President Trump Gives Stunning Address On America’s ‘Crisis of the Soul’

  
Via:  donald-trump-fan1  •  6 months ago  •  390 comments

President Trump Gives Stunning Address On America’s ‘Crisis of the Soul’
Trump spoke to the American people with seriousness, with respect, with empathy. He spoke of the women and children who are brutal victims of the illegal immigration scourge. He did not speak in platitudes, as his predecessors did, as though Americans are beneath him. He addressed us intellectually. He appealed to our minds. “This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


President Donald Trump delivered a beautiful, somber monologue from the Oval Office Tuesday night to address the border crisis: “A crisis of the heart, a crisis of the Soul.”

Trump spoke to the American people with seriousness, with respect, with empathy. He spoke of the women and children who are brutal victims of the illegal immigration scourge. He did not speak in platitudes, as his predecessors did, as though Americans are beneath him. He addressed us intellectually. He appealed to our minds.

“This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.”

The speech was thorough and comprehensive on the facts: the need for $5.7 billion in funding, the human and financial cost of the drug epidemic. But he did something even more powerful, even more resonant. He appealed to us as fellow men. And he made Washington seem very, very small.

“Why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside,” President Trump said.

“This is just common sense,” President Trump said of the Wall.

“The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.”

“The only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill…This situation could be solved with a 45-minute meeting,” Trump said, noting that he has invited Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer back to the White House Wednesday.

“This is a choice between Right and Wrong, justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to our citizens who we serve,” Trump said.

For several years now, President Donald Trump has used jokes, has used attacks, has used trick plays, has used raucous declarations to cheering crowds, to make his point that Washington is corrupt and broken, and must be fixed. These methods have been effective, hilarious, even brilliant.

But tonight he did something so much more profound: He made us understand.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    6 months ago

“For several years now, President Donald Trump has used jokes, has used attacks, has used trick plays, has used raucous declarations to cheering crowds, to make his point that Washington is corrupt and broken, and must be fixed. These methods have been effective, hilarious, even brilliant.

But tonight he did something so much more profound: He made us understand.”

This iframe is not allowed
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    5 months ago
to make his point that Washington is corrupt and broken,

Chris Christie has a new book coming out where he describes Trump's aides and White House cronies as grifters con men, low lifes and losers.

So much for draining the swamp. And Christie actually likes trump, lol.

 
 
 
321steve
1.1.1  321steve  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    5 months ago

LOL 

"And Christie actually likes trump, lol."

LOL

I would think christie would sell more books and get more respect if he wrote a cookbook  instead of a tell all book after what he''s be thru himself. Write what ya know not what ya think others want to hear. lol  

 
 
 
321steve
1.1.2  321steve  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    5 months ago
So much for draining the swamp.

They did. look at the crap left behind, That 's WHY ya don't drain swamps. You just take the big bad dangerous alligators out instead. Now we have a nest of vipers ta deal with left. Who knew ? 

Many of us. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2  tomwcraig    6 months ago

Someone really needs to explain to the American People that the wall is just the first layer of defense necessary to delay and divert the bad actors from overseas away from our border with Mexico.  It would be part of the stateful firewall that we need down there.  Traffic coming into the USA should be inspected and confirmed whether it has permission to be entering the USA.  By putting up a physical barrier, it increases the likelihood that those trying to enter illegally will be caught at the ports of entry instead of just passing through wherever they want.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  tomwcraig @2    6 months ago

Exactly.  I’m all for legal immigration coming in through the correct ports of entry so we know who is here and what their business is here.  The wall also channels illegal invaders to areas where border patrol will be more likely to catch them or to much more impassable remote border areas.  

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.2  nightwalker  replied to  tomwcraig @2    6 months ago

That's true, the U.S. will never be truly safe until we invade Mexico (they have some of our oil, I mean exxon/mobile's oil, you know) and take care of those polite but disobedient Canadians and build a much smaller fence at the top of South America will heavily armed soldiers and tanks with orders to kill anything within 500 yards of the wall, and the same for the Canadian border.

 In fact, bring ALL the troops home and station them on both coasts and both borders and put the coast guard along the coasts with a outer layer of the navy and air force to protect us.  THEN all we need to do is destroy Iran, N.K., China and Russia and any other socialist/commie countries like them Norwegian and Scandinavian places and maybe some people will feel safe enough to get a full nights sleep. Sometimes.

S/

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  nightwalker @2.2    6 months ago

Damn, Nightwalker!!! What East German gave you nightmares????

lol

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.2.2  tomwcraig  replied to  nightwalker @2.2    6 months ago

Nice try.  But your sarcasm needs more sarcasm.

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.2.3  nightwalker  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    6 months ago

I read a lot of ScFi?

jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.2.4  nightwalker  replied to  tomwcraig @2.2.2    6 months ago

LOL

I'm sorry TwC, I just couldn't help myself.

No offense.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

It was without a doubt the President's best speech. He looked Presidential and spoke from the heart. He spoke from the oval office to all Americans and made a powerful case for protecting the country and fixing are immigration laws

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago
It was without a doubt the President's best speech.

It was a perfect reflection of just how far the bar has been lowered. He stayed on script for ten minutes...inspiring? Not so much. And the rebuttal was merely more of the same. The true crisis is the lack of leadership, as the continuing pissing match over funding the wall will confirm. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.1  katrix  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    6 months ago

Sad, that the only way Trump can act even slightly Presidential is when he reads off a teleprompter .. and then he mostly looks bored because he can't rant and rave.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @3.1.1    6 months ago
Sad, that the only way Trump can act even slightly Presidential is when he reads off a teleprompter .. and then he mostly looks bored because he can't rant and rave.

SAD …..... how every "Politician" over the decades has claimed a "Border Problem" to get elected, but if someone they don't like actually "Pushes" the issue, they all cower back to their "Everyone deserves" antics !

I'd call just that "Issue" an "Emergency".....as a Citizen of the United States of America" that is ! (facepalm face)

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.3  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.2    6 months ago

If it were such an emergency, why didn't they pass it when Republicans controlled the House and Senate? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @3.1.3    6 months ago

I think they call it the "60 Vote requirement" !

Democrats support "NOTHING" ! Didn't you hear ?

 
 
 
charger 383
3.1.5  charger 383  replied to  katrix @3.1.3    6 months ago

that's what I can't figure out

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    6 months ago

Get used to it, we will have 2 years of this gridlock. BTW, many who voted in that midterm voted for just that

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.7  Ender  replied to  katrix @3.1.3    6 months ago

They could have had it but trump said no.

President Donald Trump has rebuffed numerous opportunities to secure billions for a border wall, and with Democrats set to take control of the House that goal could be out of reach for good.

Trump’s best chance for border wall funding at the level he wants came in February 2018, when Republican Senator Mike Rounds teamed up with independent Senator Angus King on compromise immigration legislation.

It included $25 billion over a decade to build a wall along the southern border and a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. It also barred green card holders from sponsoring adult children for permanent residency and reoriented enforcement priorities to focus on criminals in the country illegally.

Trump torched the bill as a "giant amnesty" for narrowing the scope of deportations, and complained that it didn’t end diversity visas or stop "chain migration" -- his derisive term for laws that allow American citizens to sponsor siblings and parents for green cards.

Amid fierce White House opposition and a veto threat from Trump, just eight Republican senators voted for the bill. With support from Democrats it got 54 votes, but that was short of the 60 needed to advance in the Senate. A separate immigration proposal backed by Trump got just 39 votes.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-13/how-trump-let-his-goal-of-building-a-border-wall-slip-away

If the republicans would have voted for it, they would have forced trump to veto it. 

He had what he wanted, so I don't believe anything he says.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.8  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    6 months ago

Maybe people just don't like one party rule.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago

Indeed.  He was awesome and did a great job expressing why we need the wall.  Then came the clown show afterward which was a sick joke on the American people.  

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.1  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.2    6 months ago

He's an orange clown that manufactured this "crisis"....republicans were in charge for 2 years, but NOW it's a fucking crisis....he is a fucking disgrace and he is NOT going to get "his" wall.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.2    6 months ago
'Then came the clown show afterward which was a sick joke on the American people.'

No, that was the opening act  

 
 
 
nightwalker
3.3  nightwalker  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago

Twasn't from the heart, it was from the teleprompter. The words seemed wiser because they were in complete sentences and he didn't get to adlib and ape it up for the audience.

I watched it again, and the way trump squints and moves his head makes me think his opulence may need glasses. 

 
 
 
nightwalker
3.4  nightwalker  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    6 months ago

Twasn't from his heart, it was straight from the teleprompter, written for him. You can tell, it was all in complete coherent sentences and they didn't let him adlib and ham it up with cute faces and his funny, funny insults.

I re-watched it, and he does a lot of squinting and moving his head to read the teleprompter. Does his royalness possibly need glasses, or does he truly have a reading disability?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  nightwalker @3.4    6 months ago

He truly has a reading disability.   I'd love to see the script.  I bet every thing is enhanced  phonetically and with stick figures and cartoon drawings 

 
 
 
321steve
3.4.2  321steve  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.1    6 months ago
I bet every thing is enhanced  phonetically and with stick figures and cartoon drawings 

Could be: 

512

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  321steve @3.4.2    6 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
nightwalker
4  nightwalker    6 months ago

Yes, trump brought a real tear to my eye too, he did a decent job of reading the teleprompter, not too many stumbles and with all the sincerity a reality star with the catchphrase "You're fired!" can bring while talking about a humanitarian crisis THAT HE WORKED HARD TO CREATE.

Remember "0-tolerance?" Rip them families apart. Thank god the U.S. remembers the lessons of slave ships, so they can pack four hundred+ people in cages built for one hundred seventy. Lost children, children who died without medical care, trans beaten to death and no one knows who or how? Good job.

These detention camps are run by a non-profit they say? I'll bet that somewhere in there someone (one or more of trump's pals, perhaps) is pocketing a fair amount of extra cash and skimmed money, maybe with a little "squeeze" for trump who created a need for their services. After all, trump's personal "charity" or should I say trump's charity for trump, was non-profit too.

Next time, put someone in that can remember and deliver their lines without the ad-lib stuff and can act more sincere.

Like, say, a soap opera star. Are they all busy? Because god forbid you put someone in that knows something about law or politics or at least has a glimmer of intelligence or at the very least a little honesty. He didn't even write "master of the deal" himself, he just heard that there was money in writing a book.

The fact that no U.S. bank would loan him money anymore because of his business practices and bankruptcies MAY have been a small clue about him and his supposed strong suit, his business deals.

Sure, "the master of the deal" just wanted his five billion (excuse me, five point SEVEN billion) and as blackmail a quarter of the Government shuts down. He feels so bad for them, he's been there many times himself, no job and no money and no one to help, hence the tear.

Of course, this is only the first installment, he needs at least twenty-five billion minimum, and remember these bills that he dropped his bomb on were just a stopgap bill that covered for three months. Of course as with any Government contract, there WILL be cost over-runs, so it'll be forty+ billion.

Good thing that the U.S. prints its own money, hey? otherwise, that would be a lot of money.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5  Tessylo    6 months ago

What did he make us understand?  The border crisis?  The lying sack of shit made this crisis.  He owned the shutdown and yet he still blames democrats.  

This sack of shit has no soul, no conscience, no morals, no values, it's all about the turd, no one else.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    6 months ago

'For several years now, President Donald Trump has used jokes, has used attacks, has used trick plays, has used raucous declarations to cheering crowds, to make his point that Washington is corrupt and broken, and must be fixed. These methods have been effective, hilarious, even brilliant.'

Brilliant?  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Rump's cabinet is corrupt and broken - IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER AND HIS WHOLE CABINET OF GRIFTERS, THUGS, AND THIEVES.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @6    6 months ago

Trump was elected by an overwhelming majority of electoral votes. Your comment says more about how much worse of a candidate Hillary was.

 
 
 
321steve
6.1.1  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @6.1    6 months ago

The really sad part of all of this is, those were our only two real choices. That SUCKED ! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  dennis smith @6.1    6 months ago
Trump was elected by an overwhelming majority of electoral votes.

It takes a very loose definition of the word "overwhelming" in order to make that statement.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    5 months ago

Check the electoral vote numbers  and you will see the overwhelming difference

 
 
 
lady in black
7  lady in black    6 months ago

A swing and a miss on his own manufactured crisis....whiny sniveling toddler in chief needs a diaper change, pacifier and his blankie. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
8  lennylynx    6 months ago

There definitely IS a crisis in America, it's the amoral lunatic in the White House.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9  seeder  XXJefferson#51    6 months ago

Trump is right and he expressed  why very well.  The shutdown should last as long as it takes to get partial funding for the wall.  Period.  

 
 
 
321steve
9.1  321steve  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9    6 months ago
Trump is right...lol

trump WAS right, Mexico should pay for a damn well if it's built, its their problem spilling into our country. 

I guess that idea has come and gone though. It never was going to be a reality anyway.  Mexico made that clear from day one. Now its us that he wants to build his big beautiful wall to carry on his legacy. Fuck that even border potol wants fencing not something they cant see thru to protect the homeland.

trump's stuck.,, on his wallOk well then let him pay for what HE wants, I do.

The experts want a fence. That will not last forever, trump wants a Wall that may. Why ?   

Let him pay if he wants a monument or earn one so far IMO; He sure hasn't. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
10  It Is ME    6 months ago

Did Pelosi and Schumer look like someone stuck a hand up their backs to make their mouths move, or was that just me ?

One of US.....One of US.....One of Us !

Invasion of the BODY SNATCHERS !

"Valley of the Dolls" ?

320

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @10    6 months ago
look like someone stuck a hand up their backs to make their mouths move,

Looked sorta like Helsinki 

where Putin up Trumps Rump

spoke for the Putin Puppet boy

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.1    6 months ago

No...…. that's not it !

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2  Kathleen  replied to  It Is ME @10    6 months ago

They stood there like robots. I noticed that myself.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Kathleen @10.2    6 months ago

Nancy....whose usually "Uber" robotically moveable, yet out of sink with her actual words, just stoically stood there as if stuck in Concrete.

Did they even "Blink" ?

I guess without a physical crowd to Pander to, those two don't know what to do with themselves.

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.2  lib50  replied to  Kathleen @10.2    6 months ago

I thought all three were boring as hell.  Trump sounded like someone medicated him right before he spoke.  It was a terrible waste of air time all around, much like Trump's shutdown.   We are all sick to death of the attempts to use fear to score political points with his base.  Americans DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR THE DAMN WALL.  There is no 'crisis' in immigration other than the inability of congress to work together honestly to fix it.  And it will never be done as long as Trump fearmongers and lies about it all.  Open the government now.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.1    6 months ago

It was just really strange to watch, it gave me the creeps.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  lib50 @10.2.2    6 months ago

Actually, the whole thing felt like Twilight Zone. It did not seem real.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.5  It Is ME  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.3    6 months ago

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.2.6  Jasper2529  replied to  Kathleen @10.2    6 months ago
They stood there like robots.

190108-chuck-shumer-nancy-pelosi-snip-ac

240px-Grant_Wood_-_American_Gothic_-_Goo

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.2.7  Sunshine  replied to  lib50 @10.2.2    6 months ago
I thought all three were boring as hell.

I have never heard a presidential address that wasn't.  Most people grumble about it because it interrupts their programs to watch. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.2.8  Sunshine  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.3    6 months ago
it gave me the creeps.

Schumer is a dead ringer for the Penguin.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.9  Kathleen  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.5    6 months ago

That was really good and fun to watch.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.10  Kathleen  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.2.6    6 months ago

Yes... just like that famous picture.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.11  It Is ME  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.9    6 months ago
That was really good and fun to watch.

My favorite part was how the puppet becomes the "Master" !

Kinda like what thee "American" folks should do. Time the "Masters" in Washington become our "Puppets", as it should have been as in the beginning !

As Trump is doing now....the "Masters" in Washington are now "all-a-flutter" over him. He doesn't follow "Their" rules. (Laughing Face)

He is making them "The American Peoples" puppet ! (Thumbs Up Face)

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.2.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.10    6 months ago
Yes... just like that famous picture.

I found another fun pic after I posted.

2qp1cg.jpg

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.13  Kathleen  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.2.12    6 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif  That's a good one!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.2.14  Jasper2529  replied to  Kathleen @10.2.13    6 months ago
That's a good one!

