O-Trap;1847623 wrote:Argument from incredulity.

What did he do to cause this?

And how do you know that "most know now that if they are caught here they will probably be sent packing?" You're claiming a knowledge of the dominant consciousness of a group of people of which you are not one. That seems pretty presumptuous, no?



Well, my goodness. More people in prison is certainly equitable to a more liberty-focused society, right? I mean, how could anyone look at a metric of increased imprisonment (not to mention a system that has been ripe for corporatism for decades) and see anything other than love of liberty?



This is an argument from incredulity fallacy.



Is the wall going to be above the normal plane cruising altitude? If not, then the wall is going to be largely worthless.

Amazing.

What did Ronald Reagan do to cause Iran to release the hostages on the day he was inaugurated.

As for the illegals deciding not to infiltrate, there are plenty of resources citing same. And the decline in numbers is not fake news; it is obviously just not reported by most media outlets. Not surprising; there will NEVER be any credit given the Trump administration (for anything); we know that; we don't really care at this point. Most sane people just care about the results, and the trend has shifted significantly, in the right direction.

sleeper;1847631 wrote:Only Republicans are dumb enough to drop $20B+ on a useless wall.

Eh, I distinctly recall Obama calling for an increase in border personnel to deal with the illegal immigration issue.

Had he, instead, suggested a wall, a good portion of the Democrat voters would have screaming about it being the best idea since FDR's New Deal.

gut;1847638 wrote:Too bad we can't go back and take $20B out of that $800B stimupork Obama flushed down the toilet.

Or Bush's, but I agree with the sentiment. A wall would be a waste, but it's hardly the first or biggest demonstration of waste by a recent administration.

QuakerOats;1847648 wrote:The "wall" ---- a term for a wall, and other defensive mechanisms ...............obviously.

The wall itself is what everyone's so enthralled over. Most of the other defensive mechanisms have already been in place. The wall is the new piece.

Didn't you even post a fly-by comment the other day about some 450 contractor companies bidding on the actual, literal wall? They're not bidding on 'other defensive mechanisms', I don't think. They're bidding on building a damn wall.

Eh, I distinctly recall Obama calling for an increase in border personnel to deal with the illegal immigration issue.

Had he, instead, suggested a wall, a good portion of the Democrat voters would have screaming about it being the best idea since FDR's New Deal.

No. I don't know of any Democrat that would support a wall even if Obama himself ordered it.

sleeper;1847657 wrote:No. I don't know of any Democrat that would support a wall even if Obama himself ordered it.

Unless it was called a fence.

QuakerOats;1847650 wrote:Amazing.

What did Ronald Reagan do to cause Iran to release the hostages on the day he was inaugurated.

As for the illegals deciding not to infiltrate, there are plenty of resources citing same. And the decline in numbers is not fake news; it is obviously just not reported by most media outlets. Not surprising; there will NEVER be any credit given the Trump administration (for anything); we know that; we don't really care at this point. Most sane people just care about the results, and the trend has shifted significantly, in the right direction.

Ah yes the media conspiracy. Get a life.

sleeper;1847657 wrote:No. I don't know of any Democrat that would support a wall even if Obama himself ordered it.

Yep, Obama would have spent the $20B on a wall....but we'd still have no wall.

gut;1847660 wrote:Yep, Obama would have spent the $20B on a wall....but we'd still have no wall.

He would have spent it on something of value like Planned Parenthood, who provides health services for women, particularly low income women. $20B buys a lot of pap smears and prevents a lot of a abortions via birth control.

QuakerOats;1847650 wrote:Amazing.

What did Ronald Reagan do to cause Iran to release the hostages on the day he was inaugurated.

Oh FFS.

Carter was an awful president, but most of the effort to get the hostages released had been put in under his administration.

QuakerOats;1847650 wrote:As for the illegals deciding not to infiltrate, there are plenty of resources citing same.

Nobody's suggesting that there are fewer illegal immigrants. I'm asking you to provide evidence that you know why, and that the why is actual policy.

QuakerOats;1847650 wrote:And the decline in numbers is not fake news; it is obviously just not reported by most media outlets.

I swear, if I hear more talk about fake news in regard to immigration, I'm going to shit a churro.

I never called into question your claim that immigration, illegal or otherwise, has dropped. I'd be really interested in seeing your uber-real, totally unbiased sources to support those claims (particularly as it pertains to illegal immigration), but we're not even there yet in the discussion. You've claimed there has been a drop, and you've claimed to know why.

Please, feel free to share how you know the "why" of any drop in immigration. That's what I've been asking.

