*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If those things are wrong and need to be dealt with, then that's a wholly different discussion. It has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.

---

It actually does. You don't get to bring up the argument of "the government spends too much money" and then get to arbitrarily draw lines around which expenses you like, and which you don't. If government spending is a problem...cutting the wall isn't going to fix it.

Quote:

---

check out the word "demolition."

---

Having fun being facetious today? Yes, I know how demolition works. You obviously know exactly what I mean, so I really shouldn't bother explaining it. It's plausible that a future administration might cut funding for other measures. But it wouldn't make any sense to appropriate funds for demolition of something that could be left alone for free.

Quote:

---

Get this... if you leave a wall alone for 200 years... it crumbles all on its own.

---

I'm guessing that El Salvador won't wait that long and will be forced to get it's act together now.

Quote:

---

IDK, but I think we can both agree there's nothing permanent about it once the manpower goes away.

---

And? The manpower isn't as effective without the wall. Ask Hungary's border patrol. They had thousands of illegal crossings a day. Then they built a wall. Now it's dozens. They say it takes all three, manpower, monitoring, and a structure. What's your point here? You just wanna hear yourself talk, or what?

Quote:

---

Wait... you said he was elected 'cause populism sticks it to the man.

---

You think a wall isn't a populist idea? Please explain??

Quote:

---

You also said it was because Clinton was widely perceived to be a criminal (though that was a long time ago)

---

.
That's not something I said

Quote:

---

Which is it?

---

See my previous two sentences. I'm not being inconsistent at all.

Quote:

---

The actual "mandate" thing you're talking about is making a pretty big assumption about why each voter supported Trump and how much overlap they had on specific issues.

---

That's actually not how mandates work. But if you want an example, check out Obamacare. It was challenged on constitutional grounds. the supreme court said something like "it's not our job to undo the election of 2008. People voted for healthcare, so the law stands". Thats not an exact quote, but it's pretty close.

Quote:

---

How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?

---

Ineffectively

Quote:

---

Is a wall our best option?

---

You make it sound like there are options. This isn't an experiment. We already know how to secure a border. Hungary and Israel told us the secrets. It's not *just* a wall. But you still *need* the wall.

Quote:

---

Personally, I think it'd be an expensive and epic failure to accomplish its stated goals,

---

Why did it work in Hungary and Israel?

Quote:

---

but I'm excited to run the experiment.

---

See the two countries mentioned above. What about those experiments is inconclusive to you?

Quote:

---

If 'Murica wants a wall, then 'Murica should build an epic fuckin wall worthy of our name.

---

Amen

Quote:

---

If that's not the most cost-efficient solution, then so what. Is it awesome?!

---

Preach it!

Quote:

---

I think a wall is a bad symbol.

---

It's symbol that says "On the other side of this thing we live in a culture that acts a certain way and believes certain things. You can either be part of that by moving yourself to a lawful port of entry, or you can stay on this side of the wall and fuck off." I think that's a good symbol.

Quote:

---

Maybe it's really us vs. them.

---

This is demagoguery. You know the connotation of that phrase and that's all you're really using it for. Who is "us"? Who is "them"? And why is it "vs"? What exactly is the contest? Why is it contentious? I find when people accuse an "us vs them mentality" what they're really saying is "I want everyone to think I'm smart and sensitive so I'll virtue-signal about how inclusive and non-confrontational I can be". It's gross. Stop it.

Quote:

---

Walls around nations? No.

---

What exactly is a border then? What does it mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Where are the drugs coming from? Big pharma.

---

OMG.....I almost want to just let you go through life being this stupid. You'd probably be happier thinking you're right and not knowing how completely bonkers this is. If you knew what you were really saying, you might get suicidal.

Heroin comes from Mexico. It's a fact. Look it up.

Quote:

---

Why aren't they being gone and gotten? The FDA has approved them.

---

The FDA approved Heroin? Source?

Quote:

---

It depends what they knew and when they knew it and how they responded when they found out

---

I think if you actually look into this, you'll be horrified.

Quote:

---

The American opioid epidemic is home-brewed, and doctor prescribed medications causing drug poisoning is far and away the leader in drug related deaths.

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Are you excluding this from your analysis? If so, why?

---

It's not a border issue,

Yes it's true that almost every heroin addict that has ever existed graduated to the drug after abusing prescription pain pills. Yes it's true that prescription pain pills took hold in this country through some corrupt means, and that's a tragedy. However, it seems to be under control now. If it weren't, people wouldn't be looking for heroin, they would just keep taking the pills.

Quote:

---

And frankly, effectiveness and cost SHOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL. These are bogus, feckless, diversionary arguments.

---

You are the perfect customer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

OMG.....I almost want to just let you go through life being this stupid. You'd probably be happier thinking you're right and not knowing how completely bonkers this is. If you knew what you were really saying, you might get suicidal.

---

I've also heard overprescription of opiods was a thing in the US. And if your doctor no longer gives you vicodin for your sore knee, you might be inclined to go looking for heroin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Heroin comes from Mexico. It's a fact. Look it up.

---

Wait you agreed that you don't know where the drugs are coming from, or you'd stop them. But now you say you do know.

Confused.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If it weren't, people wouldn't be looking for heroin, they would just keep taking the pills.

---

You understand prescription opiates and heroin are just variants of the same drug right? So...listen carefully now.... Dr. Dinkus prescribes vicodin to his patient for a bad back for a year. What he doesn't know is his patient back no longer hurts and he's just hooked on the drug. The gov't tells Dr. Dinkus to stop prescribing so many opiates because, you know, epidemic, so Dr. Dinkus cuts his patient off. The patient goes to his local dealer and starts buying heroin.

And you wanna say Dr. Dinkus had no role in this chain of events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And you wanna say Dr. Dinkus had no role in this chain of events?

---

I didn't say that. Nor did I say that I want to say that. In fact, I'm quite sure I've said the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HandsomeGenius

Yes it's true that prescription pain pills took hold in this country through some corrupt means, and that's a tragedy.

---

As far as I know, Dr Dinkus has been called out, and the government has cracked down on Dinkus's everywhere.

How does continuing to talk about Dr. Dinkus solve the problem of the guy currently addicted to heroin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

As far as I know, Dr Dinkus has been called out, and the government has cracked down on Dinkus's everywhere.

How does continuing to talk about Dr. Dinkus solve the problem of the guy currently addicted to heroin?

---

It shows the fallacy of the idea that making it harder for the guy to get drugs will keep him from taking them, for one thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It shows the fallacy of the idea that making it harder for the guy to get drugs will keep him from taking them, for one thing.

---

It's not a fallacy.

And you still haven't told me how we're gonna help heroin guy

... and let's not forget that the decade long war on drugs has been a full-on success story.