I try to find humor in the midst of the far left's political doom and gloom.  jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.15  Kathleen  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.2.14    6 months ago

Me too! It ain't easy.....jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.16  Kathleen  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.2.12    6 months ago

Hey... I was gong to say you ruined a great pic with two ugly mugs... : )

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @10.2.2    6 months ago
There is no 'crisis' in immigration other than the inability of congress to work together honestly to fix it. 

THAT"S RIGHT   THAT IS A CRISIS

 
 
 
nightwalker
10.2.18  nightwalker  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.1    6 months ago

Naw, ya'll were just expecting a wonderful show with maybe a dance routine and a song, maybe. What exactly, did you want them to do? trump didn't even move his hands.

 You must have gotten spoiled by trump's fantastic eyebrow work and squinting in his address.

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.19  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2.17    6 months ago

Bullshit.  If republicans thought this was a crisis they had 2 entire years to build a freaking wall.  They couldn't even do it at the end of their term!  The house just passed the same bill the republicans passed!  The ball is in McConnell's court, and Trump is the reason for this entire clusterfuck.  I absolutely reject the 'crisis' and will say the reason their is no money for the wall is because republicans didn't want to pay for it.  Why the hell would anybody with a brain expect democrats to pass a better bill for Trump than the republicans were willing to do?  WE DON'T WANT THAT STINKING WALL!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @10.2.19    6 months ago

Kind of like if Democrats thought comprehensive immigration reform was necessary, they could have passed it while Obama was President, right?

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.2.21  dennis smith  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.1    6 months ago

To be successful in politics in America requires negotiating. Nancy and Chuck said they will not negotiate. They are career politicians whose careers will soon be done and then perhaps the dems will negotiate with the repubs.  

 
 
 
nightwalker
10.2.22  nightwalker  replied to  dennis smith @10.2.21    6 months ago

Sorry Dennis

 As long as "negotiate" means that trump issues his demands and everyone gives in instantly, negotiations are not going to work very well.

I notice the GOP has the same definition of the word "negotiate." 

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  dennis smith @10.2.21    5 months ago

Democrats are only ALL (Snicker face) about "Negotiating" and "Compromising" if it's something THEY WANT !

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.2.24  dennis smith  replied to  nightwalker @10.2.22    5 months ago

Dems are not transparent and are behind the scenes with their agenda. Their hatred of Trump is that he defeated Hillary.

Trump puts his position in the open = transparency.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
10.2.25  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  dennis smith @10.2.24    5 months ago

Exactly.  Trump is transparent and the democrats are not.  Trump is willing to compromise and democrats are not.  

 
 
 
321steve
10.2.26  321steve  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @10.2.25    5 months ago
Trump is transparent and the democrats are not.

I'd say they are all pretty easy to see thru, they all want their own way like children. 

Look further at trump and you can see he wants to be the best president ever, he's that needy. Its all about trump saving everyone from everything so he can be exalted to "his proper place in history". What a bunch of crap that mans motives actually are. Now ya know why he will never have my support.

Yep he's pretty transparent. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.2.27  dennis smith  replied to  321steve @10.2.26    5 months ago

Trump does not want to save everyone from everything. He wants to make Americans safe.

 
 
 
321steve
10.2.28  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @10.2.27    5 months ago
Trump does not want to save everyone from everything.

After listening to trump campaigning time after time I see No one in america trump hasn't seemed to promised to fix pretty much everyone's everything. From the rich to the poor from the old to the young , vote for trump and he's gonna make your world better. 

I doubt it. 

He wants to make Americans safe.

Trump wants to be the best president America has ever had, for the attention and glory, IMO: That's fucked up. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  It Is ME @10    6 months ago

What did Trump have up his spineless back when he had the nerve to say that he can relate to those affected by the shutdown?

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.3    6 months ago
What did Trump have up his spineless back when he had the nerve to say that he can relate to those affected by the shutdown?

I'm sure YOU'RE okay during this "Partial" shutdown. I know I am.

You did understand this isn't a total shutdown....right ?

You and I only know about what the "Media" seems to "Want' us to know ! It's a Hate Trump thingy dontchyaknow !

Even "THE" TSA itself, called out CNN's "Fake Report" about folks calling in sick and how dire they were. (Facepalm Face)

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.3    6 months ago
What did Trump have up his spineless back when he had the nerve to say that he can relate to those affected by the shutdown?

Spineless? Unlike Pelosi, Schumer, et al,  Trump upholds his sworn oath of office and focuses on protecting US citizens and legal immigrants against the criminal actions of illegal aliens.

By the way, the "shutdown" is only a partial shutdown. No one has been deprived of a paycheck yet. It's time for Pelosi and Schumer to stop their anti-Trump agenda and stop lying to the American public.

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.3  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @10.3.1    6 months ago
You and I only know about what the "Media" seems to "Want' us to know

Maybe that's all you know about it, but I am seeing the effects firsthand.  And the fact that I am not personally out of work doesn't prevent me from having empathy for those who are.  But that's just one of  many ways you and I are different.  Maybe if your tax refund is delayed, you'll feel differently, because then it actually impacts YOU.

It's rather sad that our border patrol agents and TSA agents are not getting paid - I guess the terrorist situation isn't actually an emergency as Trump claimed it is, or he'd consider these folks a lot more important than he apparently does.  Same with the Federal firefighters, despite Trump's claim that they should be busy raking.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.3.4  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @10.3.3    6 months ago
but I am seeing the effects firsthand

Really ?

TV ?

"Maybe if your tax refund is delayed"

I don't get much of a refund, if at all. My accountant makes sure I only have to pay into government, no more than I am required to pay into government.

It's called "MAKING SURE I KEEP AS MUCH OF MY MONEY AS I AM ALLOWED TO UNDER THE "LAW"...…..FIRST" !

"It's rather sad that our border patrol agents and TSA agents are not getting paid"

What's SAD is......our representatives haven't fixed anything dealing with the border....."Decades" before Trump came into office. Now....Trump is holding their "wimpy Placating feet" to the fire.....and they, the "Politician", doesn't like it !

I say ……. Tuff Shit on you Mr. and Mrs. Politician. We are now seeing how "Politicians" really think. They are for all …… BUT …… "Protecting this country" !

Did you know that Politicians take an "Oath" to "Protect this Country" when they are elected ?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.2    6 months ago
No one has been deprived of a paycheck yet.

No, that won't happen until Friday when federal prison guards and TSA agents are supposed to get paid

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.6  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @10.3.4    6 months ago

Did you know that politicians take an oath to uphold the Constitution - but Trump doesn't apparently care about the oath he took.  His only interests are himself, his wallet, and his ego, definitely not our country.

And maybe you only get your news from TV, but I am out here in the real world.  There are real people who are furloughed, or working without pay, or losing money because their customers have dropped off due to their financial situations.  Just because you're apparently living in an insular bubble doesn't mean the rest of us don't actually know some of these people and some of these small businesses who are struggling - as I do.

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.7  Sunshine  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.2    6 months ago
No one has been deprived of a paycheck yet.

They can file for unemployment benefits like anyone else who gets laid off.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.7    6 months ago

No they can't

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.3.9  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @10.3.6    6 months ago
Did you know that politicians take an oath to uphold the Constitution - but Trump doesn't apparently care about the oath he took. 

And which part of the "Constitution" hasn't Trump upheld again ?

"I am out here in the real world."

Wow !

We have something in common.  Who knew ?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.10  Jasper2529  replied to  It Is ME @10.3.4    6 months ago
I don't get much of a refund, if at all. My accountant makes sure I only have to pay into government, no more than I am required to pay into government. It's called "MAKING SURE I KEEP AS MUCH OF MY MONEY AS I AM ALLOWED TO UNDER THE "LAW"...…..FIRST" !

My accountant and I do the same. I've never understood why people foolishly let the the government use (borrow) their money for months and then feel good when the government "returns" that money without interest. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.3.11  It Is ME  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.10    6 months ago
"returns" that money without interest. 

EXACTLY ! (confused face )

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.12  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.8    6 months ago

Yes, furloughed employees can.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.13  Jasper2529  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.5    6 months ago
No, that won't happen until Friday when federal prison guards and TSA agents are supposed to get paid

Today is Wednesday. Maybe Chuck and Nancy will decide to stand with US citizens and legal immigrants by Friday. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.14  Sunshine  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.10    6 months ago
've never understood why people foolishly let the the government use (borrow) their money for months and then feel good when the government "returns" that money without interest. 

A few years ago the government changed the W2 instructions form so people could figure out the right amount of dependents to claim to maximize their take home pay without owing, but many still prefer to get a refund.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.12    6 months ago

got a link for that?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.13    6 months ago

You think that's gonna happen? I've seen your comments and I don't think you WANT it to happen so these poor people will not be getting a paycheck on Friday. I see you can't dispute that

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.17  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.15    6 months ago

yes, do you?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.10    6 months ago

What's it to you how people do their W-2s? Most Americans can't afford an accountant, Mr Money Bags, so why should you care that I don't do the same as you and look forward to a return every year? Does that hurt you in any way? Offend you? What?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.14    6 months ago

And what's it to you that I prefer a refund?

And I'm the judgemental one.....christ on a stick!

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.3.20  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.14    6 months ago

The man that does our taxes each year told us about dependents.  They sort of leave it up to you if you want a bigger refund or not. I like the bigger refund. 

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.21  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.7    6 months ago
They can file for unemployment benefits like anyone else who gets laid off.

The people who are working without pay can't.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.3.22  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.19    6 months ago
And what's it to you that I prefer a refund?

I'll submit you're being foolish doing that. 

BUT...  don't feel bad, I used to do the same thing until I wised up and KEPT the money myself, got the interest on it instead of giving the government an interest free loan and WAITING for them to give me my money back.

EVERY accountant and/or financial planner I've ever spoken with advises that you take as much home every pay period as possible, then write the government a check in April for any short payment.   It's also a way to force on yourself the discipline to SAVE, instead of spending every penny in your pocket.

Just sayin.   You might like the refund, but wouldn't you prefer the refund PLUS interest early?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.17    6 months ago
They can file for unemployment benefits like anyone else who gets laid off. https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/44083/president-trump-gives-stunning-address-on-americas-crisis-of-the-soul#cm984430

You were the first to claim that they can get bennies. I said they didn't. It really is up to you to go first in proving your claims.

But what the hell, I looked it up because I figured you would weasel out and tell me to go look it up myself. You are correct that they can file for unemployment. But here's the kicker....they have to pay all that back when they get their back pay. And then states are all different in how long they will pay out benefits

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.24  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.10    6 months ago
I've never understood why people foolishly let the the government use (borrow) their money for months and then feel good when the government "returns" that money without interest

I prefer getting about $500 back; never more than $1000.  With interest rates so low, the government is hardly making out like a bandit on its use of my money.  It's purely psychological, and when interest rates get higher, I'll probably change my withholdings.  But losing $5 in interest isn't going to kill me, and I like getting that check. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.25  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.19    6 months ago
And I'm the judgemental one.....christ on a stick!

I don't give a shit what you do.  It was a comment about what some people like to do...not directed at you.  Not everything is about you. Did you see your name?  Exactly what is judgmental about the comment?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @10.3.21    6 months ago
The people who are working without pay can't.

Ooooo.....didn't think of that! Good catch, katrix!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.22    6 months ago

It's none of your business.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.3.28  Colour Me Free  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.15    6 months ago
Furloughed federal employees can file for unemployment benefits during a government shutdown. The Office of Personnel Management has updated information on how these workers can file for unemployment insurance during a partial shutdown.
Eligibility varies by state. Typically, the state where an employees duty station is located in the state that will determine a workers unemployment eligibility in the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees Program. Eligible employees can file for benefits on or after the first day of their furlough. Some states may require employees to wait a week after filing a claim before their receive payment. Most states, though, will issue benefits within 14-21 days after an employee filed a claim, according to OPM.
Most states pay a maximum of 26 weeks of regular benefits, per OPM, but benefits vary based on location. For example, those who work in the District of Columbia will be paid for 26 weeks with benefits ranging from $50-$425 per week. In Virginia, benefits will be paid for 12-26 weeks and will range from $60-$378 a week. And in California, home to the highest number of federal employees, benefits will be paid for 14-26 weeks and payments will range from $40-$450 per week.

https://www.federaldisability.com/blog/2019/01/federal-employee-unemployment-furlough/

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.25    6 months ago

give it a rest

You people are so transparent

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.30  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.29    6 months ago

lol

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.3.31  Kathleen  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.22    6 months ago

That is another way to look at it. I will see what they say when I go to have them done. I don't want to give them anymore money then I have to.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.3.32  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.30    6 months ago

Looks like some can't take the heat.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.33  Jasper2529  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.16    6 months ago
You think that's gonna happen? 

Anything is possible, TG. I'm hoping for what will satisfy both "sides" after today's 3PM meeting.

I've seen your comments and I don't think you WANT it to happen so these poor people will not be getting a paycheck on Friday. I see you can't dispute that

Your personal, derisive opinion of me doesn't merit a rebuttal comment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.28    6 months ago

Thank-you, Colour, for doing Sunshine's homework.

However, as katrix pointed out the ones currently working with no pay can't apply for unemployent insurance. They are SOL

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.35  katrix  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.23    6 months ago

The people who haven't lost their jobs, but who are losing money because of the lack of customers, won't ever recoup that money, and they can't file for unemployment.  I thought Trump supported small businesses?  Hah.  

Of course, Fox News whines that the media is hyping this up - as if presenting real facts about real people who are hurting is somehow worse than pretending Trump didn't cause this whole shutdown because Ann Coulter and others hurt his fragile ego.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.36  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.33    6 months ago
Your personal, derisive opinion of me doesn't merit a rebuttal comment.

But you did comment, didn't you? And still nothing about the people not getting a paycheck on Friday because you know I'm right

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.30    6 months ago

lol

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.38  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.23    6 months ago
You were the first to claim that they can get bennies. I said they didn't. It really is up to you to go first in proving your claims.

I will stick to the sites rules not yours.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.39  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.38    6 months ago

You made the first claim. That's the first rule of debate

It doesn;t matter, Colour did your homework for you.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.40  Jasper2529  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.18    6 months ago
What's it to you how people do their W-2s? Most Americans can't afford an accountant, Mr Money Bags, so why should you care that I don't do the same as you and look forward to a return every year? Does that hurt you in any way? Offend you? What?

My comment 10.3.10 was a generalized observation. I never mentioned you.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @10.3.35    6 months ago

And I totally forgot about contractors. Another good point

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.42  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.39    6 months ago
Colour did your homework for you.

I think she was doing it for you.  But, anyhoo you where wrong.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.44  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.40    6 months ago

I didn't say it was about me. My comment was to cover everybody you derisively criticized for not doing as you do. You were judgemental concerning all the people who do take a refund. And I'm saying that it's really none of your concern if people take a refund or not.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.42    6 months ago

And I admitted it. I said you were correct, didn't I? What else do you want? A pint of blood?

I'm not the one who made the claim, you were and you weaseled out on proving your point. Somebody else had to do it for you.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.3.46  Kathleen  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.28    6 months ago

Hey... thanks for the information. I was wondering about that. My husband and I were talking about that last night. I enjoyed this frame : )

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.47  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.22    6 months ago

Hello, XD ... Happy New Year!

Your comment described exactly what I've said. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
10.3.48  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @10.3.35    6 months ago
as if presenting real facts about real people who are hurting

It's advantageous to cite individual cases and the tragedy incurred as anecdotal evidence as to why we need the wall, but to apply the same reasoning to millions that are negatively effected by the shutdown (regardless of the apologists hereabouts) is smugly dismissed. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.49  Sunshine  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.45    6 months ago
I'm not the one who made the claim, you were and you weaseled out on proving your point. Somebody else had to do it for you.

You are too funny...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.50  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @10.3.24    6 months ago

Everyone does what they think is best for themselves, and I don't have a problem with that.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.51  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.49    6 months ago

You're the funny one if that's the best you can do

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.52  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.47    6 months ago

Your comment described exactly what I've said. 

 

And XD called me foolish....

let that sink in

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.53  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @10.3.21    6 months ago
The people who are working without pay can't.

