Oh jeeezus. Alright, he's confined in a military barracks, isn't allowed to leave, and has every aspect of his life micromanaged by guards.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But it's not prison. Fine, you win.
Printable View
Oh jeeezus. Alright, he's confined in a military barracks, isn't allowed to leave, and has every aspect of his life micromanaged by guards.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But it's not prison. Fine, you win.
So wait, he can be a dictator then if he wants to?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
He can tell a military judge 'this guy did good things a while ago, give him a nicer cell' or tell the head of FBI 'don't prosecute this guy'?
'Cause I'm pretty sure he can't....
Fuck offQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, he can't tell a judge how to rule. But he can say that to a Navy Captain responsible for running a prison-like barracks facility. (I have to say prison-like now because Oskar gets sand in his vagina when I call it prison).Quote:
He can tell a military judge 'this guy did good things a while ago, give him a nicer cell'
Well, he would never say that, because Trump is not a hopeless retard that thinks the FBI is responsible for "prosecution". The AG would be responsible for that, and Trump absolutely can say "don't prosecute this guy".Quote:
or tell the head of FBI 'don't prosecute this guy'?
Yeah, he can.Quote:
'Cause I'm pretty sure he can't...
Come on now, it's called 'anti-climb' for a reason -it's replacing that 'pro-climb' wall they had under Obama!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
No one knows where they are coming in. The only drugs we are sure about are the drugs we find and confiscate. All of the rest of the drugs are more or less a mystery, at least to the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What we do know is that the drugs in the latter group kill people, and the drugs in the former group usually don't.
We also know that if we're catching thousands of pounds of drugs at ports of entry, then we're probably doing a good job at detecting them. Which means it's unlikely that drugs are moving through ports undetected.
So the undetected drugs must be coming through some other way. And if it's not ports of entry....then there aren't a lot of options left. It's either over land and a wall would stop it. Or its through underground tunnels, and a wall would stop that too. Or its coming via light aircraft, which would admittedly thwart a wall. However, since the wall is doing everything else, it's possible that we might have more available resources to patrol the skies.
You should talk to Robert Mueller. He seems to have a different idea of how involved the president can be with the justice department. I'm sure he'd benefit from your constitutional wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
This is the least intellectually vapid thing you've posted this weekQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Does he have a different idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Is that why Trump is under indictment right now?
Is that why he's likely to be impeached?
Is that why his re-election chances are worse than ever?
Oh wait.....
Not really a fair judgment though. All you know is you're stopping x number of drugs from getting through poe's. You don't know how many are getting through. For all you know, you could only be catching 5%. I'm not saying that's the number, I'm saying the number could be anywhere between 0 and 100%, and you will never know what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Again you don't have enough information to know what % of drugs come overland, and what % come in other ways the Wall can't deter. You also forget to account for the fact that blocking one route just diverts the traffic to other routes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Basically you can't stop drug trade or even put a serious dent in it as long as the demand is there. Solving the drug epidemic starts from within.
"My kid's an alcoholic. I might not be able to bomb the liquor store, but I can burn down the bar down the road."
If I didn't know better, I might say you're arguing *for* a wall hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My lifeguard analogy was WAY betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
fantasticQuote:
Or its through underground tunnels, and a wall would stop that too.
Not really. I can see why people will think it will help, but people are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Congrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So, why the focus on stopping bad people from bringing drugs into the country (which never works) and not on stopping good people in the country from becoming addicts (which at least sometimes works)?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
Dude...that's exactly what "Make America Great Again" meansQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Haven't we been over this?
The biggest problem here is that at least some of your politicians are taking an easy line on the drug epidemic by blaming it on outsiders 'drugs coming in through the borders - arrrrgh!' . That's much easier than saying 'what is our society doing wrong when so many people feel the need to dope up - what can we do to fix things here?'
Making it harder to smuggle drugs won't stop people from smuggling drugs, it will just increase the price of drugs.
Getting a lot of people to stop taking drugs will not only fix their problem it will fix the smuggling problem.
