In article <vfebea$28eeo$1@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 10/23/24 5:28 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <vfbkif$28gib$1@dont-email.me>,
> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>
> >> On 10/23/24 7:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <vfalgh$1lvf0$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/22/24 5:17 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Elsewhere within this thread, as well as what followed below:
> >>>
> >>> Can't be aresed to read all that propaganda.
> >>
> >> YA "La, la, la ... I can't cope with facts which shake my worldview".
> >
> > Huh? Are you drinking?
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So you're blowing off those who lost their lives in the Service while
> >>>> outside of direct combat operations ... how myopic & petty of you.
> >>>
> >>> Joe blew them off.
> >>>>
> >>>> The reality is that all levels of service have hazards where one's life
> >>>> is potentially on the line, because one needs to train as how one fights
> >>>> in order to be the most effective. A EA-18 Growler crew died last week
> >>>> and here you're a turd going "blah blah" belittling their Service.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't belittle anything except Joe.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > Nope. It's true.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope, I just pushed you to lead by example and you chose to bail & fail.
> >>>
> >>> No bail. I'm a liberal.
> >>
> >> Liberal...what?
> >> By what you've been saying, its as a bullshitter & liar.
> >
> > Bail
>
> You certainly did.

Nope.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> They don't...what?
> >>>
> >>> Live here. Try to keep up.
> >>
> >> And just where is "here", Ivan? North Elbonia?
> >
> > 50 miles east.
>
> 50 miles east of North Elbonia?

Figure it our smarty.
>
>
> >> Because you've whined about how you can't afford anything anymore, it
> >> certainly isn't in any of these districts:
> >
> > I didn't say that.
>
>
> Sure did:
>
> [quote]
>
> "I couls afford to do stuff."
>
> which you said that in context to your prior:
>
> "I was better off when Trump was in office.
>
> [/quote]
>
> That's what pegged your complaint as being financially based.

I never said what you said I said up there.
>
>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Do you mean that the people you're referring to aren't even American
> >>>> generals? Name them. And from a relevance standpoint, explain why you
> >>>> think they matter more to us than our own current American generals.
> >>>>
> >>> Did I say they weren't American? No you did.
> >>
> >> Incorrect, for I didn't constrain the which generals: I noted that
> >> those who aren't American probably don't have relevance, so you'd better
> >> also include relevance if your generals aren't American ones.
> >
> > It's top secret for eyes only.
>
> Oh, like anyone's going to believe _that_ claim!

I don't care. You're not anyone.
>
>
> >>>>>> 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?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because it was your unsubstantiated claim to support with facts.
> >>>
> >>> Is that a rule?
> >>
> >> It is longstanding USENET posting etiquette, rookie.
> >
> > Etiquette left usent in the 90s. Look around. Usenet is dying.
>
> Etiquette did take a hit after Eternal September (1993), but its not
> been dead. Similarly, USENET readership didn't really decline until the
> 2000's after the rise of "Web 2.0" social media as an alternative.

