Trump would be correct to assert a national emergency in order to build the wall

[danielpalos]

View attachment 247463 But when the country set boundaries it offends other countries? A left-wing analogy.

yes, our drug war is not kept to ourselves.

 

[depotoo]

It’s is not department rule. Ever heard an Act is law?

From the oig report-
According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)

..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.

..
In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

..
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s

She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc .

https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

THe crime in question is being "grossly negligent" with classified information.


Both did that. The average guy got sent to jail. Hillary gets a pass.


Your denial of the double standard, just shows you to be a partisan hack.

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......

I asked for a law, not a department rule.

Violating a department rule is not a criminal offense.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

These two statements...

”Yes, no one openly and clearly stated what their actions reveal about their beliefs.”

... and ...

”But that does not mean that my analysis is wrong.”

... demonstrate beautifully how you make shit up. Dumbfuck, no one has to prove you wrong when you can’t even prove yourself right.

So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?



Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.

You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.

I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

 

[Faun]

It’s is not department rule. Ever heard an Act is law?

From the oig report-
According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non- Departmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.)

..Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct Official Business
The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to ... ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data.113 Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency.114 FISMA defines information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems.115 In 2006, as required by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.

..
In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements, including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls. Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process information on its behalf must be registered with the Department.117
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

..
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of these provisions and related statutes and regulations.

Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any Department office building.118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions.119
In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of non- Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs).120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria) and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remote- access program, such as Global OpenNet.121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access program.122
Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Department- owned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008.123 Under this policy, management and employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU information.124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for all computers on the network.125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity.127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in 2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities.128
Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on the Internet.”129
The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”130 The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available, employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address to request a solution from IRM.131
In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”132 This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133 Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code, thus placing Department networks at serious risk.134 Since then, the Department has published prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices.135 Employees are also reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness course.136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s

She did not have authorization to keep it on her own server, allow her housekeeper to move it, etc .

https://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

Idiotboi, he was convicted of “unauthorized retention of defense information. Hillary was not accused of anything like that. You’re a fucking retard. She had authorization to retain classified material. That’s why Saucier’s defense that Hillary did it too, failed him miserably. Because they’re not the same circumstances.

Great, be the first to post the law that says she was not allowed to use a private email server......

I asked for a law, not a department rule.

Violating a department rule is not a criminal offense.

What a pity you can’t understand what you post. Utter nonsense. Those are department rules and policies....

The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department's organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.​

Those are not laws. Some are based on laws. Some are not. You posted no law and failed miserably to show there’s a law against using a private email server.

Furthermore, a policy you posted...

This provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.​

... not only is that not a law... not only does that rule state such use is “discouraged.,” not illegal... not only is that not relevant to Hillary since she did not use a public service like gmail, AOL or Hotmail... but that provision didn’t even apply to Hillary.

But even funnier.... you actually thought posting that section was a winning argument.

 

[Correll]

So, the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


you consider that idea, by itself, to be proof of being wrong?



Dude. Your ideological rigidity has made you utterly blind and stupid.

You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.

I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

 

[Faun]

You proved your impressions of others stem from your own prejudices and not from reality. Thanks for revealing that. It goes a long way in explaining some of the shit you post.

I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe or what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

 

[Correll]

I note that you did not even try to support your stupid assertion.

Because you know that you cannot.


My points all stand, as you knew that you could not even attempt to address them.

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Your point is DOA. You already admitted you made it up from your own biased prejudices and not because anyone else said what you imagine they believe.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

 

[Correll]

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

 

[Faun]

Aww, you poor thing. You’re still hallucinating.

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

 

[Correll]

That the idea of looking at a person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they really think from that,


is literally unimaginable to you,


shows that something is seriously wrong with you.

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

 

[Faun]

Repeating your post as though repetitiveness lends it credibility exposes your Neanderthal affliction. You still formulated your opinion not on what anyone said and not on anyone’s actions but on your own preconceived beliefs on what you think they believe of what you want them to believe. From that, you created your own imaginary world where you deluded yourself into fantasizing some here believe that Americans have fewer rights than others from every other country in the world, despite the stark reality that no one but you said any such nonsense or even suggested it.

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

 

[Correll]

Their actions, as I explained repeatedly very strongly suggest that.


YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.


INstead you have done nothing but lie and claim that I just made up shit, hallucinated, or was operating from preconceived beliefs.