True, I did say those who get laid off.  

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.54  cjfrommn  replied to  Sunshine @10.3.7    6 months ago

 those government employees that are considered " essential " cant not file. because they are not unemployed---

And those who are not considered essential who do accept unemployment have to pay it back if the government issues back pay. so really not that great, but ok

your comment exemplifies why this county has such a crappy person in the white house. Supporters like you dont pay attention to any details that matter.

smh

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.55  Sunshine  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.54    6 months ago
And those who are not considered essential who do accept unemployment have to pay it back if the government issues back pay. so really not that great, but ok

Of course they do...why shouldn't they?

Supporters like you dont pay attention to any details that matter.

I knew all the details...it was others who didn't.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.3.56  XDm9mm  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.47    6 months ago

Hi Jasper...  and a Happy, Prosperous and SAFE 2019 to you and yours.

I'll admit to always 'wanting' that refund check.  I was nice getting a few grand.   But then I realized I was using the IRS as an interest free piggy bank which provided me nothing in return.  Now, granted, while the last few years have had abysmal interest rates, those interest deposits into my accounts were much better than ZERO.

Now, I've worked my finances into a position of minimizing my federal tax liability and since I've left VA I no longer concern myself with state income taxes.   Hell, not paying those equated to an increase in take home pay of about $8,000.00 a year plus no personal property taxes every year.....  DAMN, I love Texas!!

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.3.57  Colour Me Free  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.34    6 months ago

Not doing any ones homework .. just looked up the information .. as I did not know the answer either.

However, as katrix pointed out the ones currently working with no pay can't apply for unemployent insurance. They are SOL

I have been unable to verify that claim .. perhaps I am asking the wrong questions (?) would def not be the first time...

I was able to find this .. does not answer the unemployment question specifically .. it is dated .. but an interesting read nonetheless ..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/09/18/what-happens-to-federal-employee-pay-benefits-in-a-shutdown/?utm_term=.5dd000c7bda8

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.3.58  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.52    6 months ago
And XD called me foolish....

Hey...  will you give ME an interest free loan?   I'll give it back eventually.   

[Deleted]

No...  you're financially astute.

Just sayin.

"let that sink in"

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.59  Trout Giggles  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.57    6 months ago

How could they apply for unemployment if they're working? The answer is they can't.

They're just not getting paid. YES....they will get all that back pay but that doesn't help when the light bill is due Monday and they have 30 dollars in their account.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.3.60  Colour Me Free  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.54    6 months ago

No furloughed employee is considered unemployed .. they are government/job attached and considered 'laid off' …  I have not been able to verify if an 'excepted employee' can file for unemployment benefits or not .. I ran out of question to ask!

Please explain why paying back unemployment benefit IF someone gets back pay, would be considered a bad thing .. ?  I am sure some GM employees would happily pay back unemployment benefits if they could go back to work with back pay and their benefits intact

 
 
 
KDMichigan
10.3.61  KDMichigan  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.8    6 months ago
No they can't

Wrong as usual.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
10.3.62  Jasper2529  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.52    6 months ago
And XD called me foolish.... let that sink in

XD's comment 10.3.22 was 4 paragraphs and encompassed much more than mentioning you. Let that sink in.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.3.63  Colour Me Free  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.59    6 months ago
How could they apply for unemployment if they're working? The answer is they can't.

I am unable to find that specific answer can you?  I can volunteer my time and be job attached - as long as I am not receiving pay...  not trying to argue - just pointing out no one has come up with a source to verify said above claim...

Been there done that .. had the light bill due and no pay check coming in due to lay off - why do Americans not fight for the average American worker as hard as they seem to be willing to gnash teeth over government employees not being able to pay their bills?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.64  Trout Giggles  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.63    6 months ago
why do Americans not fight for the average American worker as hard as they seem to be willing to gnash teeth over government employees not being able to pay their bills?

Because Americans have gotten into their heads that unions are bad.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.65  cjfrommn  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.60    6 months ago
No furloughed employee is considered unemployed .. they are government/job attached and considered 'laid off' …  I have not been able to verify if an 'excepted employee' can file for unemployment benefits or not .. I ran out of question to ask!

reading comprehension-- you trump folks are so quick to answer--  

essential - not expected 

Please explain why paying back unemployment benefit IF someone gets back pay, would be considered a bad thing .. ? 

i didnt say it was a bad thing, i said it would have to occur but that doesn't mean the money spent on stuff now , is something that someone wants to pay back later because they might be under water by then( benefits generally arent at the same pay scale. 

I am sure some GM employees would happily pay back unemployment benefits if they could go back to work with back pay and their benefits intact

yes i am sure they would but thats a PRIVATE company - again details . and yet you do realize that unemployment benefits does not cover or pay at that same rate as a regular job-- thus debt can STILL occur. And money even with a back pay might not make them whole, so given money is not always the first thing to occur. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.66  Trout Giggles  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.63    6 months ago
I am unable to find that specific answer can you? 

I've been looking but can't find an answer, either

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.67  katrix  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.63    6 months ago
I can volunteer my time and be job attached - as long as I am not receiving pay

If you're a Fed, you can't volunteer your time for anything related to your job.  For example, if you're a park ranger, you can't volunteer to clean up the parks.  It's illegal for you to work at your job if you're furloughed.  You're not even allowed to read your work emails. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.3.68  XDm9mm  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.65    6 months ago
reading comprehension-- you trump folks are so quick to answer--   essential - not expected 

I'd be careful how quick you jump on others.   Can you tell me EXACTLY where the word "expected" is found?   Or did YOU confuse excepted and expected?  There Is a difference besides spelling you know.

Q: Who are Excepted Employees?
A: In the context of shutdown furloughs, the term "excepted employees" is used to refer to
employees who are funded through annual appropriations who are nonetheless excepted from the
furlough because they are performing work that, by law, may continue to be performed during a
lapse in appropriations. "Excepted employees" include employees who are (1) performing
emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property, (2) performing
minimal activities as necessary to execute an orderly suspension of agency operations related to
non-excepted activities, or (3) performing certain other types of excepted work. Agency legal
counsels, working with senior agency managers, are determining which employees are
designated to be handling "excepted" and "non-excepted" functions.
Other employees are "exempt" from furlough because they are not affected by a lapse in
appropriations. This includes employees who are not funded by annually appropriated funds. It
also includes those Presidential appointees who are not subject to a Federal employee leave
system-i.e., who are entitled to an annual salary without consideration of the hours of duty
required and thus cannot be placed in nonduty/nonpay status. (NOTE: Non-career SES and
Schedule C employees do not fall into this category.)
All other employees funded through annual appropriations are not able to work during a
"shutdown" and will be furloughed.
 
 
 
katrix
10.3.69  katrix  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.66    6 months ago

They can't file for unemployment.  They are still officially employed and working.  That's why all the OPM advice on filing refers only to furloughed employees.  From the 2013 shutdown:

"Federal employees can be divided into two basic categories. First, those who are deemed "essential" and asked to report to work. Their pay may be delayed, but they are guaranteed their usual wages and thus, will not be eligible for unemployment benefits.But their "non-essential" colleagues will be forced to take days off without pay until Congress reaches a budget agreement. These workers may file for unemployment because they're on a temporary layoff through no fault of their own."

https://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/news/economy/shutdown-federal-unemployment-benefits/index.html

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.70  cjfrommn  replied to  katrix @10.3.67    6 months ago

there seems to be this need by some folks that act like under this man in the white house.  that rules / polices / procedures / just dont matter.

And yet here we see a collection of individual members that have / would suggest through multiple posts that some how these federal employees really needed  or preferred  to be either furloughed or essential over  what a logical person can see is just a huge temper tantrum. 

I feel surrounded by fools. it makes me sad for them.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.71  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @10.3.69    6 months ago
They can't file for unemployment.  They are still officially employed and working. 

Thought so. Thanks

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.72  cjfrommn  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.68    6 months ago
I'd be careful how quick you jump on others.   Can you tell me EXACTLY where the word "expected" is found?   Or did YOU confuse excepted and expected?  There Is a difference besides spelling you know.

NO shit- i spoke to essential employees vs furloughed employees based on BEING HIRED through the federal system  vs contractors or part time employees and those used via supplemental agencies. 

 

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.73  katrix  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.70    6 months ago

The irony is that the very people they're relying on during this "crisis" are being forced to work without pay.  And all Trump can say is "let them eat cake" - they'll adjust.

And these people still think Trump is for the little guy and can relate to regular people.  I feel sad for them too.  But then, they aren't personally impacted, so they don't give a crap. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3.74  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @10.3.73    6 months ago
But then, they aren't personally impacted, so they don't give a crap. 

Is that what they're calling compassionate conservatism these days?

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
10.3.75  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.74    6 months ago

Please don't remind us of the compassionate conservatism that put us in two wars and scarred a generation.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.76  cjfrommn  replied to  katrix @10.3.73    6 months ago

tell the truth, it is so funny to me to see these type act as if they would be so willing to SWITCH spots with those affected. 

And yet rent vouchers and food stamps and all the other crap this shutdown effects is something these types have no clue about enough to realize a guy with golf courses to hang out in, doesn't have to give a shit. 

But maybe when one of the favorite privately owned boutiques close because they have no shoppers, then it just might matter.

As i posted a few weeks ago, the quote from the usual suspects. And each time some of these members post this seems so real. 

Roger "VerbalKint: The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.3.77  XDm9mm  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.72    6 months ago
essential

Or EXCEPTED employees as YOU referenced. And to refresh you memory, here is the post:

No furloughed employee is considered unemployed .. they are government/job attached and considered 'laid off' …  I have not been able to verify if an 'excepted employee' can file for unemployment benefits or not .. I ran out of question to ask!

reading comprehension-- you trump folks are so quick to answer--  

essential - not expected 

I DID ask you where the word EXPECTED was posted.....   EXCEPTED and EXPECTED are different spelling as they're different words.  READING COMPREHENSION is your friend.

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.3.78  Sunshine  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.76    6 months ago
And yet rent vouchers and food stamps and all the other crap this shutdown effects i

Talk about fear mongering! Food stamp program is funded through February.  

Why create more hysteria than it is?  People not getting paid have enough to worry about.

Did Obama's golfing bother you so much?

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.79  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.77    6 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.80  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.19    6 months ago

I agree with the last part of your statement 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.3.81  Colour Me Free  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.65    6 months ago
reading comprehension-- you trump folks are so quick to answer--  

Whoa .. was I rude to you?  Did I call you a liberal with Trump derangement syndrome …. no I did not think I did, an apology for the insult would be nice..... but I know how 'you folks' are...

not expected

reading comprehension indeed .. did not read the link did you .. 

 I will not comment to you .. please do not insult my intelligence by commenting to me ..

Thanks much appreciated.....

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
10.3.82  Colour Me Free  replied to  katrix @10.3.69    6 months ago

Thanks for the link .. earlier I could find nothing to verify where the unemployment benefits line was drawn...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
10.3.83  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.3.52    6 months ago

And the truth shall set you free! 

 
 
 
nightwalker
10.3.84  nightwalker  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.3.2    6 months ago

Why, how unbelievably generous of trump not to close it all down and only put 800,000 people off the payroll, about half who have to work without pay.

No wonder some people worship at his feet.

 
 
 
nightwalker
10.3.85  nightwalker  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.22    6 months ago

Well, one reason to not claim a deduction is there is no worry you're going to get socked with a big tax bill in January.

The second and more important reason, when you don't claim a deduction you just forget about it for a year then when you claim all your deductions it's a nice boost when you can usually use a boost. Since you ignored the little extra in taxes and don't worry about "how much I could have had" it's like a extra Christmas present. There's a little thrill knowing you'll get money back and you're not even sure exactly how much.

People do it because it's kind of fun, adds a little excitement and brighten things up with what feels like a little free cash.

I don't expect you to give up your interest but it's just not as much fun as you track your interest so there's no surprise, just a routine math event and you may have to pay some out at tax time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.86  Tessylo  replied to  nightwalker @10.3.85    6 months ago

It's a good way for me to have some extra money once a year - sock a way a bit to pay for some necessities - and splurge a bit.  

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.87  cjfrommn  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.77    6 months ago
Or EXCEPTED employees as YOU referenced. And to refresh you memory, here is the post:
No furloughed employee is considered unemployed .. they are government/job attached and considered 'laid off' …  I have not been able to verify if an 'excepted employee' can file for unemployment benefits or not .. I ran out of question to ask!

reading comprehension-- you trump folks are so quick to answer--  

essential - not expected 

this is one of those times where YOU put your nose into something that wasnt yours to do. i was specific in my REPLY to this other member. she posted EXCEPTED i posted ESSENTIAL.

so that is the issue based on her ORIGINAL COMMENT(go back and start there. ) 

I DID ask you where the word EXPECTED was posted.....   EXCEPTED and EXPECTED are different spelling as they're different words.  READING COMPREHENSION is your friend.

And FOLLOWING A THREAD is not yours. That members comment was not correct because ESSENTIAL employees can not apply for unemployment because they are NOT FURLOUGHED OR LAID OFF. 

thus this members reply of using the word you keep going on about, doesn't change her original comment. 

based on using her word in her reply TO ME, that member would be correct.

which would beg the question why doesn't that person KNOW the difference between the word which makes the original comment wrong and the word used in the reply.

hummmmm

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.88  cjfrommn  replied to  XDm9mm @10.3.77    6 months ago
Or EXCEPTED employees as YOU referenced. And to refresh you memory, here is the post:

for shits sake people I DID NOT USE in my reply or comment about which federal employees get paid and which dont. 

i said in a reply to a member that ESSENTIAL employees must work during the shut down thus they can NOT apply for unemployement as there comment suggested. 

someone replyed to me using the word excepted and added a quote. 

EssentialPersonnel are generally defined as the faculty and staff who are required to report to their designated work location, to ensure the operation ofessential functions or departments during an emergency or when the University has suspended operations.

i would be more worried as i noted in one of my most recent replies to someone else that, it would bother me more to know this person SKIPPED , DISREGARDED, or didn't understand how the word they replied with was not the word i used. And the word i used made there comment not true.  

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.89  cjfrommn  replied to  Colour Me Free @10.3.81    6 months ago
No furloughed employee is considered unemployed .. they are government/job attached and considered 'laid off' …  I have not been able to verify if an 'excepted employee' can file for unemployment benefits or not .. I ran out of question to ask!
Please explain why paying back unemployment benefit IF someone gets back pay, would be considered a bad thing .. ?  I am sure some GM employees would happily pay back unemployment benefits if they could go back to work with back pay and their benefits intact

You did not follow the thread well enough to know that I KNOW an essential employee is forced to work and (BASED ON THE COMMENT I REPLIED TOO) they can not apply for unemployment. 

reading comprehension-- you trump folks are so quick to answer--  

Whoa .. was I rude to you?  Did I call you a liberal with Trump derangement syndrome …. no I did not think I did, an apology for the insult would be nice..... but I know how 'you folks' are...

not expected

why would i apologize to a person who replied in such a manner that it was clear that they DID NOT OBSERVE the difference between WHAT the person i replied to said, vs there reply to me. 

reading comprehension indeed .. did not read the link did you ..

why would i read a link about something i know -- but clearly if you would have noticed i USED the word "essential " to reply to there statement / comment that federal employees can apply for unemployment. that is a false statement which is why i provided the word that makes there comment wrong. 

BUT HERE IS A LINK FOR YOU TO READ

Essential Personnel are generally defined as the faculty and staff who are required to report to their designated work location, to ensure the operation of essential functions or departments during an emergency or when the University has suspended operations.

 

 I will not comment to you .. please do not insult my intelligence by commenting to me ..

Thanks much appreciated.....

