Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
English your second language?That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
Nahh --- I didn't think so.
Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
This alone is just your pure delusional.
You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.
In short, you said it ... now, prove it.
Your ass is backward. There's not even a contractor assigned in this projects and design has not even completed. Let alone cost of roads, heavy equipments and other associated cost. None.
You have to prove why you think they are included. Not me.
Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything. and what challenge did he offer?
Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
Grow up.
Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
The person I was responding too said this: "How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?" Do you see the word "enforce" in that sentence? Please read and understand the conversation before you jump in and make a fool of yourself!You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
The person I was responding too said this: "How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?" Do you see the word "enforce" in that sentence? Please read and understand the conversation before you jump in and make a fool of yourself!You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Yes he does, and so do I . It is you who is severely lacking in knowledge pertaining to the complex dynamics of immigration law enforcement. Read and learn:You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
You and your Repub-LIE-COn buddies ought to go after the employers. Why do you insist on giving them a free pass? Are you afraid of ensnaring too many of your "good ol' boys in an illegal immigration hiring dragnet? Every time I bring it up the topic you maggots divert to Sanctuary cities. Trump has never mentioned going after the employers who are, collectively the core , of our illegal immigrant problem.The person I was responding too said this: "How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?" Do you see the word "enforce" in that sentence? Please read and understand the conversation before you jump in and make a fool of yourself!You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
What?
Your whole presentation has been to bitch about local law enforcement having to "enforce federal immigration law".
"You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators."
" Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce?"
"If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE."
Your whole discussion demonstrates your lack of understanding of the role of local law enforcement in the immigration law scenario.
Go do your homework.
Pontification and misdirection - if I wanted an opinion piece, I would have googled one.Yes he does, and so do I . It is you who is severely lacking in knowledge pertaining to the complex dynamics of immigration law enforcement. Read and learn:You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
Just so let you know, this Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.
The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant to make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.
Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.
Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s.
So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it? Banning isn't an option, so they want to cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that Re pub-Lie-cons deem uncooperative.
Senate Democrats have, in the past, temporarily blocked measures that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.
Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric
Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about. A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.
The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’
I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding local law enforcement agencies ofwhat they call "Sanctuary Cities."
You mean you don't see the problem with your English?"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
Really?
Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
Keep trying you might piss me off.
Pontification and misdirection - if I wanted an opinion piece, I would have googled one.Yes he does, and so do I . It is you who is severely lacking in knowledge pertaining to the complex dynamics of immigration law enforcement. Read and learn:You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
Just so let you know, this Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.
The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant to make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.
Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.
Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s.
So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it? Banning isn't an option, so they want to cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that Re pub-Lie-cons deem uncooperative.
Senate Democrats have, in the past, temporarily blocked measures that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.
Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric
Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about. A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.
The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’
I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding local law enforcement agencies ofwhat they call "Sanctuary Cities."
You, simply, don't have a clue ... you make a lot of noise and confuse a bunch of words for intelligent input. Sorry, you still don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Ok. 10USC311 is also, federal law. DC v. Heller should be overturned due to a fallacy of composition and that error in Judicial reasoning.All laws should be enforced by the agencies responsible for enforcing laws within their purview.".... enforce existing laws ..."I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.You're discussing a different issue. The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country. How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue. Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there. All you want to do is punish employers. Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass. Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid. Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
Mitch "the bitch" McConnell doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate. And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify 11 million illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms to do it. Anyone who knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
Does that apply to ALL laws, or just to the ones you like?
English your second language?But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
Nahh --- I didn't think so.
Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
This alone is just your pure delusional.
You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.
In short, you said it ... now, prove it.
Your ass is backward. There's not even a contractor assigned in this projects and design has not even completed. Let alone cost of roads, heavy equipments and other associated cost. None.
You have to prove why you think they are included. Not me.
So ... you're admitting that when you said they WEREN'T included in the estimate, you really didn't know, did you? And, now, you don't have any way to validate your claim.
And you want to push it off on me?
Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything. and what challenge did he offer?
Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
Grow up.
Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
Twit? Seriously?
You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000. How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
You mean you don't see the problem with your English?"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
Really?
Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
Keep trying you might piss me off.
"Rebuttal?" I was answering your question, dumbass. Apparently you didn't understand that I was ridiculing your appalling English.
Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
You mean grownups wouldn't ridicule your appalling English? Did they give you a participation trophy?You mean you don't see the problem with your English?"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
Some of the shit you post just cracks me up. Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
Really?
Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
Keep trying you might piss me off.
"Rebuttal?" I was answering your question, dumbass. Apparently you didn't understand that I was ridiculing your appalling English.
And that's is your rebuttal? Grow the fuck up dude.
Temper! Temper!Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
Grow up.
Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
Twit? Seriously?
You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT?
YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.
Keep trying.
Temper! Temper!Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
Twit? Seriously?
You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT?
YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.
Keep trying.
You'll get respect when you've earned respect .... until then, you're just a little kid crying for attention.
So mature ... so adult ....Temper! Temper!Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
Twit? Seriously?
You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT?
YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.
Keep trying.
You'll get respect when you've earned respect .... until then, you're just a little kid crying for attention.
Meaning you are just a piece of shit.