Banana weren't you a Dave Rubin level libertarian memer? And now you're begging on your knees for the government to control what you put into your body?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

And you still haven't told me how we're gonna help heroin guy

---

You could make Emergency Rooms include a gov't funded addiction treatment centre, for example. So when a guy comes in OD'ing, he doesn't just get an injection of adrenaline or w/e and sent home after a night's rest, he gets put straight in the treatment clinic. Or, if a guy wants to stop being an addict, he can go to the nearest ER and check himself in.

If it's an epidemic, treat it like one.

HOW DARE YOU!
THAT'S SOCIALISM!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It's not a fallacy.

And you still haven't told me how we're gonna help heroin guy

---

My country doesn't border Mexico and I'm pretty sure I could still find heroin if I wanted to. It might be harder to find than in the US but a determined person (read: addict) could certainly find it.

What would the US do if it had an epidemic of another deadly disease, like, say pig 'flu or w/e?

Actually, let me re-phrase that. What SHOULD a country do when facing an epidemic of a deadly disease? 'cause I'm guessing America would probably declare war on whatever country the disease started in. Or build a wall around it or summat.

Seriously though, what do you think you should do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

... and let's not forget that the decade long war on drugs has been a full-on success story.

---

It needed a wall

Quote:

---

Banana weren't you a Dave Rubin level libertarian memer

---

I don't know what a memer is. Also, Dave Rubin libertarian??

Quote:

---

And now you're begging on your knees for the government to control what you put into your body?

---

Citation needed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

he gets put straight in the treatment clinic.

---

Do you not know what is meant by "due process"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Were you not aware that the wall prototypes have ground-penetrating radar, or sonar, or whatever scientific shit that can see 10 feet below the earth's surface?

EDIT: Before you say "what about a tunnel 11 feet deep?" the answer is "fuck off". If the cartels can dig a tunnel that deep, for miles, and have it not cave in, and not be detected.....then more power to them.

---

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to make fun of you for being so naive to think that the Trump™ wall will be 10 feet deep and have sonar "or whatever"... or will be more than replacement fencing for that matter.

Quote:

---

Dave Rubin libertarian

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYotqgekKtU

Absolute below room temperature moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Do you not know what is meant by "due process"?

---

Lol, I said 'treatment clinic' not 'treatment prison'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to make fun of you for being so naive to think that the Trump™ wall will be 10 feet deep and have sonar "or whatever"... or will be more than replacement fencing for that matter.

---

Hmm, that would have been fun. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Lol, I said 'treatment clinic' not 'treatment prison'.

---

Can the patient come and go as he pleases? Is his participation in treatment voluntary?

If so, how is that different than what we have now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to make fun of you for being so naive to think that the Trump™ wall will be 10 feet deep and have sonar "or whatever"... or will be more than replacement fencing for that matter.

---

I like how the new wall is not only going to have 'sonar or whatever' (is that a direct quote from Trump?), but while it's only 10 feet deep it runs for miles beyond the border itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYotqgekKtU

Absolute below room temperature moron.

---

Since you watch TYT, you know that Dave has been on the right for about fifteen minutes. Give the guy a chance. His heart's in the right place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Can the patient come and go as he pleases? Is his participation in treatment voluntary?

If so, how is that different than what we have now?

---

You're getting him at the best possible time. Nearly dying is about as motivated as anyone will ever be to accept treatment. If instead you send him home to his needles and spoons and shit what is more likely to happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You're getting him at the best possible time. Nearly dying is about as motivated as anyone will ever be to accept treatment. If instead you send him home to his needles and spoons and shit what is more likely to happen?

---

So, it's not voluntary. The patient cant leave of his own free will? and somehow that's not a violation of someone's right to due process and/or their right to unlawful search and seizure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So, it's not voluntary. The patient cant leave of his own free will? and somehow that's not a violation of someone's right to due process and/or their right to unlawful search and seizure?

---

Either:

The patient wakes up in a treatment clinic. He can choose to stay and accept the treatment or he can choose to leave.

Or,

The patient wakes up in the ER and gets told 'you're still alive, pay your bill and gtfo'.

Do you get it now?

Quote:

---

The patient wakes up in the ER and gets told 'you're still alive, pay your bill and gtfo

---

That doesn't happen

What actually happens is....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

He can choose to stay and accept the treatment or he can choose to leave.

---

Who do you think runs the treatment programs??? Who gets rich from that?? You don't think the hospitals have thought up a direct pipeline from ER to rehab already??

BTW, exactly how effective is rehab?

And assuming you've grasped that extremely complicated description, and are satisfied no-one is being denied their constitutional right to do as they please, which setup do you think has a greater likelihood of resulting in a patient accepting treatment? Being offered treatment right then and there after having come close to death, or being told to pay his bill and gtfo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

That doesn't happen

What actually happens is....


Who do you think runs the treatment programs??? Who gets rich from that?? You don't think the hospitals have thought up a direct pipeline from ER to rehab already??

BTW, exactly how effective is rehab?

---

Oh damn, been reading the wrong media again.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...-er-california

Quote:

---

Despite an opioid crisis, most ERs don’t offer addiction treatment. California is changing that.

---

Please tell me what the truth is then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

BTW, exactly how effective is rehab?

---

Imma gonna go out on a limb here and estimate that the recovery rate from addiction looks something like: rehab > no rehab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

rehab > no rehab.

---

They're actually roughly equal

You sure about that?

My understanding is the relapse rates are 40-60%. So, 40-60% cure rate.

What % of addicts stop using without treatment?

He's thinking of alcohol rehab. Opiods has a higher success rate. Even if they have a pretty high relapse rate so even if you have something like an 80% relapse rate for alcohol, you still get the people off for a period of time. Also there's a difference between actual rehab hospitals and whatever nonsense they're peddling in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Oh damn, been reading the wrong media again.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...-er-california

---

Ugh, cmon dude. This article might as well be a paid advertisement for buprenorphine. Basically here is a summary of the article: "Doctors agree that some people are tragically afflicted with this addiction. The Mexican cartels are making money off of them. But Doctors feel that if they can get them hooked on this other drug, then they'll make money instead"

Problem solved right??!!

That's not rehab. That's not treatment. It's just a shifty way to steal customers from the cartel without running afoul of the DEA.

A drug is a drug is a drug is a drug.

You understand the logic of replacing a street drug injected with a dirty needle with a controlled substance given in a controlled environment, right? Because it's a pretty big change in quality of life and/or risk of infection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

it's a pretty big change in quality of life.

---

Citation needed

Quote:

---

and/or risk of infection.

---

Not even close to addressing the real problem.

It also increases the risk that the addict will go sell the buprenophrine and then go buy heroin. Now all you've done is double the amount of drug addicts out on the street

Personally, given a choice I'd rather transition off of heroin using buprenorphine or methadone or whatever that I know is pure, using a needle I know is clean, than transition off of heroin with street drug that could have all kinds of shit cut into it and using a needle that may or may not have HepA or HepB or AIDS on it. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Citation needed


Not even close to addressing the real problem.