And i am replying to you so that other members can see that at least two of you seem to have NOT followed this thread  correctly.  and interacted by appearing to ASSUME that the word expected vs the word essential are compatible when discussing federal employees  who have to work vs who can be furloughed. depending on noticing the word i used vs the word in a reply to me. The understanding of them would dictate which federal employee can apply for unemployment. 

as noted in my FIRST comment which was a reply to a statement that was wrong on its face.  when the word ESSENTIAL is used it describes bound to work federal employees based on there job designation or capacity. (officers , jailers, tsa, )

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.3.90  dennis smith  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.54    6 months ago

If you think here is a crappy POTUS now, imagine how bad it would be if Hillary was POTUS. She was soundly beaten by Trump

 
 
 
cjfrommn
10.3.91  cjfrommn  replied to  dennis smith @10.3.90    6 months ago

oooh dennis, she was beat by the electoral college not the popular vote. 

so do you like two systems to make things happen?

for example parents do this all the time.  dennis smith wants to go to the party. dennis smiths mom says yes you can go (popular vote) but you dad says NO (electoral college) 

dennis smith would go to school the next day and explain to his friends that he would have been at the party of year but his mom cant over ride his dads decision. 

lots of your friends would think your dad sucks -- just like most folks now realize the electoral college got it wrong. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
10.3.92  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.91    6 months ago

No, the electoral college got it exactly right as it was designed to do by the writers of the constitution.  It is the process by which we elect our President and it worked as it was supposed to.  The winner of the majority vote in each state and a district got the electoral votes of each state and the district according to their election laws and the constitution.  Whether Trump wins states by 10,000 votes or Hillary wins some by millions is as it should be absolutely meaningless as to who gets the electoral votes for that state.  Besises, this way it’s fun to tell 5,000,0000 California and New York voters how meaningless their votes are.

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.3.93  dennis smith  replied to  cjfrommn @10.3.91    5 months ago

There is only one presidential election and Hillary lost The rest of your comment is deflection 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
10.4  MonsterMash  replied to  It Is ME @10    6 months ago

Pelosi and Schumer standing at the podium last night reminded me of American Gothic

240px-Grant_Wood_-_American_Gothic_-_Goo

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.4.1  It Is ME  replied to  MonsterMash @10.4    6 months ago

Put the Mexican Flag flying in the background. (LOL Face)

 
 
 
nightwalker
10.4.2  nightwalker  replied to  MonsterMash @10.4    6 months ago

It is my impression that you didn't bother to watch anything beyond "persdnt T", and someone TOLD you they were like that.

I'd say make up your own lines, but that has no meaning to a echo chamber.

(shrug) never mind.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
10.4.3  MonsterMash  replied to  nightwalker @10.4.2    6 months ago
It is my impression that you didn't bother to watch anything beyond "persdnt T", and someone TOLD you they were like that.

Your impression is wrong, I did watch Pelosi and Schumer they looked like a couple of corpses propped up by a board behind them.

 
 
 
nightwalker
10.4.4  nightwalker  replied to  MonsterMash @10.4.3    6 months ago

Suit yourself. But you should have watched WWE or a fashion show, sounds like you would have gotten as much out of it. This is one of those times when TV should have been listened to as well as watched.

My confusion on the statements you and others forwarded is what exactly did you want them to do? Both of them are around seventy years old, standing behind a slim podium with a single mike on a marble floor for a short speech.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
10.4.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  MonsterMash @10.4.3    6 months ago

Your impression is spot on correct.  They are living corpses.  They have no idea how to coexist in a divided government.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
11  igknorantzrulz    6 months ago

President Trump gives stunning address

.

me thinkin the only thing Trumppy should be adreessin is how he used to undress Putin with his eyes all a distant and dreamy,

or, how he used selfie stix to look up womens addresses  

 
 
 
nightwalker
11.1  nightwalker  replied to  igknorantzrulz @11    6 months ago

ick, I don't want him tellin' that sort of thing.

 
 
 
devangelical
12  devangelical    6 months ago
a beautiful, somber monologue

more like a comedy monologue of bullshit

he can lie and beg,

grovel and crawl.

but putin's puppet

ain't getting his wall.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  devangelical @12    6 months ago

The shutdown will last until we do get funding for the wall however long that takes.  

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
12.2  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  devangelical @12    5 months ago
more like a comedy monologue of bullshit

he can lie and beg,

grovel and crawl.

but putin's puppet

ain't getting his wall.

I'm growing a goatee so i can snap my fingers and say, "dig man dig" to your poetry!

 
 
 
lady in black
13  lady in black    6 months ago

Now the orange conman traitor in chief wants to cut FEMA funds to California.  He is a FUCKING disgrace!!!!!!!!

President Trump threatened to cut federal emergency funding for California’s firefighters in the middle of a partial government shutdown.

On Wednesday morning, Trump complained that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sends billions of dollars to California to fight fires that are the result of poor forest management.

“Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forrest [sic] fires that, with proper Forrest [sic] Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!” Trump tweeted.

 
 
 
katrix
13.1  katrix  replied to  lady in black @13    6 months ago

Isn't that disgusting?  Bad enough that the firefighters are not out there doing fire prevention work because of the shutdown ... and if there is a fire they'll have to fight it without a paycheck ... but now the toad wants to fuck over American citizens who have lost their homes ... and he doesn't seem to realize that it's HIS job to ensure that the forests are managed properly. He's probably never even been in a forest; it might hurt his bone spurs.

Luckily, in this case it's probably just his normal asshole bluster.  FEMA doesn't have anyone on duty who can carry out these orders, most likely. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
13.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @13.1    6 months ago
and he doesn't seem to realize that it's HIS job to ensure that the forests are managed properly.

Sorry, but the Feds are hamstrung by the wackados in California.

When deadly fires were burning last August, Mike Marcucci, the assistant chief of CAL FIRE, California’s main firefighting agency, noted in aninterviewwith the CBS affiliate in San Francisco that, “It’s a daunting task that we’re working with some of our cooperators (i.e. federal and local authorities) to make sure we can get some of those trees out of the way to not add to some of the fuel.” CAL FIRE experts expanded on the problem by blaming decades of policy that discouraged controlled burns to reduce the fuel load in the now-burning forests in the north and hillsides in the south, creating tinderbox conditions.

Some of the needed prescribed burns in Southern California’s coastal chaparral and grasslands have been deterred by environmental lawsuits and air quality concerns.

The federal government controls 46 percent of California’s land, much of it managed by the U.S. Forest Service. In the three decades before 1990,foresters harvested 10-12 billion boardfeet of timber from national forests every year. By 2013, restrictive environmental policies cut that to 2.5 billion. While the harvest declined, so too did tree thinning and the clearing of brush and diseased trees. The Trump administration is reversing that trend with thebiggest harvest of trees on federal land in 20 years, selling 3.4 billion board feet on some 3 million acres—still just a third of the typical pre-1990 harvest.

Harvesting trees on public land is controversial but helps pay for needed brush clearing. Many environmental groups vigorously oppose both. But fighting the larger, hotter fires that result without active forest management is even more costly and threatens lives.

In California, tighter environmental controls, higher prices for timber harvesting permits and competition from overseas and pine forests in American Southeast led to a collapse of the state's timber industry. Employment in the industry in 2017 was half of what it was in the 1990s.

Source:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/11/16/californias-deadliest-fires-could-have-been-mitigated-by-prevention/#6dbd81bd341b

President Trump is desperately trying to correct that problem despite the lunacy of California politicians.

 
 
 
Tessylo
13.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @13.1.1    6 months ago
President Trump is desperately trying to correct that problem despite the lunacy of California politicians.
jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
13.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  katrix @13.1    6 months ago

You guys are absolutely hilarious! Donald Trump could tread six inches of water and progressive liberals would still hate his guts and find something to hate him for or invent something because the Dems lost the election. You would want him to walk on the water....jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
13.1.4  pat wilson  replied to  katrix @13.1    6 months ago
He's probably never even been in a forest;

Well he's been to one in Finland. He says the Finns rake their forests. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
13.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @13.1.3    6 months ago

You describe TDS quite well.  Trump is right about trade, right about the economy, and right about the need for a border wall.  

 
 
 
katrix
13.1.6  katrix  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @13.1.3    6 months ago
You would want him to walk on the water

I'd be happy if he just acted like a decent human being and not a whiny toddler.  I've despised him for decades - during most of which he was a Democrat.  Democrat or Republican, he is just despicable. 

 
 
 
devangelical
13.2  devangelical  replied to  lady in black @13    6 months ago
traitor in chief wants to cut FEMA funds to California

while the taxpayers are stuck paying for water logged goobers that are too stupid to buy flood insurance in flood zones and live in states with lax building codes

 
 
 
katrix
13.2.1  katrix  replied to  devangelical @13.2    6 months ago

Well, nobody can buy flood insurance right now even if they want to be responsible, because of the shutdown.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @13.2    6 months ago
while the taxpayers are stuck paying for water logged goobers that are too stupid to buy flood insurance in flood zones and live in states with lax building codes

Gee, isn't that something like Californians who choose to live where mudslides are common and fires are common?

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @13.2.1    6 months ago
Well, nobody can buy flood insurance right now even if they want to be responsible, because of the shutdown.

Yes you can.

https://www.fema.gov/.../How-Buy-Flood-Insurance

 
 
 
Split Personality
13.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @13.2.3    6 months ago

Seems to be a problem with that link, and FEMA...

https://www.fema.gov/.../How-Buy-Flood-Insurance

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /.../How-Buy-Flood-Insurance on this server.

https://www.fema.gov

Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed. More Info.

this link still appears to be functioning

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/How-Buy-Flood-Insurance
 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @13.2.4    6 months ago

https://www.app.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/29/fema-changes...

FEMA site worked fine for me. Click on "How to buy flood insurance"

Here's a quote form the FEMA site:

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participating in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.

 
 
 
Split Personality
13.2.6  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @13.2.5    6 months ago
you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.

No you can't.  They are furloughed.

And a licensed agent will tell you that he cannot submit the NFIP application to FEMA because they are closed and unfunded.

By Ed Leefeldt

Updated on: December 28, 2018 / 3:55 PM / MoneyWatch

Some 40,000 homes could be left "unsold" for each month the government shutdown lasts, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). And in its latest monthly housing report, the NAR predicted "slower economic growth" if employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) remain off the job, unable to approve the flood insurance that can be key to home sales.

"Unlike past government shutdowns, with this present closure, flood insurance is not available," said Lawrence Yun, the NAR's chief economist. "That means roughly 40,000 homes per month may go unsold."

The housing dilemma is due to a FEMA announcement that will primarily affect Florida, Louisiana and Texas. FEMA said it will no longer sell new flood insurance policies through private insurers "due to the lapse in appropriations" for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that it runs. The NFIP funds most of the 5 million flood insurance policies issued in the U.S., and more than half are in those three southern coastal states.

Prior shutdowns of the flood insurance program were due to Congressional failure to reauthorize the NFIP. This caused widespread economic lossed throughout the South's real estate markets before it was eventually reactivated. Banks will not approve mortgages for potential buyers who want to purchase homes in flood-prone areas defined by FEMA maps, both in coastal locations and along rivers and streams. It will also be difficult for home builders to obtain construction permits for businesses and residences.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fema-and-the-government-shutdown-home-sales-could-stall-if-no-federal-flood-insurance-processed/

No flood insurance policy, no sale.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @13    6 months ago

Yet the butt head in chief has no problems spending millions of dollars on his golf.

 
 
 
evilgenius
13.4  evilgenius  replied to  lady in black @13    6 months ago
Now the orange conman traitor in chief wants to cut FEMA funds to California.

What's both kind of funny and kind of sad is the areas most hurt by the Campfire now getting FEMA money, voted largely FOR Trump. He really can't think past then end of his twitter app.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
13.4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  evilgenius @13.4    6 months ago

He has come through for victims of the Carr and Camp fires so far.  

 
 
 
katrix
13.4.2  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @13.4.1    6 months ago

And he just said that he is cutting off the FEMA funds.  He also insulted the victims of those fires .. and couldn't even get the name of Paradise right.  Pretending to have empathy isn't something he ever manages to pull off.

 
 
 
evilgenius
13.4.3  evilgenius  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @13.4.1    6 months ago
He has come through for victims of the Carr and Camp fires so far.

Tell that to the people that are still living in tents and just heard he wants to cut funding.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.4.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  evilgenius @13.4    6 months ago

3/4 of our forests here in CA are managed federally but he blames us for our fires due to poor management.  I would hate to have his nerve in a tooth,

 
 
 
Sunshine
14  Sunshine    6 months ago

I wonder if everyone was so upset when Obama laid off federal workers.

 
 
 
lady in black
14.1  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @14    6 months ago

This is a manufactured crisis of his own making because he couldn't get his precious wall money.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @14.1    6 months ago
manufactured crisis

Why is that?  What did he manufacture?  

Where you this upset when Obama shutdown the government?  And furloughed employees.

 
 
 
lady in black
14.1.2  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @14.1.1    6 months ago

Republicans had 2 years to do this and now that they lost the House all of a sudden this is a crisis, bullshit

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @14.1.2    6 months ago
Republicans had 2 years to do this and now that they lost the House all of a sudden this is a crisis, bullshit

Didn't Trump campaign on this as a crisis?  

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-temporary-funding-bill-house-likely-to-act-today-avoiding-shutdo

However, the House bill is expected to be dead on arrival in the Senate, where Republicans have only a two-seat majority and any legislation needs 60 votes to move forward. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would begin consideration of the House version on Friday, which would require consent for expedited consideration — something Democrats could block.
 
 
 
Ender
14.1.4  Ender  replied to  lady in black @14.1.2    6 months ago

Just red meat for his base.

And they eat it up.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sunshine @14.1.1    6 months ago

This isn't about past shut downs.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.1.5    6 months ago

Why not?  Federal employees weren't laid off then?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sunshine @14.1.6    6 months ago

Yes they were.  It was wrong then and it is massively wrong now.  But I forget, he can do no wrong with you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.1.7    6 months ago

On this issue he can do no wrong as long as he presses for walls/fences along the border as part of the overall effort to protect the country at the border.  As far as we are concerned the shutdown can last literally forever until democrats compromise with us on this issue.  We will never give in to Pelosi and Schumer’s bullying.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
14.2  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @14    6 months ago
I wonder if everyone was so upset when Obama laid off federal workers.

There was a court case there, by federal workers. The case found making people work without pay was unlawful and the government owes them back pay (which was paid) and damages which are still (4 years later) being calculated. A person can't be both a budget conscience conservative and still support this shut down.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @14.2    6 months ago
budget conscience conservative and still support this shut down.

What is the cost of illegal immigration to the US?

 
 
 
evilgenius
14.2.2  evilgenius  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.1    6 months ago

No matter what solution is implemented there will still be illegal immigration AND damages to federal workers to pay out.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.3  Sunshine  replied to  evilgenius @14.2.2    6 months ago
No matter what solution is implemented there will still be illegal immigration AND damages to federal workers to pay out.

Of course there will still be illegal immigration, but it can be curtailed greatly with the right measures.  And what we have been doing is not working.  It is on the increase again, and overdoses from drug use is the number one killer for those under 50 years of age, increasing at an alarming rate.  It needs to stop, something needs to be done.  Our kids are dying.  Not only do they need mental health services....the flow of drugs needs to stop too.  

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.4  Ender  replied to  evilgenius @14.2.2    6 months ago

I have to laugh at people that think it will be solved magically. 

Like, give trump billions and the so called crisis will go away.

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.5  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.3    6 months ago

Most drugs do not come over a fence.

The majority come through ports, airports, non sea ports, legal border crossings and even the US mail.

Then there is pills.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.6  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @14.2.4    6 months ago
I have to laugh at people that think it will be solved magically. 

Doing nothing is hilarious...SMH.  Just let it go like we have for last 30 years.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
14.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @14.2.5    6 months ago

I would think heroin would come thru sea ports and air ports because I don't think heroin is produced in Central/South America. I could be wrong

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.8  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.6    6 months ago

So it has been a problem for thirty years, and just because trump says so, it has to be done now and a wall will solve everything.

Yeah right.

And to think people believe trump, that hires illegals at his properties and imports people to work.

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.9  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.2.7    6 months ago

I was reading about it the other day. I don't remember the exact kind of drugs but they don't even bother with the border. They send the drugs to other countries, then ship it here.

Some even send it in the mail.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.10  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @14.2.8    6 months ago

Drug overdose is an epidemic/crisis in the US and those who want to do nothing only because it is Trump are pathetic.  

https://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2016/mar/14/rob-portman/most-heroin-us-comes-over-mexican-border/

Ohio ranks high on the list of states reeling from the national epidemic. In Montgomery County, which encompasses Dayton, Ohio, heroin-related deaths increased 225 percent between 2011 and 2015. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Threat Assessment of 2015 says that Mexico is the primary supplier of heroin to the United States.

