In article <vf926l$1itmh$1@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 10/22/24 10:15 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <vf83ld$1f1j7$1@dont-email.me>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> On 10/21/24 11:18 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <vf6vgd$15slb$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/21/24 7:58 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <vf6f48$ufke$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/21/24 8:49 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <vf5e9i$jsii$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> >>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/20/24 9:26 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <vf3sbi$iukn$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
> >>>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/24 12:11 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going through some things.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the past year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be if he wins.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No wars when he was in office.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a war.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To end a war.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But since you pendants are using the "not a war" bit because Congress
> >>>>>>>>>>> never declared one, nothing about Afghanistan counts for Biden either.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 13 dead soldiers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1/5th as many casualties as Trump had during his tenure.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So that makes it ok? You idiot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then shut up about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not the one who's been harping on those 13 casualties.
> >>>
> >>> Because you don't care.
> >
> > <crickets>
>
>
> Incorrect; it has been addressed elsewhere.

No matter. We are right here.

> You've screamed "FAIL" without identifying any of the pre-operation
loss
> parameters that they supposedly failed to meet. You've tried to imply
> that the pre-Op plan was for zero casualties, but you've not cited any
> documents which substantiate that.
>
> Given how many troops die each year in non-combat, including during
> training operations, we know that the operational plan couldn't have
> been planning for zero losses.
>
> Case in point:
>
> "Across the Department of Defense, from 2006 to 2020, 5,605 service
> members were killed in training accidents. This represents 32% of all
> reported active-duty military deaths for that time period and is double
> the percentage of troops killed in action."
>
> <https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/articles/how-many-troops-are-dying-in-training-accidents-and-why>
>
> FYI, that's an average of 374 training deaths/year.
>
> Oh, and that 4,231 deaths listed as "self-inflicted", those are
> essentially suicides: 282 per year, which is 5+ per week.

Blah blah, Joe fucked up.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> BUTWHATABOUT
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because I'm showing how you're so selectively pearl-clutching.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I bet you wish you even knew what that meant.
> >>>>
> >>>> It means you're hamming it up as a drama queen.
> >>>
> >>> Is that what it means? What shithole do you live in?
> >
> > <crickets>
>
> Sorry, I missed reading that particular line. Are you trying to imply
> that I don't know contemporary English because I live in some backwater
> someplace? If so, lead by example by telling us what allegedly
> non-shithole county you live in yourself, and just how that's relevant
> to knowledge of the English language in the USA. Good luck.

So you do live in a shithole.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> And it happened while upholding what Trump had obligated the USA to do
> >>>>>>>> under the February 2020 Doha Accord.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bullshit Joe fucked up. Even the "generals" said so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why the scare quotes around "generals"? Are these some of Trump's very
> >>>>>> fake "But Sir!" (he said with a tear in his eye), or do you have actual
> >>>>>> citations with names, dates, and quotes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Plus when did these leaders first oppose? Back at the Doha Accord?
> >>>>>> Because Doha was when the final ball was committed & put in motion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wasn't there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, so you now can't actually produce any of these "generals". Check!
> >>>
> >>> Well they don't live here.
>
> Oh, looks like I overlooked your weak deflection attempt here.

They don't.
>
> Bottom line remains that you can't/won't actually name who this
> supposedly authoritative "generals" actually were. Shocking! /s

Do you know their names? Why should I?
>
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>>>> This hh assclown is a massive idiot.
> >>>>>>>>> Congress never declared war during Vietnam.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nor did Congress declare war for Korea. Yet you keep on trying to use
> >>>>>>>> "not a war" pedantry to overlook Trump's military engagements.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What wars did he start?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What wars did Biden start?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I never said he started any.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why did you ask what wars Trump started?
> >>>
> >>> It's called a question dummy.
> >>>
> >>>> Hypocritical double-standard much?
> >>>
> >>> No, a question.