It also increases the risk that the addict will go sell the buprenophrine and then go buy heroin. Now all you've done is double the amount of drug addicts out on the street

---

Have a nurse give the injection; that makes it hard to go sell the drug.

Also, lol that someone will sell a drug to go buy a dirtier version of the same drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Citation needed

---

Common sense needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Personally, given a choice I'd rather transition off of heroin using buprenorphine or methadone or whatever that I know is pure, using a needle I know is clean, than transition off of heroin with street drug that could have all kinds of shit cut into it and using a needle that may or may not have HepA or HepB or AIDS on it. Thanks.

---

This is really a silly debate. My personal opinion is that once someone touches heroin, for whatever reason, they're lost. As much as I think drugs are a major concern for America, and one of the driving factors that is undermining the middle class, I still wouldn't support even a dime of federal money appropriated to drug treatment.

I don't care about anyone who is currently an addict. I'm sorry that happened to them, but I'm also not dumb enough to try and fool myself into believing that they can ever be helped. They aren't. They're toast.

All I care about is preventing the next heroin addict. If we can do that, then problem of current addicts will just sort itself out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

You don't get to bring up the argument of "the government spends too much money" and then [...]

---

Lucky for me that I never said anything of the sort.
Can you answer the question without subjectively adding a freight train of your own baggage to it, then tearing down the strawmen you've built out of thin air?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Having fun being facetious today?

---

It was alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

You obviously know exactly what I mean

---

I almost never know what you actually mean. Do you, even?
I mean, I get that you're all, "right wing good. left wing bad," but that's not really an informed position on any issue. I don't see any central core or consistency to what your vision of America's future is aside from that caveman agenda to "stick it to the cry-baby libruls."


question: do you actually think you have any idea what the rest of us mean?
I think we have something like 7 pages of data right here as my source indicating you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

The manpower isn't as effective without the wall.

---

Spoon: Manpower, sensors, drones = not permanent, therefore not effective 'cause someone later down the line can remove them.
Me: A wall without manpower, sensors, drones = not stopping anyone / no more resilient to the cutting of manpower, sensors, drones.
Spoon: the manpower isn't effective without a wall!

SMH. Just keep moving the goal posts and changing the topic so you can maintain that level of outrage, man.
I said a wall without manpower is no more permanent than manpower without wall.
If you're arguing against that, then dafuq, man?

Your statement about the permanence of walls is stupid. Just suck it up and admit that you said a stupid thing. Then re-evaluate what that means for the case you were trying to make. Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved and you don't change your position. Maybe it doesn't matter... maybe you're just latching onto anything to support your emotional stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

You think a wall isn't a populist idea?

---

Once again... I said nothing of the sort.
I'm tired of correcting your reading comprehension. Can you just not suck at it so much? K thx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Lucky for me that I never said anything of the sort.

---

Liar.

Quote:

---

Can you answer the question without subjectively adding a freight train of your own baggage to it, then tearing down the strawmen you've built out of thin air?

---

Can you make a post without a metric ton of ad hominem nonsense? You're not even good at it.

Quote:

---

It was alright.

---

You do you man.

Quote:

---

I almost never know what you actually mean. Do you, even?

---

It's crystal clear.

Quote:

---

I mean, I get that you're all, "right wing good. left wing bad,"

---

Uh no. You clearly don't know anything about my political views.

Quote:

---

but that's not really an informed position on any issue

---

Agreed. I'm glad that's not my position.

Quote:

---

I don't see any central core or consistency to what your vision of America's future is aside from that caveman agenda to "stick it to the cry-baby libruls."

---

It's like you're conflating me with the magnified perception of a cliche that you think I am. It's confusing and silly.

My vision for America is one where regular folks, with 100 IQ's, can work, and be engaged in society. Right now people like that are totally dispossessed. They are either unemployed, or about to be. They have drug and alcohol problems. Divorce is the rule. Domestic violence is common. Depression and suicide and rampant. And while people like that used to be able to save money and give their kids a better future, nowadays those people are two paychecks from oblivion. In 2015, America's middle class became a statistical minority. That's not going to work. Society functions a hell of a lot better if 80% of the country is bourgeoisie. We used to have that. Now that class is in the minority. That's what "Make America Great Again" means. It means regular folks get re-engaged and take back power from the ruling class.

It's not a left/right thing for me at all. If you want to understand my political views think of it like this: Everything Bernie Sanders says is correct, except for when he makes suggestions on how to fix things. All of his complaints are spot on. All of his criticisms are apt. All of his policy ideas for solutions are complete buffoonery.

Trump on the other hand is part of the inequality problem that Bernie bitches about. However, his ego is so far beyond restraint that he can't help himself but to push back against it if it makes him famous. I believe he's a patriot. I believe he really wants to do a good job as POTUS. And if he wants to crush the system he enjoyed for decades just to pump himself up....I'm going to let him.

Quote:

---

question: do you actually think you have any idea what the rest of us mean?

---

Definitely. Oskar thrives on racism. He loves it. He sees it everywhere and he makes a little white puddle in his pants anytime he can stick up for the brown guy. Poop is just a contrarian but lacks the talent to do it well. Doesn't matter what's posted, he'll find some illogical way to push back against it. Stuff like "How come the Navy follows Trumps orders but his lawyer doesn't? NYAH!" And you, MMM, you just seem to want to land some haymaker on me. You've been trying for days without success. How much longer is this gonna go on?

Quote:

---

Spoon: Manpower, sensors, drones = not permanent, therefore not effective 'cause someone later down the line can remove them.

---

Right

Quote:

---

Me: A wall without manpower, sensors, drones = not stopping anyone

---

It might stop someone. I'll grant you that it's less effective. But don't pretend like a 30 foot concrete wall is just a speed bump.

Quote:

---

/ no more resilient to the cutting of manpower, sensors, drones.

---

Actually it is more resilient. See if you cut funding for manpower, you have nothing. If you cut funding for wall maintenance, you still have a wall. What's not clear about that?

Quote:

---

Spoon: the manpower isn't effective without a wall!

---

This is also true. Evidence: 25 million illegal immigrants are here right now.

Quote:

---

SMH. Just keep moving the goal posts and changing the topic so you can maintain that level of outrage, man.

---

What goalpost am I moving? What exactly is the goal here? How has my position been inconsistent? Do you think that my policy position was to just build a wall and then leave it alone? Do you really think that I think that stacking some bricks up in the desert is gonna solve immigration all by itself?? This is why I don't understand what you're trying to do. For your arguments to even make a lick of sense, you'd have to assume I have the intelligence of Oskar. Have we not determined that my IQ is nearly two full standard deviations higher? Give me some fucking credit man.

Quote:

---

I said a wall without manpower is no more permanent than manpower without wall.
If you're arguing against that, then dafuq, man?