I don't know what you're talking about here. What efforts has Trump made to get people to stop being drug addicts?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
And before you answer 'he spent x dollars, arrrgghghggh!!!' let me clarify that I mean what has he done that's actually been effective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Unless your position is that those things you mention are "supposed" to do the work of a wall, but they're really bad at accomplishing what a wall will accomplish more efficiently, in which case, please elaborate and draw that line more clearly than the spaghetti squiggles you throw out as though they're linear thought.
lolwat? You just said what? FYI: check out the word "demolition." Fascinating concept. Goes back centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Did you know that if you hit things with other things... the things break?
Get this... if you leave a wall alone for 200 years... it crumbles all on its own. I know... 2nd law of Thermo has some pretty wild applications, right?
Also, a wall without sensors, patrols, and drones = no difference if it's 5 feet tall or 50. If no one's watching, it will be breached, tunneled, laddered, whatever. That will take time, but how much time? IDK, but I think we can both agree there's nothing permanent about it once the manpower goes away.
Agreed. Now that you've discredited the positions that only you have brought up, can you get to the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
(I bet you feel pretty burned by yourself, while also swimming in the pride of a sick burn. You're a complicated man.)
Wait... you said he was elected 'cause populism sticks it to the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You also said it was because Clinton was widely perceived to be a criminal (though that was a long time ago).
Which is it?
Maybe some of each?
Maybe not an actual majority on any of them, then? Maybe, but not necessarily, a majority consensus I mean.
Maybe some supported Trump to stick it to the man, others to build a wall, others 'cause Clinton is more criminal than Trump. Some a combination. Some non of the above.
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.
At any rate... now that you've criticized the non-sequitur nonsense that you invented in response to nothing I actually asked,
can you answer the questions?
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?
***
I tend to agree that Trumps election was largely predicated on people who really liked shouting "build that wall." Personally, I think it'd be an expensive and epic failure to accomplish its stated goals, but I'm excited to run the experiment. If 'Murica wants a wall, then 'Murica should build an epic fuckin wall worthy of our name. If that's not the most cost-efficient solution, then so what. Is it awesome?!
I think a wall is a bad symbol. I think there are better ways to solve problems than by clawing onto an us/them mentality. However, sometimes it really is us/them. That's the brutal reality of the world and of humans. Maybe a wall is the best move. Maybe it's really us vs. them. I just really doubt it is in this case.
Walls around prisons? Yes.
Walls around nations? No.
So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's a serious question. So what?
America voted for a wall. Who or what would ever presume to overrule that? And what kind of sick deranged narcissist would do so on the grounds that "those people are wrong".
Where are the drugs coming from? Big pharma.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Why aren't they being gone and gotten? The FDA has approved them.
They aren't "getting in undetected" except that they are totally in and not getting "detected" because big money has pushed through gov't approval before the consequences were well known. (Not necessarily the fault of the pharma companies that produced and sold the drugs. It depends what they knew and when they knew it and how they responded when they found out.)
The American opioid epidemic is home-brewed, and doctor prescribed medications causing drug poisoning is far and away the leader in drug related deaths.
Are you excluding this from your analysis? If so, why?
Last time I checked, Mojo was right. America didn't decide between wall/no wall. They decided between Capt. Retard and the Lizard Queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever asked to make the final decison on whether or not to build the Wall. Right now, I'm simply talking about whether it's a good idea or not, and whether it will benefit the opiod crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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:
check out the word "demolition."
I'm guessing that El Salvador won't wait that long and will be forced to get it's act together now.Quote:
Get this... if you leave a wall alone for 200 years... it crumbles all on its own.
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:
IDK, but I think we can both agree there's nothing permanent about it once the manpower goes away.
You think a wall isn't a populist idea? Please explain??Quote:
Wait... you said he was elected 'cause populism sticks it to the man.
.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
See my previous two sentences. I'm not being inconsistent at all.Quote:
Which is it?
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:
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.
IneffectivelyQuote:
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
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:
Is a wall our best option?
Why did it work in Hungary and Israel?Quote:
Personally, I think it'd be an expensive and epic failure to accomplish its stated goals,
See the two countries mentioned above. What about those experiments is inconclusive to you?Quote:
but I'm excited to run the experiment.
AmenQuote:
If 'Murica wants a wall, then 'Murica should build an epic fuckin wall worthy of our name.
Preach it!Quote:
If that's not the most cost-efficient solution, then so what. Is it awesome?!
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:
I think a wall is a bad symbol.
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:
Maybe it's really us vs. them.
