On 10/24/24 5:44 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> 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.

Yet you're still here. Bleating & whining like all MAGAs do.

-hh

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>