---

I am arguing against that. As I said above. If you cut funding for manpower, the man goes home. If you cut funding for wall maintenance, the wall still stands. At least for a while. And probably a long time. I'm not sure that "more permanent" is even a logically sound phrase, but assuming it is...then a wall is more permanent than a man. Dafuq you talking about?

Quote:

---

Your statement about the permanence of walls is stupid. Just suck it up and admit that you said a stupid thing.

---

Uh no, because it's not stupid. You understand the difference between a 30 foot mass of concrete, and a sensor with dead batteries right? Assume that the next POTUS declares that he's not funding border patrol anymore. Now you've got a a wall, and a senor with dead batteries sitting out there in the desert. Neither one is consuming any resources. Neither one requires any funding. Yet one still functions, and the other is a useless object.

Do you know what permanence means?

Quote:

---

Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved

---

The only supporting fact that I'm assuming is that if the next POTUS cuts funding for wall maintenance, that the wall will not dissolve into dust automatically. Has that fact been disproven? Source?

Quote:

---

Once again... I said nothing of the sort.

---

Hold on, yes you did. I said "America voted for a wall". You said "Hey wait, I thought you said America voted for a populist". Do you see how you're implying that a wall is not consistent with populism?

A contrarian is someone who opposes popular opinion, usually in terms of the stock market.

Seriously man, invest in a dictionary. It will help you so much.

After you get one of those, see if you can learn the basics of logical argument. That will help you too.

Finally, try to get it through your head that others here see right through your little tricks like changing what they said to mean something else (reductio ad bananum). People know what they fucking said. If you want to be so contrary as to argue with what they didn't say, don't expect anything other than to be called out on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

A contrarian is someone who opposes popular opinion, usually in terms of the stock market.

---

If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.

Quote:

---

Finally, try to get it through your head that others here see right through your little tricks like changing what they said to mean something else (reductio ad bananum).

---

Citation needed

Quote:

---

People know what they fucking said. If you want to be so contrary as to argue with what they didn't say, don't expect anything other than to be called out on it

---

Funny, I feel like this happens to me alot. Citation=All of MMM's posts in the last two weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.

---

You'd then sound just as dumb, but more projecting. 'Raging' is clearly more descriptive of you than of me.

Really, a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Citation needed

---

lol, sure I'll go back and find every time you did it and point them out to you so you can argue you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Funny, I feel like this happens to me alot

---

Yeah it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.

---

Can't ban a mod. I mean.. I could ban this account under the pretext that I don't "know" it's spoonitnow, but I do know, so that would be a stupid move. Then you log in with your mod account and ban me and then what? We gotta get gmml involved over a childish pissing match?

I'm not doing that.

Besides. You had a role in me becoming a mod here in the first place. Me banning an account of yours is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Can't ban a mod. I mean.. I could ban this account under the pretext that I don't "know" it's spoonitnow, but I do know, so that would be a stupid move. Then you log in with your mod account and ban me and then what? We gotta get gmml involved over a childish pissing match?

I'm not doing that.

Besides. You had a role in me becoming a mod here in the first place. Me banning an account of yours is nonsense.

---

Yes. Yes that is exactly what would happen.

For anyone who doesn't understand my politics, or wonders what my "vision for America" might be. It's all right here.

This is really, so good.

Don't be intimidated by the length. Skip to about 9 minute mark for the meat of the speech. And the Q&A during the second half is not really relevant.

I promise it's not as stiff as it looks. It's borderline stand-up comedy. But he's dead serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA7uVQJqVgM

Oskar and Poop, if you watch this and tell me whether or not you still think ORANGE MAN BAD I promise to be a good sport and commit to watch 60 minutes of whatever leftist drivel you think I need to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Liar.

---

Quote or STFU.
I asked if it's our best option. I never said anything about the gov't spending too much on anything. I never said the wall is more expensive than anything else. I asked if it was. You dodged the question, changed the subject, invented strawmen, jumped to conclusions, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Can you make a post without a metric ton of ad hominem nonsense? You're not even good at it.

---

Criticizing your inability to stay on topic and effectively communicate is neither ad hominem, nor nonsense.
I'm not using the criticism of your ability to communicate as a means to discredit anything you're trying to say.
Ergo, ad hominem doesn't apply.

Discrediting what you're saying because it asserts a position to me that I do not hold is a totally different thing going on there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

You clearly don't know anything about my political views.

---

Refresh my memory on the last time you spent more than 1 post giving as much of a heated defense of any left-wing policy as you have to the wall issue, please.
I'm not claiming to know your political views beyond what you've posted here. My memory isn't all that great. I don't recall you taking a strong position on a political issue that was on the left-wing side of things. If you have, and I've forgotten, then please remind me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

My vision for America [...]

---

That was nice. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

And you, MMM, you just seem to want to land some haymaker on me.

---

Not a bit of it. I want to understand why you're so single-mindedly defending the wall that you'll say things which are not supported by any data (reality). Some data which illuminates things on topic has been posted ITT at your request, but none of it seems to have changed even a nuance of your position.
Ergo, you've got an emotional attachment to the idea of the wall that you're willing to defend with or without facts.
That's interesting.

That's what I'm trying to draw your attention to, as it's what I'm stuck trying to figure out. I'm not trying to "haymaker" you. I'm trying to figure out why you're building a house of cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

This is also true. Evidence: 25 million illegal immigrants are here right now.

---

Where'd you get that number?
It says 12 million on the DHS site.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...est-report.pdf
(So now half the problem is already solved for you, right? Because that 25 million number was important to your point? Because you don't just throw out unimportant nonsense to support a position with data that you came to with emotions? Right? You're a logical adult, so this new information will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know, right?)

***
Did you know most immigrants enter legally and overstay their visas?

https://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-...s-border-wall/
"This report speaks to another reason to question the necessity and value of a 2,000-mile wall: It does not reflect the reality of how the large majority of persons now become undocumented. It finds that two-thirds of those who arrived in 2014 did not illegally cross a border, but were admitted (after screening) on non-immigrant (temporary) visas, and then overstayed their period of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their visas. Moreover, this trend in increasing percentages of visa overstays will likely continue into the foreseeable future."

(I didn't find any more recent data. Let me know if you do.)

Assuming illegal immigration is the crisis you say it is, is a wall the best way to address this, given these data?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Actually it is more resilient. See if you cut funding for manpower, you have nothing. If you cut funding for wall maintenance, you still have a wall. What's not clear about that?

---

OK, I'll grant you that a swiss cheesed ex-wall with ladders along it is probably easier to bootstrap than no wall.
Still a far, far cry from "permanent," but if that's all you meant, then I'll drop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

What goalpost am I moving? What exactly is the goal here? How has my position been inconsistent? Do you think [...]?