"Southeast Asia was once the dominant supplier of heroin in the United States, but Southeast Asian heroin is now rarely detected in U.S. markets," the report state. "Mexico and, to a lesser extent, Colombia dominate the U.S. heroin market, because of their proximity, established transportation and distribution infrastructure, and ability to satisfy U.S. heroin demand."

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.11  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.10    6 months ago

A wall will not do anything to stop it.

Heroin is small in volume. “It’s a relatively small amount—40-50 tons, we think—of heroin that feeds the heroin epidemic in the United States,” Gen. John Kelly, then the commander of U.S. Southern Command, told a Senate committee in 2015. The amount has probably increased somewhat today, but still takes up little space: all the heroin consumed in the United States in an entire year could probably fit into two 40-foot shipping containers.

Now, imagine the contents of those containers broken up into tiny amounts and scattered across vehicles, luggage, and cargo shipments and sent through 48 land crossings, plus airports, over the course of 365 days. The difficulty explains why in 2015, the DEA reported that U.S. authorities managed to seize 6.8 tons of heroin, an amount equal to perhaps one-seventh of Gen. Kelly’s demand estimate.

The dynamic is similar for other compact-volume drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, which are overwhelmingly seized at ports of entry. Cannabis, which is larger and bulkier, appears to be trafficked more frequently in the areas between the ports.

With a small, compact, and expensive product, and a six-sevenths chance of avoiding detection and seizure, it’s unsurprising that most heroin smugglers don’t bother to transport it between the ports of entry, in the sparsely populated or wilderness zones where proposed border fencing might be built.

The ports of entry are a big part of the picture. Yet while the Trump administration is loudly proposing ambitious, expensive wall-building plans, its budget requests would do very little to address the US$5 billion in documented needs, from renovations to staffing, at the ports of entry.

https://www.wola.org/analysis/four-common-misconceptions-u-s-bound-drug-flows-mexico-central-america/
 
 
 
tomwcraig
14.2.12  tomwcraig  replied to  Ender @14.2.11    6 months ago

Laws do nothing to stop anything as well, so should we just remove all laws off the books?  What about the US Constitution, it does nothing to stop Democrats from violating one of the first duties of government as stated in its preamble: Provide for the common defense.

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.13  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @14.2.12    6 months ago
so should we just remove all laws off the books?

A Libertarian wet dream.

Providing for the common defence is spending billions building a wall that will do little to nothing to stop said problem? Don't buy it.

I have posted several times that the Democrats backed a bill that trump would have had money for his wall. It was a more comprehensive bill that included other aspects including dreamers and green card holders.

trump said no.

So instead of a more comprehensive bill he only wants a wall. Seems counter productive to me.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.14  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @14.2.11    6 months ago
Heroin is small in volume.

Illegal drug use has doubled since 2015.  If you listened to his address, he agreed to more comprehensive measurers which would include port of entries.  

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.15  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.14    6 months ago

I didn't listen to his address. Not worth it.

trump changes what he wants on a regular basis.

 
 
 
321steve
14.2.16  321steve  replied to  Ender @14.2.15    6 months ago
I didn't listen to his address.

I actually started to, till I realized I didn't trust any of the numbers he was throwing out. Then I changed the channel. 

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.17  Ender  replied to  321steve @14.2.16    6 months ago

Even when Sanders lied about the numbers, they just brush it off.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.18  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ender @14.2.13    6 months ago

Wrong.  He wants border barriers to be a part of the comprehensive solution he mentioned last night.  

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.19  Ender  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @14.2.18    6 months ago

Keeping up the faith in the faithless.

trump could have had it all close to a year ago. He changed his mind.

He does not negotiate in good faith. He is an idiot that doesn't know a good thing when it smacks him upside the head.

Congress needs to do their own thing and bypass him.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.20  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ender @14.2.19    6 months ago

We who support the wall are willing to keep the shutdown going exactly as long as it takes to get wall funding into the budget.  We want it even more than you don’t want it, and we are totally prepared to keep it going as long as Trump is President.  Our support for his position on the wall is never ending.  

 
 
 
tomwcraig
14.2.21  tomwcraig  replied to  Ender @14.2.13    6 months ago

I'm not the one that is essentially making the argument to get rid of the laws, since they don't do anything and we spend trillions of dollars to enforce them.  Heck, we spend over $20 billion a year just to enforce the immigration laws that do nothing to stop people from crossing our borders.  A wall is far more effective than a piece of paper that says that it is against the law to cross the border without the proper paperwork to show you have actual business within the country.

Actually, the bill that Democrats were pushing would have no funding for any type of wall or fence.  Pelosi even stated so multiple times that there would be no funding for a wall, just nebulous border security.  So, of course Trump said no to that.  If it doesn't contain funding for a physical barrier, it is not comprehensive.

How much do you spend on internet service?  No need to tell me, I want you to just think of it.  Do you know that the router you are most likely renting from your Internet Service Provider has a firewall on it?  Without that firewall, the chance that your computers at home would be hacked would rise exponentially.  You probably don't know how many different attacks the firewall has actually stopped until you check any logs, if you have logging enabled.  Right now, we have no idea how many people cross the border illegally; because we have nothing that actually logs the numbers.  We have estimates, and those estimates are probably very low.  So, in reality, your computers are better protected than the country right now.  But, instead of using every single tool that can possibly be used, what you want to do it make sure we never put up the firewall on the network that is the United States and hope that attacks would just not occur.

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.22  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @14.2.21    6 months ago

Again,

Trump’s best chance for border wall funding at the level he wants came in February 2018, when Republican Senator Mike Rounds teamed up with independent Senator Angus King on compromise immigration legislation.

It included $25 billion over a decade to build a wall along the southern border and a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. It also barred green card holders from sponsoring adult children for permanent residency and reoriented enforcement priorities to focus on criminals in the country illegally.

Trump torched the bill as a "giant amnesty" for narrowing the scope of deportations, and complained that it didn’t end diversity visas or stop "chain migration" -- his derisive term for laws that allow American citizens to sponsor siblings and parents for green cards.

Amid fierce White House opposition and a veto threat from Trump, just eight Republican senators voted for the bill. With support from Democrats it got 54 votes, but that was short of the 60 needed to advance in the Senate. A separate immigration proposal backed by Trump got just 39 votes

trump had his bill and what he wanted. He is playing games.

You can recite the computer mantra all you want, doesn't change reality.

Will a fence or wall work between two larger cities? Yes

Will a fence or a wall work on a river? Blocking view, diminishing growth, blocking wildlife, locking people off of or taking their property... No.

 
 
 
nightwalker
14.2.23  nightwalker  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @14.2.20    6 months ago

LOL

I imagine "we" don't work in anything that is affected by the shutdown, do "we?"

I know you love the country SO much and are so proud of it., too bad you don't like more then 70% of the people and almost none of the rules or laws.

You love this country so much, you and some friends want to tear a chunk out of a couple of states and make one of your very own.

Sure sounds like patriotism and love of country and respect for it to me. 

 
 
 
Kavika
14.2.24  Kavika   replied to  nightwalker @14.2.23    6 months ago

Of course only RW'ers are patriots and love America...That's a known fact among many of right wing. To bad it's simply not true. Waving a flag and declaring yourself a patriot doesn't make a patriot in the real world. 

So each day we have to see that nonsensical articles on how evil/non patriotic the left is. I guess the more the so called patriots toot their horn more BS fly's.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
14.2.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @14.2.24    6 months ago

I would be interested in hearing what your definition of a patriot is in America.

 
 
 
evilgenius
14.2.26  evilgenius  replied to  Ender @14.2.5    6 months ago
The majority come through ports, airports, non sea ports, legal border crossings and even the US mail.

By far the US Coast Guard seizes more drugs than any other agency. The often find them in by the ton and not by the pound like BP and DEA. 

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.27  katrix  replied to  evilgenius @14.2.26    6 months ago

Oops.  Coast Guard is shut down.  So ... apparently this "crisis" isn't that important after all.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.28  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @14.2.27    6 months ago
Coast Guard is shut down

Approximately 42,000 active-duty military members of the Coast Guard remain on duty during the partial government shutdown that began Saturday, but they will work without pay until further notice, according to a statement from a Coast Guard spokeswoman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/42-000-coast-guard-members-are-only-military-branch-work-n952066

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.29  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.28    6 months ago

Ah, apparently it's the civilian Coast Guard employees who are furloughed (and were given advice about having yard sales to pay the bills).  Still, if this terrorist threat were so real, the Coast Guard, the TSA agents, the Border Patrol agents would be getting PAID for their work.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.30  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @14.2.29    6 months ago
 if this terrorist threat were so real,

I believe they are on duty because they are deemed ESSENTIAL.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
14.2.31  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @14.2.29    6 months ago
if this terrorist threat were so real

The only threat is to trumps' reelection efforts. Lose his de facto handlers (limbaugh, coulter, et.al.) and thus his base, he becomes what he fears the most...a loser. Mueller will make it all moot when his report his released.

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.32  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.30    6 months ago

If they're so essential, then they should be getting paid. 

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.33  katrix  replied to  r.t..b... @14.2.31    6 months ago

The House just passed a bill to reopen the Treasury Dept - using the same bill the GOP passed last year.  If Trump really were sincere, he'd sign it, since the Treasury Dept has nothing to do with his wall.  But since this is all about his ego and his fear of Ann Coulter and Fox News saying mean things about him, he'll probably veto it.

 
 
 
Kavika
14.2.34  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @14.2.25    6 months ago
I would be interested in hearing what your definition of a patriot is in America.

Good morning Doc, since there have been a number of article regarding the evils liberals/democrats/progressives and also that they are not patriotic, I've asked the same question to the author of the continuing series of ''bad liberal/democrat/progressive'', good conservative and he never gave me an answer on what made him more patriotic then me. 

To me a patriot is more than just waving the flag and declaring America right or wrong. 

It's the willingness to face our shortcoming as a nation and to acknowledge our mistakes whilst at the same time striving to make our country a better place for all people. 

It's extending a hand to those in need. To fight for what you believe is right irregardless of what others think about it. 

To exercise your right to vote and never, in any way, shape or form allow that right to be taken from you or any American. 

To serve in the military or if your not able to serve your country in other ways. (Peace Corp etc). 

To hear out those with an opposing opinion and to accept those of a different color, religion etc as equals even if you do not agree with them. 

To always do your best no matter your station in life. 

I could go on but you get the point I'm sure.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
14.2.35  r.t..b...  replied to  Kavika @14.2.34    6 months ago

Well said.

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.36  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @14.2.32    6 months ago

I agree that they should be getting paid, but it has nothing to do with the reality of a threat, as you proposed. 

Still, if this terrorist threat were so real, the Coast Guard, the TSA agents, the Border Patrol agents would be getting PAID for their work.

They are deemed essential for many safety reasons including the threat of terrorist, that is why they are working without pay.

 
 
 
katrix
14.2.37  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @14.2.36    6 months ago

It does have to do with the reality of a threat.  When someone is worried about how their family will pay their bills, they can't focus as well on their job.  Morale goes down.  Fewer people will want to take these jobs in the future.  Some people will just find other jobs (of course my military Coast Guard friends don't have that option - they have to serve their entire time - but the civilian Coast Guard folks, and the TSA and Border Patrol agents certainly have that option).

 
 
 
Sunshine
14.2.38  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @14.2.37    6 months ago
  When someone is worried about how their family will pay their bills, they can't focus as well on their job.  Morale goes down.  Fewer people will want to take these jobs in the future.  Some people will just find other jobs (of course my military Coast Guard friends don't have that option - they have to serve their entire time - but the civilian Coast Guard folks, and the TSA and Border Patrol agents certainly have that option)

I doubt anyone in one of those positions are going to not focus on the safety of others.  Government shut downs are really not that common, and doubt they effect any employment decisions.  These people will perform their jobs and put the safety of others first, regardless of pay.  

reality of a threat.

The threat of terrorism doesn't stop for pay or no pay.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif Not sure a drug smuggler or terrorist takes that into consideration.

 
 
 
dennis smith
14.2.39  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @14.2.19    6 months ago

Still bitter that he was voted POTUS over what's her name. Pelosi and Schumer have made it clear they will not negotiate, Trump wants to negotiate.

And the losers are " the American people"

 
 
 
Ender
14.2.40  Ender  replied to  dennis smith @14.2.39    6 months ago

trump had what he wanted last year. There was a compromise made and Democrats voted for it.

The republicans balked when trump said no.

trump does not negotiate in good faith. He changes his mind on what he wants then muddies the water with lies.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.2.41  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  dennis smith @14.2.39    6 months ago

Trump wants to negotiate.

Yeah right.  That is why the teletubby in chief walked out of a negotiating meeting with his usual infantile Bye Bye when he didn't get his way.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.42  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ender @14.2.19    6 months ago

It takes 2/3 of both houses acting in concert to bypass a president and override their veto power.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.43  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  nightwalker @14.2.23    6 months ago

I love America and despise the government of and people of Californication’s coastal urban cesspools.  So, you bet that I support building wall structures along the border as part of comprehensive immigration reform and that I support giving America its 51st state carved out of the piece of crap 💩 that is its 31st state.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.45  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  katrix @14.2.33    6 months ago

It will never reach his desk as the Senate has said it will not even take up legislation from the house that will not get the President’s signature.  

 
 
 
321steve
14.2.46  321steve  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @14.2.43    6 months ago
I love America

Sounds more like you love your vision of what America should be more than what America is in reality.

PS:I dont think you're alone in that.  

 
 
 
lady in black
14.2.47  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @14.2.43    6 months ago

Lol, keep California Dreamin' of the 51st state of jefferson.  Will never happen

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.48  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  lady in black @14.2.47    6 months ago

California is no dream.  It’s a living nightmare of a state and government.  It is the definition as a state of what Trump is alleged to have described certain countries as.  💩 jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
14.2.49  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @14.2.48    6 months ago

If it's so bad then move since a 51st state will never happen  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
14.2.50  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  lady in black @14.2.49    6 months ago

It’s not that bad here because locally we self rule here.  Our city councils and county boards of supervisors are quite conservative and our schools, libraries, parks, etc are well run.  We live far enough away from the coastal cities that they and the people who live in them have limited direct control over our daily lives.  There is no doubt that our region would be economically better off if we were not a part of the state of Californication.  It is being a part of this state that has until recently depressed our area economically.  Now though due to our lower taxes and economic incentives our area does financially better than much of the state when cost of living is factored in.  With our vastly lower real estate costs we can even buy bonds cheaply enough to fix and update our schools with borrowed non general fund money the rest of the state can’t touch to fix theirs.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
14.2.51  dennis smith  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.2.41    5 months ago

The first words out of Chucky Boy and Nancy were we will not negotiate. To normal people that means the meeting is over

 
 
 
321steve
15  321steve    6 months ago

“This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.”

CRS estimates the total number of noncitizens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails—a subset of all criminal aliens—at 173,000 in 2009 

An estimated 88,0008 people die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, is second is poor diet and physical inactivity.9

firearm deaths Number of deaths: 38,658

What "cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end"   is next ?  and at what cost ?

PS: I could not find the numbers of us that illegals have actually killed I'm guessing its fewer than the main three listed though.

Personally as a non drinker I hope he does go after alcohol restriction again. I'm sick of seeing peoples lives destroyed and then  die from alcoholism.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.1  Tessylo  replied to  321steve @15    6 months ago
'Personally as a non drinker I hope he does go after alcohol restriction again.'
But you're not really a non drinker are you?  You've told me you still drink occasionally.  Also, be careful what you wish for there Steve.  Are you talking about prohibition?  That doesn't work.  
 
 
 
katrix
15.2  katrix  replied to  321steve @15    6 months ago
Personally as a non drinker I hope he does go after alcohol restriction again. I'm sick of seeing peoples lives destroyed and then  die from alcoholism

If you choose not to drink, that's your choice.  I wish nobody would drink soda or eat junk food, due to the obesity epidemic - but you can't force people to be healthy.  Trump is ignoring a very real crisis, the opioid epidemic - and the fact that junkies are using illegal drugs doesn't do a thing to stop the crisis.