What exactly is a border then? What does it mean?Quote:
Walls around nations? No.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Heroin comes from Mexico. It's a fact. Look it up.
The FDA approved Heroin? Source?Quote:
Why aren't they being gone and gotten? The FDA has approved them.
I think if you actually look into this, you'll be horrified.Quote:
It depends what they knew and when they knew it and how they responded when they found out
Source?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.
It's not a border issue,Quote:
Are you excluding this from your analysis? If so, why?
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.
You are the perfect customer.Quote:
And frankly, effectiveness and cost SHOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL. These are bogus, feckless, diversionary arguments.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Confused.jpg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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 Poopadoop
As far as I know, Dr Dinkus has been called out, and the government has cracked down on Dinkus's everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsomeGenius
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 TheSpoonald
It's not a fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
If it's an epidemic, treat it like one.
HOW DARE YOU!
THAT'S SOCIALISM!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
It needed a wallQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I don't know what a memer is. Also, Dave Rubin libertarian??Quote:
Banana weren't you a Dave Rubin level libertarian memer
Citation neededQuote:
And now you're begging on your knees for the government to control what you put into your body?
Do you not know what is meant by "due process"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYotqgekKtUQuote:
Dave Rubin libertarian
Absolute below room temperature moron.
Lol, I said 'treatment clinic' not 'treatment prison'.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Hmm, that would have been fun. Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Can the patient come and go as he pleases? Is his participation in treatment voluntary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If so, how is that different than what we have now?
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
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 oskar
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 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
That doesn't happenQuote:
The patient wakes up in the ER and gets told 'you're still alive, pay your bill and gtfo
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??Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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
Oh damn, been reading the wrong media again.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...-er-california
Please tell me what the truth is then.Quote:
Despite an opioid crisis, most ERs don’t offer addiction treatment. California is changing that.
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 TheSpoonald
They're actually roughly equalQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Citation neededQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not even close to addressing the real problem.Quote:
and/or risk of infection.
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.
Have a nurse give the injection; that makes it hard to go sell the drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Also, lol that someone will sell a drug to go buy a dirtier version of the same drug.
Common sense needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Lucky for me that I never said anything of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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?
It was alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
I almost never know what you actually mean. Do you, even?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
Spoon: Manpower, sensors, drones = not permanent, therefore not effective 'cause someone later down the line can remove them.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
Once again... I said nothing of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
I'm tired of correcting your reading comprehension. Can you just not suck at it so much? K thx
Liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Can you make a post without a metric ton of ad hominem nonsense? You're not even good at it.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?
You do you man.Quote:
It was alright.
It's crystal clear.Quote:
I almost never know what you actually mean. Do you, even?
Uh no. You clearly don't know anything about my political views.Quote:
I mean, I get that you're all, "right wing good. left wing bad,"
Agreed. I'm glad that's not my position.Quote:
but that's not really an informed position on any issue
It's like you're conflating me with the magnified perception of a cliche that you think I am. It's confusing and silly.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."
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.
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:
question: do you actually think you have any idea what the rest of us mean?
RightQuote:
Spoon: Manpower, sensors, drones = not permanent, therefore not effective 'cause someone later down the line can remove them.
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:
Me: A wall without manpower, sensors, drones = not stopping anyone
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:
/ no more resilient to the cutting of manpower, sensors, drones.
This is also true. Evidence: 25 million illegal immigrants are here right now.Quote:
Spoon: the manpower isn't effective without a wall!
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:
SMH. Just keep moving the goal posts and changing the topic so you can maintain that level of outrage, 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:
I said a wall without manpower is no more permanent than manpower without wall.
If you're arguing against that, then dafuq, man?
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.Quote:
Your statement about the permanence of walls is stupid. Just suck it up and admit that you said a stupid thing.
Do you know what permanence means?
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:
Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved
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?Quote:
Once again... I said nothing of the sort.
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.
If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Citation neededQuote:
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).
Funny, I feel like this happens to me alot. Citation=All of MMM's posts in the last two weeks.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
You'd then sound just as dumb, but more projecting. 'Raging' is clearly more descriptive of you than of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Really, a dictionary.
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
Yeah it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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 or STFU.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
Criticizing your inability to stay on topic and effectively communicate is neither ad hominem, nor nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
That was nice. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
Where'd you get that number?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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?