---

calm down there, bucko.
The evidence is in your face every day or so. All I asked was, "Is a wall the most effective use of our money to address these issues?" and you've digressed into many tangents and asserted a load of nonsense that I never said. We're a page later and many posts and you still haven't answered the question.
You picked up the goalpost and moved it so many times you forgot where it started.

For the record I don't think any of those things. IDK what you're even on about. I never said any of those things. With how unrestrained I am when speaking with a fellow interlocutor of your caliber, I'd think you know that I'm not holding anything back. If I think something about you, I'm pretty open with saying it.

If I ask you a question, it's because I don't know the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

It might stop someone. I'll grant you that it's less effective. But don't pretend like a 30 foot concrete wall is just a speed bump.

---

Nope. Once the border patrol isn't coming along and confiscating abandoned ladders, well... it's not even a good speed bump.
Oh. I forgot. You live in a world where you can't make a ladder out of sticks. Or launch a grapple up 30 feet. After all, only 1 guy in that test was able to do it. Good thing he's on our side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Yet one still functions, and the other is a useless object.

---

The wall doesn't stop a determined bad guy. It makes his job harder. It slows him down so less manpower can apprehend more criminals. If it takes the bad guy 5 minutes to cross, then we need a lot more guards than if it takes them 30 minutes. Even when we have cars and drones and sensors, we still gotta get there in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Do you know what permanence means?

---

Do you know what ladder means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Hold on, yes you did. I said "America voted for a wall". You said "Hey wait, I thought you said America voted for a populist". Do you see how you're implying that a wall is not consistent with populism?

---

Hey wait... that's still not me saying a wall isn't a populist idea. It's still me pointing out that people voted for Trump for many reasons, and just because a majority of people voted him over Clinton, that doesn't mean the same majority supports each of his positions and policies.


Communication. It's about what someone said, not what you wish they would have said so you can tell them how wrong they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I'm not claiming to know your political views beyond what you've posted here. My memory isn't all that great. I don't recall you taking a strong position on a political issue that was on the left-wing side of things. If you have, and I've forgotten, then please remind me

---

What exactly do I have to do to prove to you I'm not a right winger? I'm a registered independent. I intend to vote in the democrat primary and vote for elizabeth warren. In my last post I just told you how spot on Bernie Sanders is. I wholeheartedly support universal healthcare. Personally I think it's a horrible idea, but I acknowledge that America voted for it in 2008. I love democracy, even when my side loses. But that same democracy voted for a wall in 2016. So fuck the cost. Fuck whether it will work or not. America voted for it. Build the fucking thing. And anyone who doesn't like it, should reflect on why their message lost in 2016 and try to do better next time. Either that, or shut the fuck up.

I lean right, heavily right, when it comes to the size and power over government. And it's not that so much that I'm libertarian on those issues. I'm *for* a lot of things the government does. I just think the government sucks at doing it. I can't think of anything the government has done that wasn't wildly inefficient and far less beneficial than promised. They suck at doing it.

Would it be good if some guns were banned? Sure. I can get behind that. But who decides where the line is and who enforces it? The government? No. They are guaranteed to fuck that up. So I'll live with whatever consequences come with allowing 12 year olds to buy bazookas. So I lean right on the 2nd amendment.

I'm heavily left on abortion. Maybe I could be convinced it's murder, but I still wouldn't care. Nobody wants it? Kill it. More air for me. Am I for abortion right up until the moment of birth?? I dont' know? If I'm not, then where's the line and who enforces it? The government? No. They are guaranteed to fuck that up. So I'll live with whatever consequences come with allowing a pregnant woman to tap out right before the epidural.

I hope that clears it up.

Quote:

---

I want to understand why you're so single-mindedly defending the wall

---

See above. Same reason I'll single-mindedly defend an absurd and dangerous policy like universal healthcare.

Quote:

---

that you'll say things which are not supported by any data (reality)

---

Walls work.

Quote:

---

. Some data which illuminates things on topic has been posted ITT at your request, but none of it seems to have changed even a nuance of your position.

---

there's no nuance. Walls work.

Quote:

---

Ergo, you've got an emotional attachment to the idea of the wall that you're willing to defend with or without facts.

---

FACT: Walls work.

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to "haymaker" you. I'm trying to figure out why you're building a house of cards.

---

I'm trying to build a wall.

Quote:

---

Where'd you get that number?

---

You cited "reality" as "data" earlier. I'd like to do the same.

Quote:

---

It says 12 million on the DHS site.

---

Search harder. Related question: If we already know how many there are, why does it matter if we ask citizenship on the census?

Quote:

---

Because that 25 million number was important to your point?

---

Right

Quote:

---

Because you don't just throw out unimportant nonsense to support a position with data that you came to with emotions?

---

Right

Quote:

---

Right?

---

Right

Quote:

---

You're a logical adult, so this new information will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know, right?

---

Your information is old. Here is some new information,
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insigh...ious-estimates
and I hope it will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know
Right?

Quote:

---

Did you know most immigrants enter legally and overstay their visas?

---

Yeah, if you go back to the 70's to calculate the average. I'm totally over this whole argument. There are 60K+ people a month showing up at the border. That's the situation right now, today.

Quote:

---

(I didn't find any more recent data. Let me know if you do.)

---

See above. Current as of today.

Quote:

---

Assuming illegal immigration is the crisis you say it is, is a wall the best way to address this, given these data?

---

You act like this question hasn't already been answered. Google "2016 election". This has already been adjudicated....WALL.

If you're asking my personal, non-political opinion, as to what is the best way to keep unwanted people out of a place? WALL.

Quote:

---

"Is a wall the most effective use of our money to address these issues?"

---

Poop is gonna give me crap for changing what you say here. But you have to understand, from my perspective, this question is *exactly* the same as asking "Should we listen to democracy". The answer is yes. yes we should.

Quote:

---

ladders,

---

I'm really over this ladder argument. Honestly, it's pathetic. First of all, if Trump was able to build the wall he wanted...ladders wouldn't work. You can't perch yourself on top while you lift the ladder over. Two ladders? Maybe. They would have to be really tall. They would have to be really strong. Picture it, would people orderly climb over one at a time? Or would they just all climb up the ladder single file? How many people are on the ladder at once? How strong does this ladder have to be? How much would that ladder weigh? How easily could something like that be carried through the desert?

How likely is it that someone would be able to approach the wall, set up the apparatus to get people climbing over it, herd people over it, and then move into america undetected? Without a wall, all they have to do is walk on through.

Quote:

---

The wall doesn't stop a determined bad guy.

---

And locks are for honest people. So leave your front door open and stop locking your car.

Quote:

---

It makes his job harder. It slows him down so less manpower can apprehend more criminals.

---

These are all good things.

