Another outlandish statement. GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES! I have no problem admitting it when I'm wrong so if I posted something I can't back up I'll own up to it. But you can't call me out for not providing sources and not tell me what statements I need sources for!Still waiting for a half dozen citation from you, so you might not want to throw stones in that particular direction.
Apparently so does Guliani.Weeeeeeell, about that:
Special counsel issues rare statement disputing BuzzFeed's Cohen report
You've got a really bad case or TDS buddy!
You name is quite appropriate, since I've already posted that. Several times.Level, I'm not sifting through this entire thread to point out every one of your WhatAboutisms and deflections - I have other shit to do this week. We are still waiting for you to cite where the Democrats said they wanted a physical wall larger than what Trump wants, so how about we start there?
No, you've just stated it happened. You never showed the Democrats wanting a physical barrier and certainly not one that exceeded what Trump has demanded. We are still waiting for that.You name is quite appropriate, since I've already posted that. Several times.
Good to know you can't provide any evidence to back up your BS, btw.
The more interresting Question here is - who is he even trying to convince otherwise? There are no new people here, the old ones like us know all that already and (if we don't encounter plot-convienent amnesia) remember all that. So putting on a show - for who?Level, we tend to call you on your BS when it happens and then you pull shit like this. You will either deflect, just ignore us, or call the thread a dumpster fire and disappear.[...]
I literally cited a specific bill. How can I possibly get any more specific than that??No, you've just stated it happened. You never showed the Democrats wanting a physical barrier and certainly not one that exceeded what Trump has demanded. We are still waiting for that.
I find it amusing to watch you guys squirm and perform fascinating mental gymnastics over everything. Case in point: we've managed to argue about factual information for the last several pages. I posted about an actual bill brought forth by Senator Schumer and that's still not a good enough source for its own content for Blind Appropriate username is appropriate here - denying actual facts!The more interresting Question here is - who is he even trying to convince otherwise? There are no new people here, the old ones like us know all that already and (if we don't encounter plot-convienent amnesia) remember all that. So putting on a show - for who?
You, sir, are the one who is lying. At no point did I ever say that Schumer's bill was only about a border wall. First of all, I never called it a wall because the bill didn't call it a wall - I said "physical barrier" (I'm surprised that someone so anal about details didn't notice that); second of all I did not suggest that the whole bill was about these physical barriers.Yeah, I read that bill. It is a massive overhaul and. as usual, you are lying about the details that are kind of important. The bill was not just for a border wall, that was actually a fairly small part at $1.5 billion for better border fencing in high-traffic areas. The bill was very specific about this. The rest of the border security was to be spent on sensors, and 40,000 new agents to patrol.
Wrong. First, you are completely missing the point, even though I've explained it multiple times already. The point isn't about who'sYou said that the Democrats wanted more border wall than Trump. That's a lie. I keep asking you to prove it and your own citation is against you.
From S.7444: "$8,000,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, to procure and deploy fencing, infrastructure, and technology in accordance with the Southern Border Fencing Strategy established pursuant to section 5(b), not less than $7,500,000,000 of which shall be used to deploy, repair, or replace fencing"You said that they wanted to spend more on border walls than Trump. Also a lie...
And I don't think about you at all.While it's amusing to listen to you insult me for "denying facts" (I love irony as much as the next guy), you are kind of making a fool of yourself.
I'm not here to make excuses for the GOP. I'm here to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the loudmouth Dems, particularly Schumer and Pelosi, who are suddenly dead-set against funding a physical barrier. If only they would remember that they supported a bill that would've allocated more funding towards a longer border barrier than Trump currently wants, they'd be able to strike a deal with POTUS and reopen the government. But, instead, they are suddenly claiming that walls are "immoral".Okay, let's go with that.
The GOP still opposed the plan and they didn't fund Trump's 4th century boondoggle when they had the House, Senate, White House, AND the Supreme Court. But NOW Trump has a tantrum and shuts down the government? It's typical GOP bullshit, all they know is how to point fingers, when they are given a chance to actually implement their policies they don't.
That's a lie. Nancy Pelosi has called the wall immoral on (iirc) two occasions.They didn't say walls are immoral...
Physical barriers worked in 2000 BC, 200 BC, 1961, and 2013... but not in 2015 when Trump campaigned on it and certainly not in 2019. Got it....today we have better and more effective means to secure the border.
Really? So there aren't people illegally crossing into the United States right now?Also, the threats of 2013 are not the same as the ones we face going forward from here. The political situation in South America wasn't the same 6 years ago, so we have to look at meeting the demand of the future.
Ah yes, the "dats racisss" card, a favorite among progressives. Yawn.His wall is nothing more than a symbol of xenophobia and isolationism