 
 
 
321steve
15.2.1  321steve  replied to  katrix @15.2    6 months ago
you can't force people to be healthy.  Trump is ignoring a very real crisis, the opioid epidemic - and the fact that junkies are using illegal drugs doesn't do a thing to stop the crisis.

While true alcoholism has been an ignored national crises for decades. You are correct you can not force people to be healthy, but, having deadly drugs like tobacco and alcohol at every convenience store in the nation doesn't help and probably does more damage and kills more of us than the illegal drugs trade.  Our War on drugs never even considers alcohol a major part of the American drug problem.. On no its all that horrible non deadly marijuana. Meanwhile millions are dead from alcohol... Go figure, WTF is our common since ? 

And Yes after watching my entire immediate family die of alcoholism, I no longer drink myself and sure feel sorry for those who do to the point it steals their happiness, health and then their life. 

To each their own, Just dont forget about the pain and suffering that goes with choices for others and the society.

 https://www.salernomedical.com/hidden-cost-alcoholism-society/

 
 
 
katrix
15.2.2  katrix  replied to  321steve @15.2.1    6 months ago

I have a friend whose mother is literally eating herself to death.  Obesity is just as much of a health problem as alcoholism, if not more.  Although it doesn't impact other people as much; nobody dies just because someone else is obese (except for children whose obese parents are raising them to be obese themselves).

Regarding tobacco, alcohol, fattening foods (also at every convenience store) - if people want it badly enough, they'll find a way.  It does suck that in inner cities, often the only places nearby to shop are convenience stores which sell mostly unhealthy things. 

Just think, if we legalized pot at the Federal level, we'd save enough money from the War on Drugs (not to mention the sin taxes we'd impose) to pay for whatever border security we need!   

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  321steve @15.2.1    6 months ago

I thought you liked to have some Southern Comfort occasionally and a doobie.  My bad if I mis-read you.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
15.3  dennis smith  replied to  321steve @15    6 months ago

1 person in America legally who is killed by an illegal is 1 too many. 

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.1  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @15.3    6 months ago
1 person in America legally who is killed by an illegal is 1 too many. 

While I would love to agree, that's not very realistic. We have like 14 million illegals total here, to figure no one will die because of that isn't realistic. People die accedently every day by someone elses fiuck ups, car wrecks are a prime example.  Want to really prevent a lot of Americans deaths, start limiting the sale of tobacco, booze and junk food. 

Hell we could just nationally legalize marijuana as an alternative to the booze and many would probably be saved. I know it saved my life. Everyone of the other alcoholics of my family are now dead alcoholics. I am the only one left alive out of 5 of us. If not for having that alternative I likely would not be posting this or anything by now because I was as bad an alky as they were as were at one time, My youngest sibling now dead for 5 years and he was 4 years younger that I. 

None died at the hands of any illegal. They all died from their own choice of consuming too much man made poison. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
15.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  321steve @15.3.1    6 months ago
None died at the hands of any illegal. They all died from their own choice of consuming too much man made poison. 

Immaterial Steve....

If the ILLEGAL was NOT HERE, those Americans killed by them would not be dead today.  Granted they might have died of other causes, but NOT//NOT due to an illegal alien invader.

One dead due to an illegal alien is one too many.  PERIOD.

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.3  321steve  replied to  XDm9mm @15.3.2    6 months ago

Immaterial Steve....

One dead due to an illegal alien is one too many.  PERIOD.

Immaterial ?

Many things cause americans deaths try doing away with any of those causes.

Illegals just like with drugs we will never stop it all.  And likely we will continue to ignore all the deaths around us from everything else. Considering many many more Americans die from the other stuff Im talking about, I think this like many things our government thinks they can Fix is somewhat irrational and defies common since. But that's our government at work... 

Not to worry though, Somehow I have a feeling IF trump is in office long enough he very well may go after the things I mentioned. Who knows WTF his next "project" will be. Booze, tobacco, junk food, all killers. After all he is out to fix all of our problems.

 “This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end."

OK so what's next ? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
15.3.4  XDm9mm  replied to  321steve @15.3.3    6 months ago
Many things cause americans deaths try doing away with any of those causes.

The point is that if the ILLEGAL ALIEN WAS NOT HERE, THE AMERICAN KILLED BY HIM/HER would NOT have been killed by him/her.

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.5  321steve  replied to  XDm9mm @15.3.4    6 months ago
The point is that if the ILLEGAL ALIEN WAS NOT HERE, THE AMERICAN KILLED BY HIM/HER would NOT have been killed by him/her.

True, I still dont think we will ever rid America of all illegals. No matter what we do. Hell this country was founded by illegals. I dont think any of them had passports issued by the native folks. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.3.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  dennis smith @15.3    6 months ago

That is the bottom line here.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.3.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  321steve @15.3.3    6 months ago

The difference is that our enemy invaders the illegal aliens that are here have no business being here and one dead at there hands is too many as these are preventable crimes that wouldn’t have happened if the particular low life scum wasn’t here and did what they did in their own homeland and not in ours.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.3.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  321steve @15.3.5    6 months ago

No, in the old days they came through Ellis Island and were admitted as legal aliens working toward citizenship or deported if they didn’t meet certain standards.  My maternal grandparents went through there separately in either 1919 or 1920 and met in the USA in San Francisco about a decade later.  I’m all for legal immigration and for guest worker programs for people to work here for a time legally and leave.  I have a zero tolerance for adult illegal aliens.  

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.9  321steve  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.3.8    6 months ago
in the old days they came through Ellis Island

That was after the white man (illegal by today's ironically by the white mans laws) invaded this land and practically treated the native people of this land to a genocide.

In short, this nation was founded by illegals. (and probably some murders as well.) After a while the natives didn't want the white man here. ...  We still reap the rewards.

As did the people you are referring too. 

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.10  321steve  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.3.7    6 months ago
if the particular low life scum wasn’t here

I agree, unfortunately keeping out the good people is much easier to do, the scum will go to any length to break the immigration rules.  In other words tightening the perimeter will effectively keep out more decent illegals than the more dangerous and deceitful ones.  

And drugs will get in, one way or another, IF not they will be manufactured here in some form, Like alcohol, people who want drugs will get them.  I know I never in 40 years had a problem getting what I wanted. Ya got the money ? Was the real question.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
15.3.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @15.3.2    6 months ago

We just lost a rookie who responded to a traffic accident.  He killer died by his own hand afterwards.  Has Trump said one word?  NO, because it was not an illegal who did it, which does not meet his scare tactics requirements.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.3.12  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  XDm9mm @15.3.4    6 months ago

That is the bottom line and to deny it is to say that since we can’t fix all these other problems we shouldn’t try to fix this one either.  After all what difference does it make if one additional American dies needlessly to advance their cause?  

 
 
 
nightwalker
15.3.13  nightwalker  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.3.8    6 months ago

Tell the truth, do you happen to wear a tin-foil hat or did you modernize with aluminum foil?

 
 
 
dennis smith
15.3.14  dennis smith  replied to  321steve @15.3.1    5 months ago

 Try accepting facts instead of wandering off topic. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
15.3.15  dennis smith  replied to  321steve @15.3.5    5 months ago

So you just accept that killing on Americans by those here illegally is okay.

Nancy, Schumer and you are peas in a pod. If dem leadership doesn't change, the party will be useless within the next decade.

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.16  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @15.3.14    5 months ago
Try accepting facts instead of wandering off topic. 

I see and accept reality just fine. I didn't realize though some here are so closed minded and inflexible as to not to be able to talk about more than one aspect of things at at time.

Sorry

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.17  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @15.3.15    5 months ago
So you just accept that killing on Americans by those here illegally is okay.

No that seems to be Your interpretation of my opinion. You are incorrect. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
15.3.19  dennis smith  replied to  321steve @15.3.5    5 months ago

We will not eliminate all illegals is an excuse for not trying. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
15.3.20  dennis smith  replied to  321steve @15.3.16    5 months ago

Some think their daydreams are reality and they continue to muddy the waters by bringing multiple other issues when only one is the topic of discussion They are like politician who add pork to individual bills for their own selfish reasons

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.21  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @15.3.19    5 months ago
We will not eliminate all illegals is an excuse for not trying.

Best not let the anti gun people in on that philosophy.

lol 

My thinking is and always has been yes we may be able to round up and get the majority of the illegals but the worse ones would be the last to be caught and deported. The worse ones would do anything not to be caught. Anything !

The problem isn't really with the easy ones to catch. They are at work and easy to find.  

 
 
 
321steve
15.3.22  321steve  replied to  dennis smith @15.3.20    5 months ago
Some think their daydreams are reality and they continue to muddy the waters by bringing multiple other issues when only one is the topic of discussion

I rarely see topics that dont overlap into other areas. Many only want to talk about their interest. Seeing many sides and parts of a subject doesn't interest them. O well to each their own. 

 
 
 
MUVA
16  MUVA    6 months ago

We have at least 12 million illegal aliens in the country it is really probably closer to 20  million that is a crisis.

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.1  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @16    6 months ago
'probably closer to 20  million'

Proof?  Citation?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
16.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @16.1    6 months ago
Proof?  Citation? The results of our analysis are clear: The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States is estimated to be substantially larger than has been appreciated at least in widely accepted previous estimates. Even an estimate based on what we view as conservative assumptions, in some cases unrealistically so, generates an estimate of 16.7 million, well above the conventional estimate of 11.3 million. The mean of our simulations, which range over more standard but still conservative parameter values, is 22.1 million, essentially twice the current widely accepted estimate; the ninety-five percent probability interval is [16.2,29.5]. Even for the scenario presuming net inflows of 0.5 million per year for 1990-98 our results still exceed the current estimates substantially. The mean estimate is 17.0 million with a 95% probability interval of 13.5 million to 21.1 million. The conservative estimate for this scenario is 14.0 million, still significantly above the widely accepted estimate of 11.3 million.

Source:  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

 
 
 
Texan1211
16.2  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @16    6 months ago
We have at least 12 million illegal aliens in the country it is really probably closer to 20 million that is a crisis.

I can believe that. What is funny is that some folks think that illegal aliens are actually being counted --magically, I suppose!

 
 
 
Sunshine
17  Sunshine    6 months ago

If walls don't work...why does San Diego have one?

SAN DIEGO—The county once known as “ground zero” for illegal immigration in the United States has become a model of successful border security that the rest of the country is now looking to emulate.
This began, fittingly, with a wall—or to be more precise, a crude barrier of sheet metal supported by metal poles. This original barrier wasn’t meant to stop people. It was initially just meant to stop cars and trucks carrying migrants and drugs into the United States.
Yet this barrier triggered a process of trial and error with border walls that, over the course of 2 1/2 decades, has reduced the number of apprehensions of illegal aliens in San Diego from more than 628,000 in fiscal 1986 to its current number of around 30,000 a year.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/san-diego-where-a-border-wall-works_2297915.html

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @17    6 months ago

Well of course walls and fences work. It is rather ludicrous for anyone to claim otherwise.

What I don't understand is anyone who doesn't want a more secure America.

 
 
 
321steve
17.1.1  321steve  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1    6 months ago

I don't think anyone wants a less secure America, no one wants to pay for a Wall, that has always been and still is the problem. Trump promised mexico would be paying, he evidently was wrong, won't admit it and now wants you and I to pay for it instead.

Personally I already own this government enough for their mishandling of funds in the past. I dont think I can afford a wall right now.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  321steve @17.1.1    6 months ago

For most, the cost of the wall is cited as a reason not to have it. That amount is a drop in the bucket.

I believe we have agreed in the past that neither party has shown real fiscal responsibility.

But that still doesn't mean we should abandon everything based on cost alone.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1    6 months ago

Most most who oppose the wall have an innate inner contempt for America as we love her and are using illegal immigrants to try to change the nature of America.  

 
 
 
tomwcraig
17.1.4  tomwcraig  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.2    6 months ago

The total price of the wall $20 billion is the actual amount of funding per year for ICE and Border Patrol as per the FY2018 Department of Homeland Security budget.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20FY18%20BIB%20Final.pdf

Heck in FY 2016, the actual cost of the Border Patrol was $13.3 billion and of ICE was $6.2 billion.  And, as I stated to people before, it would actually free up ICE assets to be moved to other areas, since there would be less people crossing illegally in areas with the wall/fence.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
17.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.2    6 months ago
the cost of the wall is cited as a reason not to have it

This isn't about cost. This isn't about caravans or MS-13 or the drug cartels. It is about placating the base (promises made, promises kept) and posturing for his reelection bid. Maybe he should say it will cost 17 trillion pesos, and continue to con his followers into believing Mexico is indeed going to pay for the wall...they have fallen for everything else.

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @17.1.5    6 months ago
This isn't about cost. This isn't about caravans or MS-13 or the drug cartels. It is about placating the base (promises made, promises kept) and posturing for his reelection bid. Maybe he should say it will cost 17 trillion pesos, and continue to con his followers into believing Mexico is indeed going to pay for the wall...they have fallen for everything else.

You have described what you believe is the reason some of us want a wall, or fence, or whatever. 

What about the opposition to it? 

It is listed as a reason to oppose it based on cost.

Why wouldn't anyone want better b4order security?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
17.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.6    6 months ago
Why wouldn't anyone want better b4order security?

Most can accept the premise. For some, it comes down to efficacy...are we throwing good money after bad in trying to fulfill a campaign promise or are we serious about addressing the situation. If we are serious, a wall is but part of a much more comprehensive overhaul of our entire immigration system. Enforcement of current laws, increased courts to handle the backlog of legitimate asylum cases, staffing to handle the unprotected miles of open border, addressing DACA, etc. etc., etc. And coming soon, the debt ceiling debate, where the wrangling over the wall will only divide us further. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @17.1.7    6 months ago

I'll take a wall for now. Then, once we have it in place, we can talk about amnesty.

We did it the other way once, and we still have a problem, time to try something different.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
17.1.9  tomwcraig  replied to  r.t..b... @17.1.5    6 months ago

Democrats promised border security in the 1980s when they controlled the House if Reagan granted an amnesty.  Reagan did so, nothing was done regarding border security.  George W. Bush signed into law a bill that promised a fence along the border with Mexico, and was originally granted $1.4 billion to erect it.  However, only $2.3 billion was actually spent on building that fence up to 2015.  In reality, what Trump was promising was Congress actually following through with their promises in 2006 to build a fence.  Because, it is already law.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  tomwcraig @17.1.9    6 months ago

It’s time to follow and enforce that law.  Build the wall!  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.8    6 months ago

I agree.  No DACA, no amnesty, no path toward citizenship for so many as one of them until the wall is built.  The current illegals should always have to live in fear of ICE and mass 30-300 person deportations due to raids anywhere in the Heartland.  Once the wall is built then we can settle the status of the existing illegals,letting all who are working or going to school or serving in the military or are homemakers and are learning English can as long as they don’t do other crimes become permanent legal resident aliens. Then after 15 years and all those who applied to come here legally have their cases resolved they can apply to trade their legal resident alien status for citizenship and begin that process then.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.1.11    6 months ago

Sounds good to me, but Democrats will never, ever go for anything so sane.

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  tomwcraig @17.1.9    6 months ago

I'm not sure of the particulars Tom, but Gatekeeper was launched in 1994 by Janet Reno, under President Clinton. The first wall started in the Pacific and extended to the San Ysidro POE.

Beginning in 1994, the U.S. government implemented a border enforcement policy known as “Operation Gatekeeper” that used a “prevention and deterrence” strategy. The strategy concentrated border agents and resources along populated areas, intentionally forcing undocumented immigrants to extreme environments and natural barriers that the government anticipated would increase the likelihood of injury and death. The stated goal was to deter migrants from crossing.

—Over the last fifteen years, national security concerns have reinforced the deterrence strategy without any improvements in the results. The mutual interest of intercepting national security threats on a shared border reshaped the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States, redefining priorities given to immigration and border policies. The national security lens favored the militarization of the border at the cost of migrant lives. In the last five years, the border enforcement budget expanded from $6 billion to $10.1 billion, the number of agents jumped to 20,000; 630 miles of new fencing was completed around urban areas; 300 miles of vehicle barriers were erected; a “virtual fence” of technological infrastructure was installed...and more migrants are dying now than ever before.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-ann-west/thanks-to-operation-gatek_b_309744.html

article is dated May 25,2011

 
 
 
tomwcraig
17.1.14  tomwcraig  replied to  Split Personality @17.1.13    6 months ago

Which just proves the point about fences and walls being effective.  And, Operation Gatekeeper wasn't just a wall but a complete enforcement plan conducted by the Border Patrol.