Quote:

---

Hey wait... that's still not me saying a wall isn't a populist idea

---

Holy fuck. Ok. Fine. If you're gonna play this game, I can too. I didn't say you said a wall isn't a populist idea. I said you implied it. And when you implied it, I asked you a question. That's not me putting words in your mouth. You said something. I interpreted it, and then I asked you to confirm my interpretation. What exactly is your problem with that?

Quote:

---

It's still me pointing out that people voted for Trump for many reasons, and just because a majority of people voted him over Clinton, that doesn't mean the same majority supports each of his positions and policies.

---

So? Why does that matter? You elect whole candidates.

Hey Poop, if you haven't seen this yet, I hope you're not in public. You're about to have a throbbing erection

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...obe/index.html

If you're thinking of telling me why this matters...don't bother. It doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Can't ban a mod. I mean.. I could ban this account under the pretext that I don't "know" it's spoonitnow, but I do know, so that would be a stupid move. Then you log in with your mod account and ban me and then what? We gotta get gmml involved over a childish pissing match?

I'm not doing that.

Besides. You had a role in me becoming a mod here in the first place. Me banning an account of yours is nonsense.

---

C'mon there's no way. I thought it might be spoon because to have people on one board who can type really fast but have really shaky reading comprehension seems like a huge coincidence, but there are some differences that would make it pathological if those are the same person. Unless you actually know it's the same IP, I'm calling bullshit. Weren't banana and spoon posting at the same time? And this is clearly banana, or him writing as his bananastand personality. Was he actually posting from two accounts talking to himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Hey Poop, if you haven't seen this yet, I hope you're not in public. You're about to have a throbbing erection

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...obe/index.html

If you're thinking of telling me why this matters...don't bother. It doesn't.

---

Wow, shocker! Nobody saw that coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved and you don't change your position.

---

Improved visibility

I said, "Refresh my memory on the last time you spent more than 1 post giving as much of a heated defense of any left-wing policy as you have to the wall issue, please."
re. your opening paragraph. That's cool and all, but it doesn't address what I said. Have you ever taken a pages long stand on any of those issues?
'cause I'm sorry if I painted you as more right-wing than centrist if that how you see yourself, but it's not the impression you've made here.


That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.

Oh FFS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

Walls work
there's no nuance. Walls work.
FACT: Walls work.
I'm trying to build a wall.

---

he cries into the wind as the walls close in around him.

As if you saying a thing makes the facts on the table go away.
Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone, it slows them down, buying more time for law enforcement to apprehend them in the act.
Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.

Information that you posted, which was contrary to my expectation drew these interesting conclusions:
The immigration population is roughly double what we've thought it's been for decades. It didn't suddenly double, it's just that our metrics for estimating a hidden population were not very good. However, our metrics for measuring crimes committed has been fine. We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still. So the crime committed by illegal immigrants is apparently a red herring. It needs to be dropped from a civilized discussion of why illegal immigration is bad for crime.
Same for jobs taken. Whatever the rate of jobs taken by illegal immigrants, that rate is from a population 2x the size we thought it was.

So these pressures on (these aspects of) American life are put to the test and come out not compelling.
I hadn't expected that. No, it doesn't change my opinion because I while interesting, my opinion was never rooted in these data.

Your opinion, on the other hand, is partially rooted in the criminal behavior of illegal immigrants, so at least that part I'm curious about.
Do you have anything to refute the validity of the source you just offered? (and does that mean you abandon the 25 M number for the 11.3 M number?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

I'm really over this ladder argument. Honestly, it's pathetic. First of all, if Trump was able to build the wall he wanted...ladders wouldn't work. You can't perch yourself on top while you lift the ladder over. Two ladders? Maybe. They would have to be really tall. They would have to be really strong. Picture it, would people orderly climb over one at a time? Or would they just all climb up the ladder single file? How many people are on the ladder at once? How strong does this ladder have to be? How much would that ladder weigh? How easily could something like that be carried through the desert?

---

Are you actually descending into dementia during this post?

Are you that much smarter than the average bear that you're the only one who would think of TWO ladders?
Well.. Again... at least you're on our side, huh?
You don't even need a saw to make a ladder. Just some sticks and twine and you're set. Bonus: Mr. Cayote's already got one stashed in a gully about a 1/4 mile from the wall.

As to the rest... just c'mon, man. One team borks a ladder and has to fix it with some sticks and twine on the fly and then everyone gets over and takes the rope down the other side ('cause they don't have your 2-ladder genius *wink*). The Cayote takes the borked ladder and stashes it back in the gully, 'cause he's not crossing. He don't give a fuck if they live or die. He got paid to get them across, and he did.
Those people are desperate, but they're still people. They're not stupid. They don't lack creativity and problem solving skills. They have a lot of time on their hands and motivation to not get caught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

How likely is it that someone would be able to approach the wall, set up the apparatus to get people climbing over it, herd people over it, and then move into america undetected? Without a wall, all they have to do is walk on through.

---

99%+ for an unmanned wall. 'bout the same as no wall. A manned wall is a totally different story, though, and not really answerable by me.

I don't get you. Would a wall would stop you, spoon, if you wanted past it, and were determined to break the law to do so. You think an unmanned 30 foot wall is "stopping" you? With your 2-ladder genius?
Naaaaaah.
You're a smart guy, but this doesn't require genius, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon

And locks are for honest people. So leave your front door open and stop locking your car.

---

You make it sound like crimes of opportunity aren't a thing. Or that illegal immigration is a crime of opportunity.
That's funny.
I wasn't going to go to Mexico, but I mean.. I was in Texas, and like, Mexico's right there, unprotected by a huge fuck-off wall... so I illegally immigrated. lolz. YOLO!

You on the populism thing still? You now telling me that asking a question in black and white is implying some position on my part? C'mon, man. Communication. You can do it real good when you want to. I've clarified my question had nothing to do with me making an assertion, rather just pointing out that by your own words, it's not so cut-and-dry as "everyone who voted for Trump did so because they totally support all of his policies, ergo a mandate on his campaign promises."


If I write it in all caps will you stop with the thing where you think I care about what have never mentioned?

I DON'T CARE WHY YOU WANT THE WALL.

I care why you think it's good for America's future. Subtle, but different.
You want the wall 'cause democracy. Fine.
Not interesting.

You said you not only want the wall 'cause democracy, but also 'cause it's best for America.
That's interesting.
What problems do you think a wall addresses?
Is a wall the optimal solution to those problems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

C'mon there's no way. I thought it might be spoon because to have people on one board who can type really fast but have really shaky reading comprehension seems like a huge coincidence, but there are some differences that would make it pathological if those are the same person. Unless you actually know it's the same IP, I'm calling bullshit. Weren't banana and spoon posting at the same time? And this is clearly banana, or him writing as his bananastand personality. Was he actually posting from two accounts talking to himself?

