It's About to Get Hot at the Border

[AppleDumplingHead]

It's not like I'm having to go to a lot of trouble to find sources here. Apparently his sources are more esoteric, since he's taking so long to gather them. I assume he'll smack me down with them anytime now.

No, I'm not subject to your challenge. Everything I've stated is truthful and forthright. I genuinely do not find a valid position otherwise.

 

[HoloDoc]

Sorry. Just old. I like that wiki is a thing and that it's easy. It's just... so... itself. >.<

I have problems with Wiki. But it's free to use, quick and easy. Like my ex wife, but far more reliable.

I'm old enough to remember when we had to use Alta Vista to find things online. Before Bing came along and conquered the market.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

What group? WTH are you talking about? The figures I quoted are from past events, in previous years.

We've added time travel to the list of things these "impostors" can do. Maybe. Not sure.

So... About those sources... Got them yet?

You're incensed. I was replying about subsequent forming groups, not even to you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Putting troops on the border is a good idea. If these thousands of people who have been fooled into impostor status is a front for something worse than political chaos, like organized crime, we should be ready for that concerted push.

Because a huge aspect of this formula of illegal immigration is organized crime. The gov't has no obligation to declare their suspicions and tip their hand.

Saying the soldiers are there to "shoot asylum seekers" is leftist propaganda, nothing more. What's more, it's transparent leftist propaganda. Come on, you can do better.

Guess what. The military is not authorized for use in law enforcement. So if the asylum seekers...oh, wait, you are insisting on calling them the vastly different "people who seek asylum"...are a front for "organized crime" a military response is specifically inappropriate. Or are you joining Fat Daddy D'ump in abandoning all pretense of respecting the constitution?

 

[HoloDoc]

No, I'm not subject to your challenge. Everything I've stated is truthful and forthright. I genuinely do not find a valid position otherwise.

So you concede that you don't have any sources whatsoever to back up your claims? Because I, and others, have refuted every single argument you have made - not that it was hard; honestly, it's almost like picking on the slow kid in the playground - and you have not provided a single skerrick of evidence to either support your statements or refute ours. As you are unable to provide any facts to support your claims, you must therefore have an ulterior motive for making them.

Now, I'm not saying that you're a sad, pathetic little racist who simply doesn't like the idea of a bunch of brown people entering the US. And I'm not saying that you're a pitiful little political, partisan hack who is incapable of coherent or rational thought. And I'm not saying that you're a gutless little weasel of a coward who is hiding behind a pretence of aloofness in order to disguise your lack of intellectual capacity to even fabricate an argument in your favour. And I'm not saying that you're too stupid to engage in basic discussions with, not just myself, but Gori, Tim, ElMac, etc., and claim some sort of hidden reservoir of knowledge because you don't have the guts to admit you don't know what you're talking about. But I am saying that the sort of person who would make the sorts of comments you've been making in this thread would fit quite comfortably in all those categories.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Thanks.

When you tell your children they are doing or thinking about doing something wrong, you don't show them charts and graphs. I'm basically performing that position.

Sometimes it is sufficient to just say, "no".

 

[Gori the Grey]

When you tell your children they are doing or thinking about doing something wrong, you don't show them charts and graphs. I'm basically performing that position.

You're not talking to the people who are "doing or thinking about doing something wrong"; you're talking to us about the people you claim are "doing or thinking about doing something wrong." We expect charts and graphs.

Or, like, minimally, an understanding of the meaning of the word "seek."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thanks.

When you tell your children they are doing or thinking about doing something wrong, you don't show them charts and graphs. I'm basically performing that position.

Sometimes it is sufficient to just say, "no".

Yeah, the day anyone entrusts the raising of children to someone with your obvious lack of qualifications will be a sad day indeed.

No, I'm not subject to your challenge. Everything I've stated is truthful and forthright. I genuinely do not find a valid position otherwise.

Yeah, we've noticed that the only way you find a "valid" position is by ignoring all challengers who hit you with facts, common sense, or your own glaringly obvious contradictions.

PS everything you've posted in this thread has been demonstrably ridiculous.

 

[HoloDoc]

Thanks.

When you tell your children they are doing or thinking about doing something wrong, you don't show them charts and graphs. I'm basically performing that position.

Sometimes it is sufficient to just say, "no".

My children aren't stupid enough to make dumb arguments without supporting evidence. And they're 8 and 3. They know that if they say something, they need to provide evidence. If the little says; "Daddy, there's a dog in my room," she knows she needs to provide evidence. Say, a dog, in her room. You haven't even proven to have a room, although you have shown that there may be quite a lot of room in your skull. Where I am apparently now living, rent-free.

And since you thanked me for my comments, I therefore assume you agree with my comments. You're welcome.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks.

When you tell your children they are doing or thinking about doing something wrong, you don't show them charts and graphs. I'm basically performing that position.

Sometimes it is sufficient to just say, "no".

I am not your child; neither are other posters here your children. We happen to be knowledgeable enough to see though your ignorance. Clearly from what has gone on here, your positions cannot stand up to thoughtfulness. I suggest you you stick to convincing children on your ignorance.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Guess what. The military is not authorized for use in law enforcement. So if the asylum seekers...oh, wait, you are insisting on calling them the vastly different "people who seek asylum"...are a front for "organized crime" a military response is specifically inappropriate. Or are you joining Fat Daddy D'ump in abandoning all pretense of respecting the constitution?