QuakerOats;1847650 wrote:Not surprising; there will NEVER be any credit given the Trump administration (for anything); we know that; we don't really care at this point. Most sane people just care about the results, and the trend has shifted significantly, in the right direction.

Ah, have fun climbing up on that cross.

I'm perfectly fine with giving credit where it's actually due, but don't act insulted if someone asks for proof that it's due.

sleeper;1847661 wrote:He would have spent it on something of value like Planned Parenthood, who provides health services for women, particularly low income women. $20B buys a lot of pap smears and prevents a lot of a abortions via birth control.

Pap smears, contraceptives and 300,000+ abortions.

Planned Parenthood did provide for its abortion procedures (327,653), prenatal services (18,684) and adoption referrals (1,880)

• 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/

So, they kill off about 1/3 of their "positives"

sleeper;1847661 wrote:He would have spent it on something of value like Planned Parenthood, who provides health services for women, particularly low income women. $20B buys a lot of pap smears and prevents a lot of a abortions via birth control.

Why do we still fund Planned Parenthood after Obamacare? Everyone has insurance to pay the bill, right?

sleeper;1847657 wrote:No. I don't know of any Democrat that would support a wall even if Obama himself ordered it.

Well then I'd like to live in your world, even for just five minutes or so.

gut;1847660 wrote:Yep, Obama would have spent the $20B on a wall....but we'd still have no wall.

No, we'd a portion of a wall that isn't long enough, needs repaired constantly, and doesn't have enough access points for people to use it the way it's intended.

So, pretty much, we'd have another Healthcare.gov.

CenterBHSFan;1847664 wrote:Pap smears, contraceptives and 300,000+ abortions.

Federal dollars have never paid for a single abortion. Reality.

Planned Parenthood has prevented more abortions than any organization in history via free or low cost birth control. Expect legal abortion to increase with the recent moves to strip Planned Parenthood of funding. Irony.

CenterBHSFan;1847666 wrote:http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/

So, they kill off about 1/3 of their "positives"

And how many of those abortions were federally funded? Zero.

Enjoy!

sleeper;1847669 wrote:Federal dollars have never paid for a single abortion. Reality.

Planned Parenthood has prevented more abortions than any organization in history via free or low cost birth control. Expect legal abortion to increase with the recent moves to strip Planned Parenthood of funding. Irony.

And they survived 50+ years without federal funding. Irony.

gut;1847667 wrote:Why do we still fund Planned Parenthood after Obamacare? Everyone has insurance to pay the bill, right?

It's a healthcare provider who services mostly low income people. That is how Planned Parenthood is 'funded" and that's why we know they aren't paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars.

like_that;1847673 wrote:And they survived 50+ years without federal funding. Irony.

They can service more low income women with cheap or free healthcare when it has federal funding. But who cares about helping women? Let's just grab em by the *****, amiright!?

sleeper;1847671 wrote:And how many of those abortions were federally funded? Zero.

If I give you $100 but tell you it can't be spent on beer...
1) Do you have $100 more now than before?
2) Do you have $100 more for beer than before?

gut;1847678 wrote:If I give you $100 but tell you it can't be spent on beer...
1) Do you have $100 more now than before?
2) Do you have $100 more for beer than before?

Except that's not how it works. There isn't flat funding; a patient comes in for a pap smear and PP will send the receipt to the federal government for its reimbursement. If a patient comes in for an abortion, they don't send the receipt to the federal government for reimbursement; the liability for the service remains with the patient.

Sorry you are so ignorant. Try watching something other than Fox News for a better picture of reality.

Remember, removing federal funding for PP will INCREASE abortions. Reality, Republicans don't live in it.

Because I'm against abortion Sleeper lives ... Oh well shit happens..

Belly35;1847682 wrote:Because I'm against abortion Sleeper lives ... Oh well shit happens..

Great! Then don't have one!

sleeper;1847680 wrote: Sorry you are so ignorant. Try watching something other than Fox News for a better picture of reality.

Try learning what "fungible" means.

If I pay for your groceries, and then you take your own money you would have spent on groceries to get an abortion....then I funded your abortion.

gut;1847686 wrote:Try learning what "fungible" means.

If I pay for your groceries, and then you take your own money you would have spent on groceries to get an abortion....then I funded your abortion.

Except you don't get money for abortions. It is illegal for federal tax dollars to pay for an abortion.

Sorry you are so ignorant.

sleeper;1847676 wrote:. But who cares about helping women? ?

Based on your posting history, you sure as hell don't. You're not fooling anyone with your troll trash act.

Good thing your girlfriend never sees your posts.