<crickets>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which includes 65 soldiers who died in Afghanistan during Trump.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not a war.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then by your own standard, Biden's 13 losses during the final evacuation
> >>>>>> don't count either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They are dead because of his fuck up. I know you don't care. Like
> >>>>> Hillary said about the troops that died at Benghazi. "at this point what
> >>>>> difference does it make?"
> >>>>
> >>>> On the contrary: while you've been alluding to them being suckers and
> >>>> losers (TM), I've cared enough to put their sacrifice into mission
> >>>> context of how many civilians were successfully rescued. Don't you
> >>>> remember how I've posted a challenge to all comers to go identify any
> >>>> equivalent military evacuation under fire to have had a better
> >>>> (casualty:rescue) ratio? Or is this another case of your selective
> >>>> senility again?
> >>>
> >>> What a load. People died because Joe fucked up.
> >>
> >> If you think its BS, stop dodging and just simply prove me wrong.
> >>
> >> Show us what other military evacuation under fire had a better ratio of
> >> rescues vs losses: Afghanistan had 122,000 rescued for 13 losses, which
> >> is a ratio of 9,385 saved for each loss. List all of those operations
> >> which have been so vastly better executed that this one was a 'fuck up'.
> >
> > Joe fucked up. This is settled.
>
> Your saying so doesn't settle diddly squat. Cry harder, "Joe".

It does. This is not debatable.
>
>
> >> FYI, from the COLA archives:
> >>
> >> "...if one wants to callously compare the two in terms of the
> >> ratio of successfully evacuated -vs- US lives lost, there were 4 deaths
> >> in the Saigon airlift to save 7,000 people, so Vietnam's metric was
> >> 1750:1. In contrast, Afghanistan was 13 for 122,000 which is 9400:1 ...
> >> 5x better."
> >
> > No one cares.
>
> You care, which is why you keep on bleating that line, despite how
> you've been unable to actually prove your claim with operationally
> relevant comparative performance information.
>

Joe fucked up, that's all I need to know.
>
>
> >> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/gqTggM-UC_M/m/4Y9ynM54GQAJ>
> >>
> >> Yeah, this challenge has been out there for losers to try to debunk
> >> since September 1, 2021 ... and not one blathermouth has succeeded.
> >
> > Joe fucked up.
>
> Whatever you say ... "Joe".

See? You agree.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> What do they call it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> These libbys are fools.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As opposed to you two being hypocrite.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No wars caused by Trump.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So? What wars did Biden cause? Also zero, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I never said he did. But he sure allowed them to happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, Trump did certainly permit a lot of bad shit, including the ongoing
> >>>> Mideast mess which centers around Iran's surrogates, which is on Trump
> >>>> for pulling out of that nuclear deal.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BUTWHATABOUT TRUMP!
> >>
> >> "No wars caused by Trump" <-- you started these comparisons.
> >
> > None.
>
> Confession by "Joe Skeeter" that his attack attempt has backfired.

Trump didn't start any wars. What is so hard to figure out.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> For you're also being deliberately blind to how Trump failed to deliver
> >>>>>>>> on his campaign promise to exit Afghanistan.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Joe fucked that up.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How could Biden have "fucked up" Trump's campaign promise to be out of
> >>>>>> Afghanistan by the end of Trump's term? Be specific.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why did Biden spend his first day signing off all Trumps EOs? He could
> >>>>> have changed that too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why did Trump spend his first weeks signing off on EOs that undid
> >>>> Obama's works? FYI, one of these eliminated an SEC based fiduciary
> >>>> responsibility on your Investment Broker when he gives you advice.
> >>>> This could be why you've been whining about not being as well off today.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> and he runs from the question and a BUTWHATABOUT
> >> "No wars caused by Trump" <-- you started these comparisons.
> >
> > None.
>
>
> Confession by "Joe Skeeter" that his attack attempt has backfired.

I made you repeat yourself.
>
>
> >> Plus we know that Trump cancelled a bunch of Obama's stuff, so you've
> >> failed to show how Biden was in any way meaningfully different.
> >
> > Why didn't he change the withdrawal then?

