as if
the border area is an unpopulated no-man's-land. And the parts of it
that are are parks that see recreational use by locals and tourists.
I lived in AZ on the border for a long time. If someone was seen
wandering around the desert by the border it was questionable. No reason
to be there.
You might see no reason for people to live in border cities and towns but
that is their home!
I lived in Douglas and Bisbee you moron. The border is desolate and no
reason for anyone to be wandering around there. If you come into my yard
I expect you to identify yourself.
You might see no reason to live in border towns but you do not get to
dictate where people live.
I never said that, you did.
You said that people had no reason to be wandering around "there" -- 100
miles from the border, even though 65% of Americans live "there", and
75% of Hispanic Americans live "there".

You have no right to tell them they have no reason to live "there". They
can live "there". They can work "there". They can go to church or the
grocery store "there". And they should be free from being harassed by
police merely for being non-white and living "there".
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the border. Over 65% of
all Americans live within 100 miles of a border. For Hispanics the percent
is even higher, more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other citizen.
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans live withen 100
miles of the border? That's just insane thinking.
How do you figure?
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
Re-read your sentence and see if you can see how absolutely absurd it is.

Take your time.





Still not getting it?

OK, I will help you:

Loading Image...

Find New York on *that* map.

Now consider your comment:

Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----

What part of New York *State* do you think is not within 100 miles of
the border of the US? LOL!

Damn... I do not claim to be great with geography but WOW!

Thanks for the laughs!
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Right wingers back what is essentially a Constitution-free zone for the
majority of American citizens.
Our constitution is for citizens.
I am speaking of 65% of US citizens — and 75% of US Hispanic citizens.
So you separate the two? That's pretty racist of you.
Huh? Those are not separate groups... Hispanic citizens are a PART of
the group US citizens. And the focus on that subgroup is because they
are the ones targeted by racial profiling. Once again you play the right
wing game of merely NOTING bigotry from conservatives makes one a
bigot... to fight AGAINST bigotry is, to you, a bigoted action.

That is as insane as your claim that New York city is not within 100
miles of a border.
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
The Constitution should apply to them, too. Right wingers want to remove
their rights.
Show me where? If they didn't enter legally and go thru the proper
channels they are not American citizens.
American citizens are American citizens by definition! Remember, that is
who I am talking about: American citizens.

Oy... what a complete and utterly insane post from you. But the New York
City comment was the best. Damned... that was funny!
--
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.
kensi
2019-07-28 20:07:45 UTC
Permalink
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
go ahead i for one dare you to flood this group
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-28 20:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
go ahead i for one dare you
More empty threats. [sigh]

LOL
Snit
2019-07-29 00:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...
Right wingers aren't crossing the border illegally.
No, they're merely killing people. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Proof K<SMACKAK00K!>
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/heather-heyer-james-fields-charlottesville-murderer-859182/
That's one.
You know me, I can flood this froup with link after link after link to
further examples if you insist on it.
go ahead i for one dare you to flood this group
Did you dare Carroll, too?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
%
2019-07-28 20:08:43 UTC
Permalink
If you're with a child they could reasonably suspect you've kidnapped
that child
Sheer nonsense. It takes more than "adult accompanying a child in a
public place" to establish even a reasonable suspicion, let alone
PROBABLE CAUSE, to suspect a kidnapping.
And before you say it, yes, it takes more than "brown-skinned adult
accompanying a child in a public place", too, you racist motherfucker.
Then why do we have the border search doctrine in place with backing by
the SCOTUS?
Corruption.
Creeping fascism.
The growing, and lamentable, tendency of supposedly progressive voters
to go for reactionary DINOs like Clinton during the primary voting process.
DNC sabotage of genuinely progressive candidates during the primary
voting process.
Which brings us back to the first item, corruption.
How was Clinton's IIRIRA 'Constitutionally' greenlighted?
Some unhygienic process involving material from the rectal cavities of
Roberts and Scalia, most likely. File under "don't really want to know,
and can we *please* just get rid of them all and appoint a whole new
bench once Trump's gone?"
Any "other law enforcement" can't do what a border agent can, so you
*must* be against that if we are to believe what you're writing... yet,
we know such things are in existence so you *must* disagree with their
existence because they enable CBP officers to do what "other law
enforcement" officer can't.
they have already got powers approximating those of the Gestapo, now
there's a fascist in the White House to give them their marching orders,
and the brain-dead "border zone" contains the workplaces and residents
of a sizable majority of the citizenry, since the coastal cities are so
populous.
If not disbanded outright they certainly need to be cut back down to size.
no they don't
%
2019-07-28 20:08:58 UTC
Permalink
If they're brown in a border zone it's possible they get profiled...
even out of a border zone... it happens... look at the example of those
women in Montana (that's one stupid cop, speaking Spanish isn't a
reason).
Do you understand how the views you express and the policies you *do*
back inevitably lead to events like that and inevitably escalate into
naked fascism?
so
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 22:36:22 UTC
Permalink
If they're brown in a border zone it's possible they get profiled...
even out of a border zone... it happens... look at the example of those
women in Montana (that's one stupid cop, speaking Spanish isn't a
reason).
Do you understand how the views you express and the policies you *do*
back inevitably lead to events like that and inevitably escalate into
naked fascism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Just Wondering
2019-07-28 22:41:32 UTC
Permalink
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about
topics their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to educate
their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest of
society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
But "society" doesn't do that, in the educational system individual
teachers do. Many of those teachers are known to do things like
indoctrinate kids in left wing political philosophy, unreasoning
fear of firearms, etc. Of course, as long as they teach bullshit
YOU approve of, you're fine with this.
Snit
2019-07-29 00:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
That aside, do you think it's appropriate to counsel kids about
topics their parents might prevent them from being counseled about
"Appropriate"? Try "necessary". If the parents are neglecting to
educate their children on an important topic then it falls to the rest
of society to ensure that those children do not fall through the cracks.
But "society" doesn't do that, in the educational system individual
teachers do.
No. Actually in many states, including AZ, they teach incorrect
information and harmful information -- pushing religious crap on kids.
Post by Just Wondering
Many of those teachers are known to do things like
indoctrinate kids in left wing political philosophy, unreasoning
fear of firearms, etc.  Of course, as long as they teach bullshit
YOU approve of, you're fine with this.
I say teach comprehensive sex ed and do other things to reduce teen
pregnancy and abortions... but I am not a Republican, the pro-abortion
party.
--
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.
Loading...