---

Sorry, but I know spoon, and this is spoon.

some differences between the nanners and spoon:
1) nanners was not a consummate word-smith. Spoony is. Nanners had bad spelling, weird commas, etc. All the normal stuff most people have. Spoony is almost immaculate in his writing. I think I've spotted 1, maybe 2 typos in the past 7 pages from him. That's not something that people can fake. I mean... maybe spoon could fake nanners, but no way can nanners fake spoon.

2) nanners could barely restrain himself from openly raging almost all the time. Much that I sometimes like to imagine that spoony is a mouth-frothing rageaholic, he's not. Spoon's especially cool under pressure, a quality that nanners absolutely lacked. Look at the push-pull between me and spoon. When I get emotional, he gets down-to-earth. When I get intellectual, he gets emotional. IDK how he does it, but if I can hand anything to him, it's that after a few years, he's learned that the only way to actually shame me is to be more level-headed than I am when I get heated.
(Props to you for that. I never told you of this, spoon. Effective. You found something I value in myself and you combat when I break that value by showing it in spades. I hope this is intentional, because it's masterful. For all our sparring, I respect you.)

3) If I half-pushed nanners buttons with something like my "fine fermented flatus" comment, he'd be all over me with expletives and who/what I have sex with and all that high-school level nonsense that passes for insults to kids. When spoon gets petulant, it's in a totally different way.


I mean seriously, if this is nanners and NOT spoon, then I owe nanners the biggest apology ever. Bigger than I gave wuf way back when.
And seriously, if this is nanners AND spoon, then epic troll deserves credit where it's due. Damn. Hot damn. It'd mean he even trolled me in the moderators forum discussion thread about it, then doubled down with an epic... and I mean EPIC troll the next week. Seriously.. spoony's smart, but I really don't think this level of troll is anywhere near his wheelhouse.

Mmm the plot thickens

Wow, we need to dive deeper on this. There's no way spoon can go 7 days without bragging about how many pages of clickbait he wrote, how many 2's have let him lay on top of them, or say "dingdingdingdingding" or "cuck."

If those are the same, he's a psychopath. They are distinctly different and they were talking to each other. Spoon is way more of the wuf school of thought where the less you say, and the more cryptic you say it, the less likely people are to find out you actually have no clue what you're talking about, where banana will just go full speed ahead. This is going to be controversial, but I also think in terms of cognitive function banana is a notch above spoon. There's some extreme cognitive dissonance and cult-like thinking but within that framework his synapses seem to be firing, whereas spoon just straight up shit the bed on most things that weren't high school math.

But most important is the lack of bragging. Spoon constantly brags about himself, banana doesn't and "Spoonald" is doing many things but he's not bragging.
Also spoonald referenced my IQ which is a banana thing.
Banana is banned and has a reason to create a new account, spoon doesn't.
We're on completely opposite sides of this.

I mean... you make some interesting points.
He hasn't pressed a semi-misogynist agenda while constantly reminding us about both his wife and the 20-something shag he's got living in the other bedroom, either.

Honestly, at this point we're just giving him ideas.

Hey Trumples, how do you feel about the fact that we have to do some forensic fucking graphology over here to keep you puppets apart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Sorry, but I know spoon, and this is spoon.

---

I'm pretty sure this is banana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

some differences between the nanners and spoon:
1) nanners was not a consummate word-smith. Spoony is.

---

Neither of them are consummate word-smiths. And it's not about spelling or typos or anything like that. It's about using the words to make your message clear. Hard to do if you don't know what words mean. And neither of them do. Both are above-average IQ, don't get me wrong, but neither is Shakespeare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Nanners had bad spelling, weird commas, etc. All the normal stuff most people have.

---

I would have to go back and check, but my recollection is this is not true. banana knew how to spell and had fine grammar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

2) nanners could barely restrain himself from openly raging almost all the time. 3) If I half-pushed nanners buttons with something like my "fine fermented flatus" comment, he'd be all over me with expletives and who/what I have sex with and all that high-school level nonsense that passes for insults to kids.

---

Actually banana can keep it together for short periods of time, but eventually he cracks and starts hurling insults. There's been evidence of this happening here. And it's not that he cracks the first time someone calls him a name either. That doesn't bother him. What bothers him is having his b.s. dismantled and his contradictions pointed out to him. Keep telling him where he's wrong and eventually he will flip his shit and start answering arguments with abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

if this is nanners AND spoon, then that person needs to see a psychiatrist, pronto. They have got some really dysfunctional synapses up there that require some electrical intervention

---

fyp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Hey Poop, if you haven't seen this yet, I hope you're not in public. You're about to have a throbbing erection

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...obe/index.html

If you're thinking of telling me why this matters...don't bother. It doesn't.

---

Hey banana, you've got a funny idea of what gives me an erection.

And yea, huge shock there.

And yea, it hardly matters since OOJ has already been shown.

Ok let's do some forensic analysis here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What show are you watching??

The republicans absolutely railed against Obama for blowing up the debt and having trillion dollar deficits. Then, this week, the Republicans passed a government budget that spends even more.

I've seen a number of republican congressman interviewed on various cable news platforms over the last couple of days. They were all asked about that inconsistency. Why complain about spending, and then spend your balls off?

The answer was that they didn't have much of a choice. They absolutely had to increase military spending. Previous administrations had practiced policies of "containment" to kick the can down the road regarding Iran and North Korea. It's likely that the can can't be kicked any further. Military readiness is important.

to counter that, I have seen every single one of these congress members claim that the next step is entitlement reform. That and the economic growth will offset the extra military spending.

So it sounds like they're doing exactly what you're asking for wuf. It sounds like a solid plan to me. Let's see if they execute

---

Here's an early quote from banana taken more or less at random, with the stipulation that it had enough words to analyse.

1. Begins with a display of open shock at the other person's position, expressed in an obnoxious way - check.

2. Continues with a defense of R behaviour - check.

3. Signs of being politically aware of what's going on - check.

4. Fine spelling and grammar - check.

5. Manages to get through an entire post without being openly abusive - check.

Note the large amount of similarity in style between this and posts made by 'Thespoonald'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

https://i.redd.it/y0wko3m4tuf01.jpg

This is more like it.

---

Meanwhile, here's something spoon posted from around the same time.

Why banana/Thespoonald != spoon

1. Banana does not post memes.

2. Show me a banana post that is this economical with words. Ever.

3. Banana does not use cheesy forms of argument, or whatever you might call this.

4. Show me a banana post that is not at least trying to make an argument.

Show me anything by banana/Thespoonald that is anything like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Have you ever taken a pages long stand on any of those issues?

---

What do you want from me? No one else here wants to talk about anything except ORANGE MAN BAD. Feel free to start a discussion on a left wing issue if you're curious about my position.

Quote:

---

That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.

---

Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.

Quote:

---

Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone

---

Actually, walls work.

Quote:

---

Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.

---

Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.

Quote:

---

We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still.