<crickets>

> >>
> >>>>>> Also note that Trump had issued orders to the Pentagon to be out by
> >>>>>> December 2020, but then rescinded that order. Why didn't he keep his
> >>>>>> campaign promise? Perhaps because he thinks his legacy would have been
> >>>>>> one of someone who "runs away"? Or because since there hadn't been
> >>>>>> adequate planning done, military losses then would've been even worse?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cry a river. What does that have to do with now?
> >>>>
> >>>> It illustrates how Trump could have met his campaign promise but
> >>>> chickened out. Trump is terrified to be ever be seen as weak, which is
> >>>> why he's easily manipulated by that personality flaw.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> He is speaking somewhere everyday. Twice today. Sorry but you have
> >>> nothing.
> >>
> >>
> >> His speech: "You want fries with that?" /s
> >>
> > You ignore the fact that he is somewhere everyday drawing crowds. Why do
> > you ignore that?
>
>
> Already did address it: Trump's team has reportedly been paying for
> people to attend rallies, but they get up and leave as soon as their
> Venmo accounts arrive. Perhaps that's why this past week Elon Musk has
> added a $1M per day 'random' petition signers lottery prize.

Bullshit. I watch them all. You are telling a lie.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> And blind to how there were thousands of Trump-freed Taliban military
> >>>>>>>> which contributed to the very deaths you're claiming to be so upset about.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But allowing crooks to cross the border and rape and kill is ok?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh, look: its yet another attempt to run & change the subject!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, you just want to avoid it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Except for how I then confronted it head on, still quoted below:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Fun fact:
> >>>>>> most crooks smuggling fentanyl across the border are US citizens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yea right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Need cite? Here ya go, luzer:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and? I'm supposed to believe that? Besides no matter what color they are
> >>>>> they are still crossing illegally.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course *you* don't believe anything that goes against your beliefs.
> >>>> But facts don't give a damn if your feelings get hurt, snowflake.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not a liberal you non original halfwit.
> >>
> >> Yet you've still been triggered: that's what makes you a snowflake.
> >
> > Laughing at your bull isn't triggered. Stop lying.
>
> Still doesn't change the fact that many border crossers are requesting
> asylum which makes them a legal immigrant, and this has been the law in
> the USA for the past 40+ years.

No, you pass at a legal crossing point.
>
>
> >>>>>> Much of our border dilemma is due to decades of systemic under-funding
> >>>>>> of the Judicial department who's responsible to process refugee claims,
> >>>>>> primarily since the Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212), which
> >>>>>> amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bull shit. Follow the fucking law.
> >>>>
> >>>> This *is* following the law. Get a clue.
> >>>
> >>> I explained. You choose to ignore.
> >>
> >> LOL, your "explanation" was merely a partisan claim.
>
> Go look it up yourself to see that it is the truth. I've already
> provided the Wiki page to Public Law 96-212 ... and here it is again:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>
>
> And here's the link to the original law:
>
> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf>
>
>
>
> > Translation: You're right so will post this crap in response.
>
> Of course I'm correct.

Nope. Nice spin.
>
> >> I "ignored" it by showing you that the arrest data shows that the
> >> fentanyl smuggling problem at the US-Mexico border is being primarily
> >> perpetrated by US Citizens.
> >>
> >
> > It's bullshit. Deal with it.
>
> Translation: "La la la, I can't deal with reality!". /s

I made you copy me.
>
>
> >>>>> Cross at legal crossing points and
> >>>>> get vetted. If you try to cross anywhere else you are breaking the law
> >>>>> and go to jail or get sent back. That worked for a long time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Need cite? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This systemic under-funding has resulted in a years-long case backlog,
> >>>>>> and even though the Judicial approval rate of refugee cases is under 5%,
> >>>>>> they're legally allowed to reside in the USA until their case is heard.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps the reason why this situation has been allowed to continue is
> >>>>>> because its good for business: they can hire those peoples cheaply
> >>>>>> (they're 7.65% cheaper than US Citizens at the same hourly rate), plus
> >>>>>> most (~95%) of the time, the businesses know that they don't really have
> >>>>>> to worry about having to provide raises or pay longer term benefits.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and of course Skeeter can't bring himself up to comment on the plain
> >>>> truths mentioned above, particularly in light of how he knows that Trump
> >>>> directed Johnson to kill the immigration reform bill earlier this year.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It was a bill full of pork. Stupid spending.
> >>
> >> Pork? List them.
> >
> > More money going to other countries is not a border bill.
>
>
> List them.
>
> Second request, dodger