It is also worth noting, that you have no even tried to offer an ALTERNATIVE explanation for what their actions might mean they believe.

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

 

[Faun]

And now, as your Neanderthal affliction gets exposed, you retreat to a defense of lying.

”YOu have not even tried to explain what was wrong with my reasoning.”​

That’s a bald-faced lie as I quite luminescently explained that even if it were true that some believed other countries have a right we don’t have in determining who can and cannot enter their respective countries, that would be but one right only out of many and by no means translates into thinking we have fewer rights than every other country on the planet.

And even worse for you, the strawman on which you ride piggyback is an utter failure because not wanting to rebuild 700 miles of barriers along the border doesn’t translate into us not having the right to keep people out. Again, and most salient to the point, that’s your deranged translation from English-to-conservative-gibberish leading you to think that.Followed by your conservative posture of infallibility that you cannot possibly have read that wrong; all the while, you did exactly so because no one even inferred any such nonsense as there are plenty of lucid rationales for not wanting to rebuild the border barriers, all of which elude you except for the silliest one you can attribute to your political opponents, that we lack the right to keep them out.

G’head, this is where you mindlessly repeat your post again without being capable of fathoming a word of this while you declare yourself a wiener as though you have.

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

 

[Correll]

1. One right less is still less rights.

2. Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

3. Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.

 

[danielpalos]

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.

our welfare clause is General.

 

[Faun]

”One right less is still less rights.”

Not fewer than every other nation, which is what you actually deluded yourself into believing is the position of your political opponents, despite no one but you offering such a ludicrous assessment.

Those who are against "building the wall" have been against long before the present set of details emerged. Their arguments are far less nuanced and far stronger, than you are pretending.

Great, post a link to one made by danielpalos “long before the present set of details emerged” so that you can corroborate this thought of yours.

”Your pretense that I am not one not addressing points seriously and honestly is noted and laughed at, liberal.”

This would be yet another shining example of what I mean when I say you can’t fathom a word you’re reading as I never said you neither address points seriously or honestly. I said you ultimately retreat to a posture of mindless repetitiveness, which you often do after exhausting your argument and patience. You did it just a few posts ago, in fact.

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.

LOLOL

Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.

That you don’t get that only serves to demonstrate what an imbecile you are.

 

[Correll]

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.

our welfare clause is General.

YOur gibberish is not an answer.


I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.

 

[danielpalos]

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.

our welfare clause is General.

YOur gibberish is not an answer.


I note the Mexico deals very harshly with illegals from their southern neighbors.

it is not gibberish simply because You can't understand it.

Our welfare clause is General and we don't have a common offense clause, nor even a general defense clause.

 

[Correll]

1. All other nations have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community. And you anti-Wall people don't want the US to have that right.

2. Your denial of the position of your entire movement on this issue, is absurd.

3. I repeat my posts, when the lib in question, "replied" but actually did not address anything I said. That is not me not addressing your points, but you not addressing mine. Try to be less stupid.

LOLOL

You again prove my posts, Neanderthal. And I’ll accept your inability to quote danielpalos saying what you ridiculously ascribed to him as tacit acquiescence you deluded the entire episode.

And the part you are clearly incapable of comprehending is even if true, and it’s not based upon anything said here about the wall, that we don’t have the right to determine who can enter, that’s only one right. Whereas you moronically claim that means we have “fewer” rights than every other country on the planet.

Entertainingly enough, the flaw in your bizarre logic utterly escapes you.

One less is less, you moron.

LOLOL

That you’re changing your position reveals how wrong you were and how rigid you are against simply acknowledging you were wrong.

Case in point, your position wasn’t “one less is one less,” as you now reinvent your claim. Noooo, your idiocy was one less means we have less than every other country on the planet.

Now you’ve placed yourself in the unenviable position of:

a) you’re too stupid to understand what you said; or

b) you’re too stubborn to admit you were wrong; or

c) you’re simply going to ignore your nonsense was exposed as idiocy.

... which is it?

What other nation does not have the right to determine who and what enters their nation and community? Dumbass.

LOLOL

Lying rightard, even if every other country had that right and we didn’t, that still doesn’t mean we have fewer rights than every other country on Earth.
...e.

Yes, it does.

They have one more, (at least) right than we do.


You are the one that is being retarded.