---

First of all, we don't *know* that. And any arguments that even suggest that have to ignore the crime of illegally crossing the border before it even starts with math. So it's highly flawed. highly. Also, every stat I've ever seen shows the crime rate among illegal aliens in terms of crimes per 100K people. Or sort of per capita. So this new information you found doesn't affect the crime rate at all. It just means that the volume of crimes is 2x what you thought. Sleep tight.

Quote:

---

Same for jobs taken. Whatever the rate of jobs taken by illegal immigrants, that rate is from a population 2x the size we thought it was.

---

Again, you have to understand what "per capita" means. If 12 million people took X million jobs. Then 24 million people take 2x million jobs. The problem is twice as worse as you thought it was, not half. Learn math please.

Quote:

---

Ladders and a bunch of other crap that isn't very smart.

---

Walls work.

Quote:

---

I care why you think it's good for America's future.

---

Walls work

This shows the number of people apprehended making an unauthorized entry into Hungary from Serbia. Can you guess which day they built the wall?

https://media.breitbart.com/media/20...ls-October.jpg

Hey Monkey....I thought it was really easy to make a ladder? Like you could use sticks and twine right?? Do they not have those things in Serbia?

WALLS WORK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

This wall worked at this time in this place.

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Hey Trumples, how do you feel about the fact that we have to do some forensic fucking graphology over here to keep you puppets apart?

---

Tell your mom to bring me a fucking sandwich you demagogue!!

Here's some philosophy 101 for you. See if you can make the connection between this fallacy and your argument that 'walls work'.

Quote:

---

Hasty Generalization

A Hasty Generalization is a Fallacy of Jumping to Conclusions in which the conclusion is a generalization. See also Biased Statistics.

Example:

I've met two people in Nicaragua so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Nicaragua will be nice to me.

In any Hasty Generalization the key error is to overestimate the strength of an argument that is based on too small a sample for the implied confidence level or error margin. In this argument about Nicaragua, using the word "all" in the conclusion implies zero error margin. With zero error margin you'd need to sample every single person in Nicaragua, not just two people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's some philosophy 101 for you. See if you can make the connection between this fallacy and your argument that 'walls work'.

---

There's more data that says walls work than there is data that shows ladders are useful for breaching them.

Show me where Hungary or Israel are kicking themselves for not thinking that immigrants might use ladders.

Two walls. Both wildly successful.

Is there a wall on a country's border somewhere that is consistently thwarted by ladders? Anywhere??

Sounds like "But Ladders" is the only "Hasty Generalization" in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

There's more data that says walls work than there is data that shows ladders are useful for breaching them.

Show me where Hungary or Israel are kicking themselves for not thinking that immigrants might use ladders.

Two walls. Both wildly successful.

Is there a wall on a country's border somewhere that is consistently thwarted by ladders? Anywhere??

Sounds like "But Ladders" is the only "Hasty Generalization" in this thread.

---

You've doubled the number of your sample size now from n=1 to n=2. Well done, you're on the right track.

There's plenty of examples of people scaling or breaching walls from history. I'm not going to bother to list them here because it's not productive.

No-one would dispute that wall > no wall in hindering movement. The question is 1) whether it's going to address the problem of illegal immigration in a cost effective way, and 2) whether the wall is permanent and irreversible. Most experts don't think so on 1), and on 2) it's clear there's no such thing as a 'permanent' wall.

Your counter to this seems to be 'even so, election was vote on wall' which is overly simplistic, since the Wall was only one issue on which Capt. Retard ran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

There's plenty of examples of people scaling or breaching walls from history.

---

History huh? Not now though? What happened? Did Ladders get un-invented?

Quote:

---

1) whether it's going to address the problem of illegal immigration in a cost effective way

---

Who is asking that question? Are they sincerely asking it? Or are they being politically obstructive on purpose?

Quote:

---

Most experts don't think so

---

^"Hasty Generalization" Do you have a source, or some way to substantiate "most"? And what qualifies someone as an expert on border walls?

Quote:

---

2) it's clear there's no such thing as a 'permanent' wall.

---

That's not clear except if you're going to be a hair splitting cunt about the word "permanent" and insist it means "until the end of time".

Quote:

---

Your counter to this seems to be 'even so, election was vote on wall' which is overly simplistic, since the Wall was only one issue on which Capt. Retard ran.

---

We elect whole candidates. What don't you understand about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I mean seriously, if this is nanners and NOT spoon, then I owe nanners the biggest apology ever. Bigger than I gave wuf way back when.

---

Boy that would be fun to watch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

History huh? Not now though? What happened? Did Ladders get un-invented?

---

Quote:

---

History: the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing

---

Seriously, if you need the meaning of even common words explained to you, then why are you here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Who is asking that question? Are they sincerely asking it? Or are they being politically obstructive on purpose?

---

Someone with more common sense than you I suspect. Your argument is to build a $30bn wall but to detect attempts to thwart it using 'sonar or whatever'. Then when someone gets through you send in the cavalry to round them up. The wall buys an hour or so so that the illegals can't get from the wall crossing point to a hidedout outside of sonar range.

This is so prima facie retarded it doesn't even need refutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

That's not clear except if you're going to be a hair splitting cunt about the word "permanent" and insist it means "until the end of time".

---

Show me anything built by man that is in the same condition it was 10 years ago with no maintenance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

We elect whole candidates. What don't you understand about this?

---

So in order to vote for someone, you have to agree with every single one of their positions, is that it?

In that case, why isn't Hillary in jail yet? I seem to remember 'lock her up' being chanted just as often as 'build the wall'.

I tell you what banana mach II: If Trump wins again in 2020 then I will drop any and all arguments to building the wall. If he loses and there's no wall by then the only one to blame for that will be him: He got elected, he had the house and senate and he failed not only to lock Hillary up but to build the wall. It'll be something for him to mull over while he spends the rest of his life in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So in order to vote for someone, you have to agree with every single one of their positions, is that it?

---

Not even close to what I said. You can no longer accuse me of ad reducium bananicus .

I don't care what "historically" happened with walls. Right now, there are two hyper-effective walls in existence keeping riff raff out of countries that don't want them. Whatever problems walls have historically had....is fixed. New prototypes could not be breached by seriously able-bodied and extraordinarily determined soldiers. They had ladders.

So the fact is, I don't know all of the ways humans have thought up to breach a wall. Nor do I know all the ways humans have thought up to prevent it. But I know someone has, and what they came up with is pretty fucking effective. Just look at the damn chart!

So I'm all done with the "is the wall effective?" talk. Hell fucking yes it is. And I realize that "other stuff" has to exist to make it work, that doesn't mean that "other stuff" is better (it's not), or that anyone ever advocated having a wall without "other stuff". Everyone agrees, you need a wall and other stuff to secure a border. If you have just a wall, or just other stuff, it's better than having neither, but nowhere near effective as both. If any of that is ambiguous or disputed by anyone, go fuck yourself.

Can we please talk about something else today?