You know it. You want to ignore it.
>
>
> >> From a fiscal standpoint, "stupid spending" was forgiving fraudulent
> >> PPP loans in Oct 2020, instead of prosecuting those criminals.
> >>
> >> Likewise, the 2017 TCJA added $2T to the national deficit, and because
> >> actual revenues are still lower than the original 2017 CBO baseline
> >> ($28,490B vs $29,170B) it not only didn't deliver its "trickle down"
> >> promises, but actually harmed the US economy. Data's from here:
> >>
> >> <https://taxfoundation.org/blog/2017-tax-law-revenue/>
> >>
> >> Of course, none of this diversion attempt from Skeeter touches the main
> >> point made, which is that many of the immigrants aren't illegal in the
> >> first place, but are in limbo for 3-5 years awaiting their court date,
> >> and during that wait, US businesses exploit them as a cheap labor pool.
> >
> > I am talking about the ones who enter other than a legal entry point.
> > Remember that numbskull?
>
> So? Show us where in the law that's actually a legal requirement.
> Here's the text ... point out the specific line:
>
> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf>

So allow 1000s across with no vetting? Great, you support the gangs and
raping and killing.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> But yeah sure, the next time you see a Vet, you'll say your performative
> >>>>>>>> "Thank you for your service" to make you - not them - feel better:
> >>>>>>>> Active Duty knows that it is bullshit, because you don't really support
> >>>>>>>> the troops, as evidenced by your support of political candidates who
> >>>>>>>> stole DoD housing funds to build a wall, and who try to strip services &
> >>>>>>>> funding from the VA.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You never served so shut the fuck up.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unlike you, I've sworn the Oath to uphold & defend the US Constitution.
> >>>>>> I know that that Oath is a lifetime commitment and live so accordingly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yea whatever.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gosh, what a gracious apology that was from you.
> >>>
> >>> It was more like a middle finger. I dont believe you.
> >>
> >> Oh, we all know that you're just trying to be rude...and failing even at
> >> that: you're simply reinforcing what we already knew, which is that
> >> your "thank you for your service" is performative bullshit, as you turn
> >> on anyone who you just worshiped if they say things you don't like.
> >
> > TINW
>
> ...and?

You're alone.
>
>
> >>>> Now you might be starting to have a clue as to why Active Duty turned
> >>>> away from supporting the GOP back in 2020, and there's not a chance in
> >>>> hell that they're going to go back now in 2024. Case in point:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Trump?s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll ? and more
> >>>> troops say they?ll vote for Biden"
> >>>> - 31 AUG 2020
> >>>>
> >>>> cite:
> >>>> <https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/>
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI, the poll they also listed showed Biden +3.9 points over Trump.
> >>>
> >>> All something that means nothing.
> >>
> >> It shows that the GOP has lost support from their traditional military
> >> members base. And your deflection attempt illustrates your desperation.
> >
> > Nope. They support him liar.
>
> Claim not substantiated

No need. It's the truth.
>
>
> >>> So why were they booing her at he rally?
> >>
> >> Gosh, what another vague allusion without any substantiation.
> >> How convenient for you!
> >
> > I watched it idiot. They were booing her.
>
> Still yet another vague allusion without substantiation:
> Which alleged rally when? What context? What timestamp? etc.

It was a rally the other day moron. She also pissed off some people when
someone yelled "Jesus is Lord" and she said "you're at the wrong rally"
>
> Because they were probably booing when she mentioned Trump, or the
> mascara-laden gender-affirmed Boy Wonder.

HAHAHAHA Trump is all she talks about.
>
> Without a cite from Youtube/etc, you got nothing credible. Again.

I do. Deal with it. I saw it.
>
>
>
> -hh