But the caravan is filled with Muslim ISIS Terrorists ? and penguin people from south of South America like from the Batman movie
We must finish the Great wall that Gyna is paying for, we are collecting so much money from the tariffs, once the wall is completed will have Matt Damon lead our great military against the endless hordes of lizard people !!!!!!
MAGA

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But the caravan is filled with Muslim ISIS Terrorists ? and penguin people from south of South America like from the Batman movie
We must finish the Great wall that Gyna is paying for we collecting so much money from the tariffs, once the wall is built we will have Matt Damon lead our great military against the endless hordes of lizard people !!!!!!
MAGA

It is definitely time to make America goofy again. Thanks. I was starting to take Apple Head more seriously than he deserves.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I am not your child; neither are other posters here your children.

Not "mine", right.

We happen to be knowledgeable enough to see though your ignorance.

You happen to be heavily influenced by the leftist machine and that brainwashing makes me appear strange.

Clearly from what has gone on here, your positions cannot stand up to thoughtfulness.

That statement is not clear at all outside the leftist echo chamber.

I suggest you you stick to convincing children on your ignorance.

If "by presenting the genuine case with which you fundamentally disagree" is defined as "ignorance", I am doing that, here, right now.

 

[HoloDoc]

Not "mine", right.

You happen to be heavily influenced by the leftist machine and that brainwashing makes me appear strange.

That statement is not clear at all outside the leftist echo chamber.

If "by presenting the genuine case with which you fundamentally disagree" is defined as "ignorance", I am doing that, here, right now.

Wikipedia and the US Govt. are both well known bastions of the "leftist echo chamber." Those are just two of the places we have sourced our information from.

You know, it is possible to have a coherent, consistent, intelligent, intellectually-honest right-wing position. This is a position I will disagree with, but it is possible to have. Senator John McCain had such a position for much of his career; Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Sir Winston Churchill, etc. all had such positions. And every single one of them could have produced a single source to support their argument. The fact that ADH has not done so is a sign that's his view is incoherent, inconsistent, unintelligent, and intellectually-dishonest.

I refuse to believe ths guy is 44 years old. He seems 12. Not an insult; he legitimately seems 12.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not "mine", right.

You happen to be heavily influenced by the leftist machine and that brainwashing makes me appear strange.

That statement is not clear at all outside the leftist echo chamber.

If "by presenting the genuine case with which you fundamentally disagree" is defined as "ignorance", I am doing that, here, right now.

I've presented my case. where is yours? Where is my case wrong?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We could fix our budget by selling off the Army's rifles and issuing every GI a rock.

I mean it's basically the same thing.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I've presented my case. where is yours? Where is my case wrong?

Where is my case wrong?

I understand the biggest argument here is, "HEY. You don't know these people aren't going to eventually qualify for asylum!", and that's a non-point to me because, as I said, those governments, in Central America, from which those people are coming, are not doing things to their people for which one would, at all, qualify asylum. I understand people have a problem with that statement. It's like 2 parallel lines passing in broad daylight and I have zero understanding what's fueling the others' train. That is madness to me.

The rest is "muh feels" and "daddy can we keep them". It's poetic verse with which I, too, agree, but it's not the reality of the situation. The rest boils down to "these people are being used as pawns" and somehow it feels to me you all think this is perfectly ok. You seem like the propaganda arm for a supervillain organization.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Where is my case wrong?

I understand the biggest argument here is, "HEY. You don't know these people aren't going to eventually qualify for asylum!", and that's a non-point to me because, as I said, those governments, in Central America, from which those people are coming, are not doing things to their people for which one would, at all, qualify asylum. I understand people have a problem with that statement. It's like 2 parallel lines passing in broad daylight and I have zero understanding what's fueling the others' train. That is madness to me.

The rest is "muh feels" and "daddy can we keep them". It's poetic verse with which I, too, agree, but it's not the reality of the situation. The rest boils down to "these people are being used as pawns" and somehow it feels to me you all think this is perfectly ok. You seem like the propaganda arm for a supervillain organization.

Y'know, no matter how many times you say "yes they are seeking asylum, but that doesn't make them asylum seekers," it continues to sound completely daft.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You don't know these people aren't going to eventually qualify for asylum!

But the thing is, you do know that they aren't. I'll refer you to the one authority youv'e cited:

Yeh, the fact .01% of those thousands are going to legally qualify.

so this whole caravan should be

a non-point to me

Let them come. Let them file for asylum. Let them be found unworthy of asylum.

If the caravan's at 6000 people, you're making all this fuss about the 6 who will be granted asylum. And you're not against them, because they're the 0.1% with legitimate claims. I.e. you're making all this fuss about zero people.

 

[HoloDoc]

Where is my case wrong?

I understand the biggest argument here is, "HEY. You don't know these people aren't going to eventually qualify for asylum!", and that's a non-point to me because, as I said, those governments, in Central America, from which those people are coming, are not doing things to their people for which one would, at all, qualify asylum. I understand people have a problem with that statement. It's like 2 parallel lines passing in broad daylight and I have zero understanding what's fueling the others' train. That is madness to me.

The rest is "muh feels" and "daddy can we keep them". It's poetic verse with which I, too, agree, but it's not the reality of the situation. The rest boils down to "these people are being used as pawns" and somehow it feels to me you all think this is perfectly ok. You seem like the propaganda arm for a supervillain organization.

You seem to be the expert on that.

There is no argument here. An argument implies two sides. What we have here is a mountain of evidence, analysis, and research, which has been cited. And on the other... *crickets*

This isn't a mountain vs mole hill. It's a mountain vs the Maraianas Trench. And no one here has even tried particularly hard to smack you down; it's like Tyson vs Michael Cera here.

Y'know, no matter how many times you say "yes they are seeking asylum, but that doesn't make them asylum seekers," it continues to sound completely daft.

But daddy, can we keep him? Clowns make me laugh.