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  tomwcraig @17.1.14    6 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.16  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.12    5 months ago

Sad but all too true.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
17.1.17  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1    5 months ago

Those who don't want America to be more secure show up out of the woodwork daily on NT 

 
 
 
Ender
17.2  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @17    6 months ago

I would say that is different.

That is between built up cities.

It is not blocking a river or someone's access to their land.

 
 
 
Sunshine
17.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @17.2    6 months ago
I would say that is different.

The point is walls work.  You may not want one for other reasons, but they do work.  The folks in San Diego appreciate it.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @17.2.1    6 months ago

NO they don't.  Not in this case of the border.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
17.2.3  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @17.2.2    6 months ago
Not in this case of the border.  

You do know where the border wall for San Diego is?  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @17.2.1    6 months ago
The point is walls work. You may not want one for other reasons, but they do work. The folks in San Diego appreciate it.

Well of COURSE walls and fences work. It has been proven time and time again.

Saying otherwise is being disingenuous.

The REAL question is why do some want lax control of our border and to kowtow to illegal aliens.

Makes no sense for any American.

 
 
 
Sunshine
17.2.5  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.4    6 months ago
The REAL question is why do some want lax control of our border and to kowtow to illegal aliens.

Me thinks TDS is the driving force.

Makes no sense for any American

We might as well teardown prison walls, if walls don't work.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
17.2.6  A. Macarthur  replied to  Sunshine @17.2.5    6 months ago
We might as well teardown prison walls, if walls don't work.
Those behind such walls, hopefully were convicted via fair legal proceedings … AND THE WALLS ARE TO KEEP THEM …
IN!
Individuals who come to our borders in order to petition for asylum or temporary protected status, have the LEGAL right to do so.
Before you post a quip that sounds clever … do your homework to make sure it actually is.

Asylum

To be granted asylum, a person must demonstrate that he or she is a “refugee,” that he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in our immigration laws, and that the decision-maker should grant asylum as a matter of discretion. 

A “refugee” is any person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or, if stateless, outside the country of last habitual residence) and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

This definition is based on international law, specifically the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  The U.S. is not a signatory to this Convention, but did sign on to its 1967 Protocol, which incorporates the Convention by reference.  The Refugee Convention requires state parties to protect people living within their borders and prohibits them from sending people to other countries where they would be harmed based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.  With the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. brought the refugee definition into our domestic law.  The refugee definition is found at section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

A person who meets the refugee definition may be granted asylum in the United States if he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in section 208 of that Act and if the adjudicator decides that he or she should be granted asylum as a matter of discretion.

The bars to asylum include the one-year filing deadline, which states that a person who needs asylum should file the application within one year of the last arrival in the United States.  Otherwise, the asylum-seeker must show that he or she qualifies for an exception to the filing deadline and that he or she filed within a reasonable time given that exception.  Human Rights First advocates for the elimination of the filing deadline from our asylum law.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
17.2.7  Sunshine  replied to  A. Macarthur @17.2.6    6 months ago
Individuals who come to our borders in order to petition for asylum or temporary protected status, have the LEGAL right to do so.

They have the legal right at a legal opening to the US, or one year after entering.  They do not have a legal right to cross anywhere.  Hence, the wall is to keep them out and someplace else...gee kind of like a prison.  Keeps us out and the prisoners somewhere else.  

do your homework to make sure it actually is.

That homework thingy is good advice.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  A. Macarthur @17.2.6    6 months ago

We can control where asylum seekers apply for it here.  There are legal ways to apply for it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.9  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sunshine @17.2.5    6 months ago

The bottom line is what you said.  TDS is the driving force but their real hatred is more directed at us than at him.  They hate those of us who voted for him/support him now even more than they hate him.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
17.2.10  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.4    5 months ago

Perhaps those who oppose the wall are not Americans.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
17.2.11  1stwarrior  replied to  dennis smith @17.2.10    5 months ago

From the wonderful "Godess" Nancy this morning - "I'm not for a wall," Pelosi said repeatedly at the press conference, referring to $5.7 billion funding for the border wall Mr. Trump is requesting in order to sign bills funding the government. "Insistence on the wall is a luxury the country can no longer afford."

Butt Nancy - this country can afford spending $115B ANNUALLY to HELP your poor future voters?????

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
18  A. Macarthur    6 months ago

The southern border is not being overrun by undocumented immigration. Arrests at the border have dropped to numbers not seen since the early 1970s. Immigration from Mexico, in particular, has fallen to historically low levels. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been declining steadily since at least 2007. Over the past 10 years, undocumented immigration has increasingly taken the form of visa overstays rather than unlawful border crossings. Immigrants are also putting down stronger, deeper roots in America. Almost 7 out of every 10 immigrants in the United States have been living here for over a decade, building peaceful and hardworking lives that affirm the American ideal and contradict Trump’s nativist demagoguery. When uprooted, their stories of deportation are harrowing.

Contrary to what Trump said, the vast majority of those detained at the country’s southwest borders are not potential terrorists, drug dealers, or mobsters, but unauthorized immigrants, petty thieves, or drunk drivers, hardly deserving of a national emergency worth billions of dollars. There are not many gang members either. In 2018, Border Patrol agents identified 728 immigrants with possible gang affiliations, not insignificant but a number far less alarming than the supposed savage multitude Trump will lied about.

Contrary to the administration’s wild claims, border agents caught only a handful of immigrants classified in the terrorist database in the first half of fiscal year 2018, not the thousands the administration insists are threatening the country and crossing the border. And what about drugs? By the DEA’s own account, the solution to drug trafficking lies in more sophisticated and effective inspections across the border’s points of entry, not in the costly and unproductive erection of a wall.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-border-speech-visit-lies.html

Trump not only lies to me and other liberals … HE LIES TO HIS BASE! The difference between MY being lied to and Trump's base being lied to … I RESENT THE LIES WHILE TRUMP'S BASE NEEDS TO BELIEVE THEM AS "VALIDATION" FOR THEIR FLAWED AND RATIONALIZED VIEWS OF REALITY.

A reasonable individual resents having someone spit in his face and tell him "it's raining!"

 
 
 
1stwarrior
18.1  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @18    6 months ago

Well A. Mac - you need to stop reading those stories written by the MSM and, ironically, the vast majority of folks living UP NORTH.

Here - read this -

512

Additionally, read this

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/border-wall-reality-immorality-hypocrisy-carlos-xavier-carrillo/?fbclid=IwAR3aEhopYhWu6t4kEem2_1N10bzj7hMNFpwqzhkCGsMVq0rrkyn9M_9rUjQ

REALITY: A border wall will not end illegal immigration. It will not end drug smuggling, it will not resolve the Nation’s border security challenges going forward, and Nancy Pelosi has proclaimed a border wall immoral.  

Now to clarify; what a border wall/barrier/fence is is a strategic piece of border security deterrence infrastructure; a man-made obstacle that must be negotiated, circumvented or defeated by any person intent on illegally traversing the border.   

Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge and experience in border enforcement agrees that a strategically located and robustly constructed border wall, barrier or fence is only immoral if the intent of it is to NOT deter, delay, mitigate, and in many cases stop pedestrian and vehicular traffic from illegally crossing the border.  A border wall is an essential force-multiplying component of a thoughtful, cost-effective and comprehensive border security plan.  A border wall/barrier/fence diverts illegal traffic away from busy border urban centers to less populated locations that provide less urban cover and concealment; accordingly enhancing the capability of border security personnel to react, identify, respond, and interdict the illegal border crosser(s). 

Unqualified political talking-heads and pundits incessantly parrot grossly inaccurate characterizations of the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of respective border security infrastructures. They espouse hyperbolic anti-border wall rhetoric, while dismissing the real-world expertise of the tens of thousands of frontline border security experts of CBP and the U.S. Border Patrol.  Attention craving “personalities” of the pro-Obama anti-Trump mainstream media, hungrily lap-up baseless anti-border-wall dribble and, under the guise of journalism, shamelessly inject their own brand of race-baiting venom and misinformation into the border wall debate. Why? Because they’re desperate to drown-out the empirical data that supports President Trump’s position on the border wall.

Reality is that inadequate border deterrence infrastructure, insufficient detection technology, obsolete asylum policies, insufficient detention and transportation resources, ineffective and limiting detention rules and the lack of a national electronic employment verification system all represent serious vulnerabilities that are exploitable by terrorists, transnational criminals, gang members, drug smugglers and economic migrants taking advantage of existing loopholes in asylum law.   

It is hypocritical for politicians, who previously supported a border barrier, to now conveniently dismiss a border wall as “immoral” and ineffective.  It’s time to call-out the self-serving political hypocrisy surrounding the border deterrence infrastructure debate and expose it for what it is, because it’s never been about cost, morality or effectiveness.  What it has been is a garish effort to undermine our Nation’s President, plain and simple. It is “anti-Trump at any cost”. It is Democrat obstinacy disregarding the security of American communities. Why? Because they lost the presidential election

What is immoral is the Democrats’ refusal to fund construction of a border wall/barrier/fence.  Immoral is the failure of politicians from both parties to work together to legislate a body of asylum and immigration laws that substantiate 1) this Nation’s sovereignty 2) the rule of law and 3) protects the lives of American citizens and immigrants alike. 

REALITY: Until the Congress acts, so-called caravans of economic migrants, enticed by smugglers, the promise of sanctuary cities and jobs, will risk lives, converge and create chaos on the US/MEX border, knowing they have the option of asylum loopholes and a porous border; as will every terrorist, transnational criminal, gang member and smuggler among them. 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
18.1.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @18.1    6 months ago

A border wall DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PRIMARY REASONS THE VAST MAJORITY OF "ILLEGALS" COME TO ENTER THE U.S, NOR WHERE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY COME FOR ENTRY!

Nor does it provide for intelligent strategies to mitigate motivations based upon those reasons.

Within the last week or so, I offered to post specifics regarding the reasons along with specific ways to address those reasons … that offer made with the condition I would make the post upon the specific request of the first member to do so … WITH THE STIPULATION THAT SUCH MEMBER WOULD PROMISE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AGREEMENT WHERE HE SO AGREED, AND/OR PROVIDE SPECIFIC COUNTER-ARGUMENTS FOR ALL ITEMS WITH WHICH HE DISAGREED.

Not one taker!

As for your link … the Author of the opinion, IS A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR … could it be, among other structures …

HE DOES WALLS?!!!!!

Witness credibility lacking here, Counselor!

carlos-xavier-carrillo-30059b30.jpg

Carlos Xavier Carrillo's Email and Phone

Independent Contractor @ DECO, Inc

Carlos Xavier Carrillo's Email

  • c****o@rocketmail.com
View Carlos Xavier's Contact Info
It's free! Takes 5 seconds to sign up
Location Alexandria, Virginia
Work
Independent Contractor @ DECO, Inc
 
 
 
1stwarrior
18.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @18.1.1    6 months ago

Oh yeah - A RETIRED BORDER PATROL OFFICER - does that mean that now that he's retired, he can't work????????

Nice try.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
18.1.3  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @18.1.2    6 months ago
Oh yeah - A RETIRED BORDER PATROL OFFICER - does that mean that now that he's retired, he can't work???????? Nice try.

And an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR … 

… you know … contractors do things like building walls.

It called "conflict of interests," my friend.

For those not familiar with the term …

conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another.

Advocating the implementation of that from which the advocate might directly profit or otherwise benefit … is one such example.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
18.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @18.1.3    6 months ago

Yup - had to sign one of those stupid agreements that said I wouldn't go into business competing against the gvmnt and that I couldn't work for the Feds for one year after retirement.

BUT, as you well know, when retired and after that little legal piece of paper has expired, you can do what you damn well please whether others like it or not.  As a former BP agent, seriously, what better business to get into since you already know what the issues and safeguards are, eh?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
18.1.5  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @18.1.4    6 months ago
Yup - had to sign one of those stupid agreements that said I wouldn't go into business competing against the gvmnt and that I couldn't work for the Feds for one year after retirement.

Although I disagree with "non-compete" agreements forced on retiring employees by private enterprise and government employers, such are not synonymous with conflicts-of-interests potentially committed on the part of the departing employee. That would only obtain if, while still employed by the same employer, that employee could in some way effect company policy/practices to benefit a separate, competing entity with which the employee was (surreptitiously) involved and thus, that employee himself!

BUT, as you well know, when retired and after that little legal piece of paper has expired, you can do what you damn well please whether others like it or not.  As a former BP agent, seriously, what better business to get into since you already know what the issues and safeguards are, eh?

Agree completely IF, in fact … "that little legal piece of paper has expired." However, retired or not, non-compete expired agreement or not, subsequent, even totally unrelated-to prior-employment activities, any/all that constitute conflicts-of-interests, could have ethical implications at best, and, legal at worst.

I speculate that in our previous professional careers, working as a team, you and I could have kicked ass big time!*

* When we weren't otherwise calling out "sick" to play golf or go fishin' that is.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20  A. Macarthur    6 months ago

The Voice of Reason … 

Click the link and and gain insight.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
20.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  A. Macarthur @20    6 months ago

Yes for the leftists that get their news from Comedy Central and Mother Jones Brent Terhune would be a step up. 

https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/2018/09/14/brent-terhune-real-story-behind-kaepernick-protesting-nike-burning-redneck-comedian/1213499002/

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20.1.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  Dean Moriarty @20.1    6 months ago
Yes for the leftists that get their news from Comedy Central and Mother Jones Brent Terhune would be a step up. 
Not exactly, Dean; the difference being that leftists aren't confused regarding what's mockery, what's sarcasm, what's satire, what's fake news, and the distinctions between those and …
REALITY!
Regarding Trump and Trumpians …

 “A man can fail many times, but he isn’t a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.” —John Burroughs

 
 
 
Sunshine
20.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  A. Macarthur @20.1.1    6 months ago
“A man can fail many times, but he isn’t a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.” —John Burroughs

No President has blamed others more than Obama did.  

He even blamed the Founding Fathers.  lol 

 
 
 
lady in black
20.1.3  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @20.1.2    6 months ago

Are you kidding me.......Trump has NEVER taken the blame for ANYTHING in the last 2 years.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20.1.4  A. Macarthur  replied to  Sunshine @20.1.2    6 months ago
No President has blamed others more than Obama did.   He even blamed the Founding Fathers.  lol 

When you're finished laughing, I challenge you to post SPECIFIC EXAMPLES in addition to specifics regarding comparisons to blame-laying by other Presidents.

You Trumpians are big on making allegations and pronouncements without validation or particulars … what's frightening is that you actually seem to believe the stuff you post.

 
 
 
Sunshine
20.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  A. Macarthur @20.1.4    6 months ago
You Trumpians are big on making allegations and pronouncements without validation or particulars … what's frightening is that you actually seem to believe the stuff you post.

You didn't pay attention...Bush, Fox News where the cause of all of his disasters.  Did he ever take responsibility for anything?...oh yeah he killed Bill Laden. 

You liberals don't pay attention.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20.1.6  A. Macarthur  replied to  Sunshine @20.1.5    6 months ago
Bush, Fox News where the cause of all of his disasters.  Did he ever take responsibility for anything?
Doubling down on a pronouncement makes it twice such a pronouncement.
I challenge you again to post SPECIFIC ITEMS OF BLAME TO WHICH YOU HAVE ALLUDED … don't give summarily-listed "examples," list, one-by-one, precisely who Obama blamed for what … and I'll respond specifically to each listed item.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
20.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @20.1.1    6 months ago

Oh, you mean the Democrat John Burroughs who used to hang around with Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Ford and others???

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20.1.8  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @20.1.7    6 months ago
Oh, you mean the Democrat John Burroughs who used to hang around with Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Ford and others???

Do explain to me how his quote …

“A Man Can Fail Many Times, But He Isn’t A Failure Until He Begins To Blame Somebody Else” …

… is in any way rendered invalid, inaccurate, inane or lacking a salient point because of who he used to hang around with?