Usenet sucks. It was way more exciting in the 90s.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
> >>>>
> >>>> A 'question' whose sole purpose was your attempt to defect.
> >>>
> >>> So you can't answer. Ok then.
> >>
> >> Incorrect, which is why you've now tried to move the goalposts to
> >> failing to stop wars everywhere in the world.
> >
> > I can't move goalposts by myself. To heavy.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only in your dreams. Reality demands better.
> >>>
> >>> That leaves you out.
> >>
> >> So prove me wrong by showing everyone just what other military
> >> evacuation under fire had a better ratio of rescues vs losses.
> >
> > Who cares? They died because of Joe.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only in your rabid dreams. Reality demands better.
> >>>
> >>> Joe fucked up and now he's been booted.
> >
> > <crickets>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> <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.
> >>>>
> >>>> "C'mon grandpa, its time for you to go back to bed."
> >>>
> >>> Cute.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's so hard to figure out that Biden didn't start any wars either, so
> >>>> your claim has zero contrast to be relevant?
> >>>
> >>> He allowed them to start.
> >>
> >> And just which wars were these?
> >
> > All of them.
> >>
> >> Be specific, because if you're trying to refer to Israel/Hamas, that's a
> >> false claim because that conflict has been ongoing for decades.
> >
> > Not like now.
> >>
> >>
> >> So here's a list for you to show us specifically which wars originally
> >> started during Trump & Biden, so that you can point to these "new" ones
> >> which are still ongoing which in your opinion Biden should have intervened:
> >>
> >> Good luck!
> >>
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003?present#2020?2024>
> >
> > I wont bother. Not worth the trouble trying to knock sense into a
> > liberal.
>
> Because you know that I've already reviewed that list before I even
> challenged you to find these supposedly "new" wars of Biden.
>
> So you try to shield your fragile ego from being confronted with the
> reality of truth by claiming that you don't want to pwn a libby.
>
> But that doesn't change the truth that you're hiding yourself from.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> You bitched that I didn't reply to every time you repeated yourself, and
> >>>> now you're bitching if I don't.
> >>>
> >>> Cry a river.
> >>>>
> >>>> Meantime, you're simply repeating empty, unsubstantiated claims: if
> >>>> your claims had means of material substantiation, you easily could have
> >>>> done so, instead of dodging.
> >>>>
> >>> You really are new to this huh?
> >>>>>>>> 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>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you apparently didn't know that that it was moved back, from May
> >>>> to August, despite that action having a higher risk of escalation ..
> >>>> which is precisely what happened.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Joe fucked up.
> >>>
> >>>> But this still doesn't address the point that Skeeter is trying to avoid
> >>>> in the below, which was that Trump orders for a Dec 2020 pullout, but
> >>>> Trump then reversed that order. Care to come up with a better
> >>>> explanation for why?
> >>>
> >>> Why Joe fucked up? Ask him.
> >>
> >>
> >> I've read the AAR. Have you?
> >
> > No need. It was obvious.
>
>
> But don't you think that the AAR is one of those things that those
> conveniently unnamed 'generals' have reviewed before they opined? ;-)
>
>
> >> Meantime, why did Trump keep on changing the rules for the processing of
> >> Afghan Special Immigrant Visas? FYI, that was ruled to have been
> >> illegal ... back in 2019:
> >
> > Tell me about that ISIS dude in Oklahoma that was supposedly vetted by
> > our FBI.
>
> One guy ... out of a quarter million, plus he was caught beforehand.
> Compared to the criminality rate baseline of US adult citizens, that's
> vastly better: we can literally lower per capita crime in the USA by
> increasing emigration from Afghanistan.
>
> Plus anyone slipping through is attributable to how Trump screwed up the
> system:
>
> >> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-broke-law-visa-delays-afghans-iraqis-who-worked-n1057846>
>
> ...which you've not taken exception to.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If true, then how many $1M checks has Elon handed out so far?
> >>>> 1? 2? 3? 4? 5?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know. Not my circus.
> >>
> >> So when you claimed that you've watched them all, are you lying or are
> >> you so senile that you've already forgotten what happened this week?
> >
> > What happened? He was somewhere everyday, Sometimes twice a day. He
> > danced and he cooked fries. So what?
>
>
> LOL, the fryer was stone cold.
>
> FYI, the "customers" were fake too.
>
>
> >>>> If you "watch them all", then you must have seen videos like this one:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://apnews.com/video/elon-musk-constitutions-donald-trump-donald-trump-es-pennsylvania-9b9df1e63b504028b1c03d99846736ea>
> >>>
> >>> Edited videos?
> >>
> >> Doesn't change what was shown in the clip.
> >
> > So, did you know Kamala told Christians they were at the wrong rally?
>
>
> They were hecklers.
>
> Hecklers get kicked out of events, because they're hecklers, not because
> of alleged religious affiliations.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Show us where in the law that's actually a legal requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the text of the Statute - just point out that specific line:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf>
> >>>
> >>> I used to live on the border and those are the rules....
> >>
> >> Yet you still can't prove that it is a requirement in the law, by
> >> quoting the specific line in the Statute. Goalpost move inbound!
> >
> > You cross anywhere besides a legal point you are trespassing. How many
> > have you taken in?
>
>
> Incorrect. One can make an arrest for trespassing, but that has nothing
> to do with immigration status ... and you've still not pointed out where
> within the law it supports your claim that it is disqualifying.
>
> And personally, I've initiated detention on some .. but it was because
> they were trespassing in a area closed to the public, not because of
> what their citizenship happened to be.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> It ain't spin to note that you've not provided any objective facts which
> >>>> have debunked points that I've claimed in this thread.
> >>>
> >>> You amuse me.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> YA evasion attempt.
> >>>
> >>> You copied me.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime, the facts still remain clear:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Overall, the dataset reveals that out of 9,473 individuals associated
> >>>> with a fentanyl seizure, 7,598 were US citizens (80.2 percent). Source:
> >>>> Customs and Border Protection, Freedom of Information Act request
> >>>> CBP-FO-2023-005880, 2024."
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.cato.org/blog/us-citizens-were-802-crossers-fentanyl-ports-entry-2019-2024>
> >>>>
> >>>> And if you don't like that reporting source, the information you need to
> >>>> independently confirm it for yourself is listed above: just submit a
> >>>> FOIA request to ask for a copy of what their FOIA request had received:
> >>>> its ID# is CBP-FO-2023-005880, 2024.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thus, you don't need to believe me, or CATO, but can see it for yourself
> >>>> that it isn't reality, but your belief which is bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> I know what I know and that's good enough.
> >>
> >>
> >> Even though whatever you 'know' is false in reality.
> >
> > Nope, just because you say so?
>
> Because I've substantiated.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We all see that you can't substantiate your claim. And you know it.
> >>>
> >>> Cute.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, still not an ounce of alleged pork produced.
> >
> > More money for other countries than for the border.
>
> Until you cite the specific budget lines in the POM, unsubstantiated claim.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gosh, if only there was legislation put forward this year to provide
> >>>> more resources for timely vetting ... but Skeeter says that it shouldn't
> >>>> be funded, because it was laden with pork that no one can find.
> >>>
> >>> True. It was. Just follow the law. Something liberals avoid.
> >>
> >> The law says that all who request refugee/asylum have to be let in.
> >
> > At a legal checkpoint.
>
> Until you cite the specific lines in the Statute, unsubstantiated claim.
>
>
> >> The law says that they can't be kicked out until they've had their claim
> >> vetted and had their day in court.
> >
> > Which takes years. They never show up.
>
>
> And _why_ does it take years?
>
>
>
> >> Do you even know what percentage of arrivals aren't actually "illegal"
> >> because of this legal requirement?
> >
> > A lot.
>
> Conveniently vague. Try better.
>
>
> >> Or do you not know because you don't care, because you don't want to
> >> actually follow longstanding US Law?
> >
> > I don't want just anyone to enter. Do you support the gangs and raping
> > and killing?
>
> If you don't want anyone to enter, then you're advocating for the death
> of the USA, because we are a Nation of Immigrants, and it has been those
> very same immigrants for the basis for why we've been a great nation.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't matter to me: I oppose evil no matter how much I'm outnumbered.
> >>>
> >>> Yet you support the current admin?
> >>
> >> Depends on the policy in question, doesn't it?
> >
> > No, you worship them.