OK, I'll grant you that a swiss cheesed ex-wall with ladders along it is probably easier to bootstrap than no wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
Still a far, far cry from "permanent," but if that's all you meant, then I'll drop it.
calm down there, bucko.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
Nope. Once the border patrol isn't coming along and confiscating abandoned ladders, well... it's not even a good speed bump.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
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 ladder means?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
Communication. It's about what someone said, not what you wish they would have said so you can tell them how wrong they are.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
See above. Same reason I'll single-mindedly defend an absurd and dangerous policy like universal healthcare.Quote:
I want to understand why you're so single-mindedly defending the wall
Walls work.Quote:
that you'll say things which are not supported by any data (reality)
there's no nuance. 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.
FACT: 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.
I'm trying to build a wall.Quote:
I'm not trying to "haymaker" you. I'm trying to figure out why you're building a house of cards.
You cited "reality" as "data" earlier. I'd like to do the same.Quote:
Where'd you get that number?
Search harder. Related question: If we already know how many there are, why does it matter if we ask citizenship on the census?Quote:
It says 12 million on the DHS site.
RightQuote:
Because that 25 million number was important to your point?
RightQuote:
Because you don't just throw out unimportant nonsense to support a position with data that you came to with emotions?
RightQuote:
Right?
Your information is old. Here is some new information,Quote:
You're a logical adult, so this new information will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know, right?
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?
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:
Did you know most immigrants enter legally and overstay their visas?
See above. Current as of today.Quote:
(I didn't find any more recent data. Let me know if you do.)
You act like this question hasn't already been answered. Google "2016 election". This has already been adjudicated....WALL.Quote:
Assuming illegal immigration is the crisis you say it is, is a wall the best way to address this, given these data?
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.
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:
"Is a wall the most effective use of our money to address these issues?"
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?Quote:
ladders,
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.
And locks are for honest people. So leave your front door open and stop locking your car.Quote:
The wall doesn't stop a determined bad guy.
These are all good things.Quote:
It makes his job harder. It slows him down so less manpower can apprehend more criminals.
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:
Hey wait... that's still not me saying a wall isn't a populist idea
So? Why does that matter? You elect whole candidates.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.
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.
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 MadMojoMonkey
Wow, shocker! Nobody saw that coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Improved visibilityQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
he cries into the wind as the walls close in around him.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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?)
Are you actually descending into dementia during this post?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
You make it sound like crimes of opportunity aren't a thing. Or that illegal immigration is a crime of opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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?
Sorry, but I know spoon, and this is spoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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?
I'm pretty sure this is banana.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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
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
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
fyp.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Hey banana, you've got a funny idea of what gives me an erection.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
And yea, huge shock there.
And yea, it hardly matters since OOJ has already been shown.
Ok let's do some forensic analysis here:
Here's an early quote from banana taken more or less at random, with the stipulation that it had enough words to analyse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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'
Meanwhile, here's something spoon posted from around the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.
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:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.Quote:
That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.
Actually, walls work.Quote:
Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone
Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.Quote:
Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.
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:
We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still.
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:
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.
Walls work.Quote:
Ladders and a bunch of other crap that isn't very smart.
Walls workQuote:
I care why you think it's good for America's future.
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
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Tell your mom to bring me a fucking sandwich you demagogue!!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
There's more data that says walls work than there is data that shows ladders are useful for breaching them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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
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.
History huh? Not now though? What happened? Did Ladders get un-invented?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Who is asking that question? Are they sincerely asking it? Or are they being politically obstructive on purpose?Quote:
1) whether it's going to address the problem of illegal immigration in a cost effective way
^"Hasty Generalization" Do you have a source, or some way to substantiate "most"? And what qualifies someone as an expert on border walls?Quote:
Most experts don't think so
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:
2) it's clear there's no such thing as a 'permanent' wall.
We elect whole candidates. What don't you understand about this?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.
Boy that would be fun to watchQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Seriously, if you need the meaning of even common words explained to you, then why are you here?Quote:
History: the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
This is so prima facie retarded it doesn't even need refutation.
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
So in order to vote for someone, you have to agree with every single one of their positions, is that it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
Not even close to what I said. You can no longer accuse me of ad reducium bananicus .Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?