Got any problems with the fact that …

John Burroughs was an American naturalist and nature essayist, active in the U.S. conservation movement. The first of his essay collections was Wake-Robin in 1871. 

Or how 'bout with all his "subversive," liberal writings?

His publications include: Notes on Walt Whitman as Poet and Person (1867), Wake Robin (1871), Winter Sunshine (1875), Birds and Poets (1877), Locusts and Wild Honey(1879), …… (1881), Fresh Fields (1884), Signs and Seasons(1886), Indoor Studies (1889), Riverby (1894), Whitman, a Study (1896), The Light of Day (1900), Squirrels and Other Fur Bearers (1900), Literary Values (1904), Far and Near (1904), Ways of Nature (1905), Bird and Bough (poems) (1906), Camping and Tramping With Roosevelt (1907), Leaf and Tendril (1908), Time and Change (1912), The Summit of the Years (1913), The Breath of Life (1915), Under the Apple Trees (1916), and Field and Study(1919).

Can you name some of the people with whom Trump HANGS … ooops … 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason …

Where you and I have common ground on this … 

One needs to be careful with whom one hangs.

FYI: Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican as was Ford prior to 1918. Burroughs accompanied many personalities of the time in his later years, including Theodore RooseveltJohn MuirHenry Ford (who gave him an automobile, one of the first in the Hudson Valley), Harvey Firestone, and Thomas Edison. In 1899, he participated in E. H. Harriman's expedition to Alaska.

Anti-semite, Ford was a poor choice for Burroughs … same sort of questionable stuff like accepting shit from tyrants, offering them expensive condos, doing the quid-pro-quo thing …

 
 
 
1stwarrior
20.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @20.1.8    6 months ago

Wake-Robin was his best - Far and Near second and The Summit of the Years his next.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20.1.10  A. Macarthur  replied to  1stwarrior @20.1.9    6 months ago

Although we disagree on matters political, I appreciate our friendship … and we have some good ol' butt whooping debates!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
20.1.11  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @20.1.10    6 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
20.1.12  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sunshine @20.1.2    6 months ago

Especially the founding fathers.  Obama hates the constitution they came up with.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
20.1.13  A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @20.1.12    6 months ago
Especially the founding fathers.  Obama hates the constitution they came up with.  

Please, by all means, POST SPECIFIC EXAMPLES SUBSTANTIATING AND ILLUSTRATING YOUR PRONOUNCEMENTS!

Go ahead … and I will agree with or debunk your specifics as required.

Otherwise … "KEEP AMERICA OBJECTIVE AND INTELLECTUALLY CREDIBLE."

 
 
 
nightwalker
20.1.14  nightwalker  replied to  lady in black @20.1.3    6 months ago

Your memory must be better than mine, I don't remember trump taking the blame for anything, ever. My memory is so bad I can't even remember all the times that the GOP accepted blame for anything they ever did either.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
20.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  nightwalker @20.1.14    5 months ago

That’s because all the blame for all that has gone wrong in America since WWII ended is on the democrat party.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
20.1.16  dennis smith  replied to  lady in black @20.1.3    5 months ago

Obama never took the blame for ANYTHING in 8 years

 
 
 
lady in black
20.1.17  lady in black  replied to  dennis smith @20.1.16    5 months ago

Whataboutism

 
 
 
arkpdx
20.1.18  arkpdx  replied to  lady in black @20.1.17    5 months ago
Whataboutism

Something that runs in epidemic proportions within the ranks of the left.. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
20.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  arkpdx @20.1.18    5 months ago

That’s for sure.  You got that right.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
21  A. Macarthur    6 months ago

Click the link and get clarification …

Oh! Oh now I Understand, What the Fuck was I Thinking?

"During the campaign, I would say Mexico is going to pay for it. Obviously, I NEVER SAID THIS, and I never meant they are going to write a check!"

 
 
 
1stwarrior
21.1  1stwarrior  replied to  A. Macarthur @21    6 months ago

And she was one hell of an actress - miss her.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
22  XDm9mm    6 months ago

I never thought I would be saying this, but;

GREAT WORK JIM ACOSTA!!!!!

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR PROVING THAT BARRIERS DO IN FACT WORK!!!!!!  

AND YOU SUPPLIED THE VIDEO TO PROVE IT!

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1083411819354558467

I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today.

The Burger King is literally down hill from where we shot this (for folks who are wondering - why it shows up)

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  XDm9mm @22    6 months ago

I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today.

EXPLANATION: Not because of the steel slats, rather, because there is not, nor had there been prior to the slats, any national emergency (requiring steel slats, etc.).

THIRD ATTEMPT AT THE FOLLOWING:

Within the last week or so, I offered to post specifics regarding the reasons along with specific ways to address those reasons … that offer made with the condition I would make the post upon the specific request of the first member to do so … WITH THE STIPULATION THAT SUCH MEMBER WOULD PROMISE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AGREEMENT WHERE HE SO AGREED, AND/OR PROVIDE SPECIFIC COUNTER-ARGUMENTS FOR ALL ITEMS WITH WHICH HE DISAGREED.

Not one taker!

Apparently, no wall-advocate wants to commit to a discussion where SPECIFICS about what and where ACTUAL SECURITY EMERGENCIES "at the border" are involved. 

While politicians hash out immigration policy in Washington, McAllen Mayor Jim Darling deals with the day-to-day impact of immigration in the Rio Grande Valley – one of Texas' busiest border-crossing regions. Darling says he sees several hundred asylum seekers per day come to respite centers in the area. And while media have focused on the Central American migrant caravans moving through Mexico, he says they've missed what's actually happening at the border.

http://www.kut.org/post/mcallen-mayor-says-wall-wont-solve-realities-texas-border-problems

"We're getting almost a caravan every three or four days here on the border, of people that were released that were seeking asylum, but apparently that's not newsworthy," Darling says.

{That means individuals who entered via the LEGAL PROTOCOL regarding PETITIONING … and who the Trump Administration is failing to deal with as per the same protocol}

Darling says the situation hasn't quite reached crisis status, but he says the U.S. definitely needs immigration reform because border towns like his bear the brunt of the consequences of a poorly functioning system.

"We deal with it ... we have our ups and downs, " Darling says.

Darling says while the media is dominated by talk of illegal immigrants, the people he sees at the respite centers have come into the country legally, usually seeking asylum.

"The administrative people are laid off; I guess nobody figures that they have any administrative duties to support the guys in the field," Darling says. "They're our neighbors and our friends ... and they're not getting paid and they're working."

And … 

Darling says the U.S. needs border security but a wall doesn't make sense, especially when the Rio Grande acts as a natural border and where private property makes building a wall more complicated.

"We know where our border is and we have one," Darling says. "A wall is really not the effective way to protect our border."

If the federal government were to seize private land to build the wall, Darling says it would cost the government money – it would have to pay landowners for the "damage" to their property.

_______________________________________________

Damned facts!

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
22.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  XDm9mm @22    6 months ago

That was funny and ironic.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @22.2    6 months ago
That was funny and ironic.  

Only if one fails to understand the significance of a misunderstood or misrepresentative cause/effect relationship … which I explained and will again here …

ACOSTA: "I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today."

EXPLANATION: Not because of the steel slats, rather, because there is not, nor had there been prior to the slats, any national emergency (requiring steel slats, etc.).

Trump's so-called "crisis is an insidious and manufactured false testimony tossed into the trough from which xenophobes and white nationalist ethnic-purists feed in order to "validate" their resentful need to scapegoat and live in an alternate reality.

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.1    6 months ago

Acosta is a joke, and his little report was absolutely hilarious.

Gotta love it when an idiot like Acosta proves the President's point unwittingly.

 
 
 
arkpdx
22.2.3  arkpdx  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.1    6 months ago

I sure if you were a general in Dec 1944 in Europe you would have said that is was OK to put green unrest troops in the Ardennes because it's a quiet sector and the Germans would never attack there (even though they did twice before) 

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.4  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.2    6 months ago
Gotta love it when an idiot like Acosta proves the President's point unwittingly.

Gotta feel scared shitless about someone who disregards reality even after explanations … the greatest purveyors of "fake" news are the ones who manufacture and perpetuate it and need to believe it because a "Jess Willard" knows how to play them!

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.4    6 months ago

I find your "explanations" severely lacking and a little comical.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.6  A. Macarthur  replied to  arkpdx @22.2.3    6 months ago
I sure if you were a general in Dec 1944 in Europe you would have said that is was OK to put green unrest troops in the Ardennes because it's a quiet sector and the Germans would never attack there (even though they did twice before) 

A logical fallacy on your part and a analogy that falls apart when considering the realities!

The Battle of the Bulge was the last major German offensive campaign on the Western Front during World War II. It was launched through the densely forested Ardennes region of Wallonia in eastern Belgium, northeast France, and Luxembourg, towards the end of the war in Europe.

And UNLIKE TRUMP'S BULLSHIT CRISIS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER … NAZIS WERE A REAL THREAT albeit at the time, a month away from the final German defeat.

 
 
 
Split Personality
22.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.6    6 months ago

and no wall, just boots on the ground.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.8  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.5    6 months ago
I find your "explanations" severely lacking and a little comical.

That's either because you're incapable of comprehending them, unwilling to do so … and/or unfamiliar with the phenomenon known as "mockery precedes understanding."

You critiques of my commentary are of the faux-intellectual variety mixed in with the usual Trumpian zeal-without-knowledge affliction.

And, of course, what you "find" to be the way you find it … NEVER IS ACCOMPANIED BY ANY FACTUAL, SUBSTANTIVE COUNTER-POINTS TO THAT WHICH YOU FIND, i.e. "severely lacking and a little comical".

But look … I've given you some ALL CAP FONTS to criticize … 

… and no need to thank me … I'm one of those liberals who believes in REDISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE!

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.8    6 months ago
That's either because you're incapable of comprehending them, unwilling to do so … and/or unfamiliar with the phenomenon known as "mockery precedes understanding."

Sorry, but I am quite capable of recognizing hilarious bullshit when I encounter it.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.10  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.9    6 months ago
Sorry, but I am quite capable of recognizing hilarious bullshit when I encounter it.

Then by all means, demonstrate your erudite cognizance via specific, factual rebuttals to that which you encounter as "hilarious bullshit". Specify point-by-point that which you recognize as such, after which, correct it with relevant information.

If you cannot, nor will not do that, anytime you play the dismissive, condescending know-it-all, I will likely hand you your metaphorical ass by pointing out your facade.

I will agree to part of your comment, however … that being the properly descriptive, self-deprecating … [Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.10    6 months ago

Why would I waste my time with that?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.12  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.11    6 months ago
Why would I waste my time with that?
Don't look now, but every time you leave a comment …
… someone will explain it …
And odds are, you'll do again …

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.13  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.11    6 months ago

Just an observation; you typically post a comment that comes in the form of an insult or smackdown of some kind … and often, when involved in one of these "discussions" with you, like today for instance … coincidentally … something I write back to you, gets deleted.

Hmmmmm …

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." _ Albert Einstein

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.13    6 months ago

I didn't delete anything you wrote, so talk to someone else about that if you have a problem with it.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.15  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.14    6 months ago

I know you didn’t delete anything, only a moderator would have done that had someone flagged my comment ... 

Who might have flagged my comment?

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.15    6 months ago
I know you didn’t delete anything, only a moderator would have done that had someone flagged my comment ...
Who might have flagged my comment?

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you'll figure it out in time.

Perhaps if your comments weren't flag-worthy, there would be nothing for the moderators to delete?

What a novel concept!

 
 
 
Ender
22.2.17  Ender  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.15    6 months ago

(A little off topic here) Yet,

I have wondered if or how many times I have been flagged myself.

One can see on everyone else, even if no violation one can see the flag was hit. We don't have that for ourselves.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.18  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.16    6 months ago

Perhaps if you didn’t take shots at comments in the form of ridicule, then run to mommy when you got counter punched,  you’d be more credible and competent in these discussions.

Your one of the boys who dishes it out but who can’t take it when called on it. 

What would be novel would be your reliance on factual rebuttal in place of shooting the messenger. 

When you find my comments “comical,” etc., if you don’t explain in detail your alleged reasons, by cyberspace definition, that makes you a troll.

And rather than my having to figure out who flagged my comment, I’ll ask straight out ... do you know who did?

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.18    6 months ago

Well, at least you're always good for entertainment!

If you don't like what I post, and are unable to refrain from posting flag-worthy posts, perhaps you should skip over what I write.

Or just stop complaining about getting flagged for something YOU chose to write.

Makes no difference to me whatsoever.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
22.2.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.16    6 months ago
ou're a smart guy. I'm sure you'll figure it out in time.

Jeeze Tex,

Grow a pear

tree and suck it up already.

Your gettinn smacked around with fax, and your most effective rebuttal is to

Flag,

that's a tad sad.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.21  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.19    6 months ago
If you don't like what I post, and are unable to refrain from posting flag-worthy posts, perhaps you should skip over what I write.

Or just stop complaining about getting flagged for something YOU chose to write.

Follow your own advice and don't respond to my comments unless you do so with specific, non ad-hominem "rebuttal." In today's issue, you were third man in, ridiculing a serious comment regarding WWII in a dialogue of which you were not a part … until coming with …

"I find your "explanations" severely lacking and a little comical."

Stay out of my conversations and I'll stay out of yours.

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @22.2.20    6 months ago

When I want your opinion, I'll let you know.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
22.2.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.19    6 months ago

Hey Tex,

what do you think about your boy being investigated for secretly working for Russia,

cause i'm pretty positive he has been

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
22.2.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.22    6 months ago
I'll let you know.

N i'll let you know

whenever the Hell i want there, Flagette.

I've never flagged ANY ONE or ANY COMMENT .

As i'll deal with any and all with my own rebuttal.

Sorry Tex, just the way i roll

over

anyone or anything.

There are always ones more intelligent than i, but i'll take my chances

with Any One.

Can go as high as most, and as low as ANY.

Whatever which way, i'll have something to say

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.21    6 months ago
Follow your own advice and don't respond to my comments unless you do so with specific, non ad-hominem "rebuttal." In today's issue, you were third man in, ridiculing a serious comment regarding WWII in a dialogue of which you were not a part … until coming with …

Ah, now I see what the problem is. You don't pay attention.

Amazing how I wrote my first post and the post you just referenced BEFORE your post attempting to explain something about WWII.

How's THOSE facts for ya?

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @22.2.23    6 months ago
what do you think about your boy being investigated for secretly working for Russia,
cause i'm pretty positive he has been

I don't have any boys, so you'd be better off asking someone who does.

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @22.2.24    6 months ago
Whatever which way, i'll have something to say

Good for you!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
22.2.28  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.25    6 months ago

Conceding that point, IT NEVERTHELESS DOES NOT NEGATE that you continue to post ad hominem responses to factual comments you are unable to rebut. 

Regardless of the sequence in which your comments appear, [Deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
22.2.29  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @22.2.26    6 months ago
I don't have any boys,

well, sorry to hear your pear

tree, has no hangin pear,

but hang in there Tex, like fruit, on Loops, or hanging Low

.

"you'd be better off asking someone who does."

So,

U want me to ask a man  kind a watt i thawt eye herd ewe sae , while knot c ing

watt i heard U right their not reallyy 

sayin    just        a reminder friend,i'm accepting of N E and awl

 
 
 
Texan1211
22.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.28    6 months ago
Conceding that point, IT NEVERTHELESS DOES NOT NEGATE that you continue to post ad hominem responses to factual comments you are unable to rebut.

I don't care if you concede the point or not. You wrote something that wasn't true by any stretch of the imagination and I called you out on it.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
22.2.31  igknorantzrulz  replied to  A. Macarthur @22.2.28    6 months ago
whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

ive wondered if Trolls find me amusing

while 

i'm all the while abusing

the language i don't really Love, 

cause 

i don;t speak French, but you should see me kiss

asz N E won, who's possibly loss

hearings for the hearing impaired

while , without the help fromany who make Lemons

out of Rhorering good time n time again. 7 outta 14

daze n confusong i sing

out a tune out of tune like a looney 

tuned in to cartoons about loons, that 

are out of tune , without a paddle

but playz a mean

Banjo    because Jo   should be Flagged

.

F only oui' new won whew mite help us out...