Trump's Beautiful Wall

[_subgenius]

But this is a guy who thinks that Hillary ran a child prostitution ring out of the basement of a DC-area pizza parlor’, so there’s that.

I mean, we just posted on the first page Trump's retarded tweet of a retarded fence and also Trump's retarded publicity stunt.

Nary a peep about that from Tweedle Dee and Tweedle dumbass. It doesn't even occur to them that what Trump did is so embarrassing and so insanely retarded they ought to be so ashamed that they don't even show up to the thread to herp derp.

And yet. Here they are. Herp derping like a couple of damned jokes. damned JOKES.

Whatever. The idea that Democrats approved a budget that included monies for "border security" doesn't even occur to those guys that the Democrats are, perhaps, engaging in something called compromise. And that's ok. Sometimes compromise is a necessary reality of politics, even if dumb damned retarded alt-right NPCs will think a meme somehow accurately captures this:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files ... fy2013.pdf

Go to page 190 for breakouts.

- Doc

that's cool...but still, EA claimed that it was approved for "what they got in the deal" and yet there is no evidence or indication from EA as to what this deal was, as opposed to say Democrats just agreeing with the circumstance - which is reasonable given the fact that Obama had a similar immigration philosophy to Teump.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius is too damned retarded to understand what he just posted is wrong. But who cares about Homeland Security or "border security" or budgets or annual figures or border walls because, you know, he's hands down the dumbest damned retarded Conservative left on MDB with ldsfaqs as the lone exception (and whatever Bach's multi-user account counts as).

- Doc

Yeah, memes are always brimming with facts - you must be so unsettled. Theres a glaring point that speaks more to the tried and true habit of modern Democrats to simply oppose anything because "Trump".
See also troops in Syria, troops in Afghanistan, etc.
If Trump wanted to expand Food Stamp eligibility, Pelosi would block it claiming it was just subsidizing corporate food companies and guys like you and KG would claim it racism.
So spare us your indignation and your KG-esque spittle ridden explicatives.

[_EAllusion]

Jersey - Your argument about a courtroom or this not being a pure debate forum is the exact opposite of what you intend it to be. In a courtroom, there are rules of admissibility of evidence meant to not prejudice a jury. But we aren't in a courtroom and the sole purpose of discussion isn't to debate the merits of a position. That Ajax is being blatantly disingenuous about what he says is conversationally relevant. It would be one thing to just say he's a liar and leave it at that. He could just deny it and go on his merry way. That there is rock-solid evidence of this fact is what makes the charge stick. You would prefer that evidence not be cited because it's embarrassing to be outed as a dishonest troll for white supremacy. Yes, that is embarrassing, but perhaps you might want to consider what makes it embarrassing is that it's true of his behavior on this message board. If I were bringing it up out of context as an ad hominem attack, it would be fair to complain that this is cheap and ill-tempered of me. But it isn't out of context here. The context is Ajax's suspect reasoning is best explained by the fact that he doesn't actually believe it. I happen to have the receipts.

What do you say about the numerous posts on this board that contained in real life, photographic images, as well as quotes from other boards that the poster did not transfer themselves being deleted from this board by admin?

Where does your above fit the principle on which those were deleted?

Ajax18 posting under the name Ajax18 on a white supremacist message board is not remotely the same thing as sharing a person's in real life photographic images without their permission. The closest analogy is quoting what someone who has posted here has said on another online venue under a same or similar moniker. That happens all the time. It makes up a healthy chunk of all terrestrial forum content, in fact. It's hard to imagine how that forum would function if they could no longer discuss what people who have posted here are saying elsewhere.

I don't agree at all with our policies regarding posting information - brought about by heavy lobbying from certain aggressive board nannies - but we're not talking about the same thing. Further, bringing up Ajax's neo-Nazi sympathies is embarrassing for him, but that doesn't mean the point of bringing it up is to embarrass him. The point of bringing it up is to point out what he thinks to help place his comments into their proper context. That what he thinks ought to cause shame is incidental. But hey, while you're putting on shining armor to take up the cause of defending message board Nazis, it should be noted that Ajax has explicitly said he's not embarrassed by it. So maybe take a load off.

[_EAllusion]

that's cool...but still, EAllusion claimed that it was approved for "what they got in the deal" and yet there is no evidence or indication from EAllusion as to what this deal was, as opposed to say Democrats just agreeing with the circumstance - which is reasonable given the fact that Obama had a similar immigration philosophy to Teump.

Democrats agreed to fund boarder security proposals their coalition found as an acceptable compromise, therefore Democrats must agree to fund all border security proposals to remain consistent - brain geniuses.

[_honorentheos]

that's cool...but still, EAllusion claimed that it was approved for "what they got in the deal" and yet there is no evidence or indication from EAllusion as to what this deal was, as opposed to say Democrats just agreeing with the circumstance - which is reasonable given the fact that Obama had a similar immigration philosophy to Teump.

Democrats agreed to fund boarder security proposals their coalition found as an acceptable compromise, therefore Democrats must agree to fund all border security proposals to remain consistent - brain geniuses.

Decades ago to read up on a bill that was passed five years before likely required a trip to a library to reel through microfilm of newspapers from the time. Today a person can read the electronic form of those articles by opening a new window and, well, reading up on it. When someone like subbie can't be bothered to do even that much and post intelligently about their take away it probably isn't worth much time to reply. I mean, the 2013 act in question is trending hard because of the meme so it takes almost no effort to find it or articles from 2013 that explain it.

[_subgenius]

that's cool...but still, EAllusion claimed that it was approved for "what they got in the deal" and yet there is no evidence or indication from EAllusion as to what this deal was, as opposed to say Democrats just agreeing with the circumstance - which is reasonable given the fact that Obama had a similar immigration philosophy to Teump.

Democrats agreed to fund boarder security proposals their coalition found as an acceptable compromise, therefore Democrats must agree to fund all border security proposals to remain consistent - brain geniuses.

Again, back up your claim for 2013...otherwise admit you just made it up without having any knowledge....(which is more believable).
Or keep posting sidesteps so as to fully cement your postion as Supreme Commander of all thing presupposition.

[_subgenius]

... it takes almost no effort to find it or articles from 2013 that explain it.

check your arrogance or at least check the thread..EA made a baseless claim and I asked for at least one fact to support that claim...but like all things requiring knowledge and reasoning, EA has put forth emptiness.

[_honorentheos]

Again, back up your claim for 2013...otherwise admit you just made it up without having any knowledge....(which is more believable).
Or keep posting sidesteps so as to fully cement your postion as Supreme Commander of all thing presupposition.

What are you trying to argue here, subbie? The bill in question was rejected by the Republican House and not enacted into law. Do you genuinely imagine that is because in 2013 Democrats wanted a wall and Republicans were against it but that has flipped because Trump is now arguing the Democrat position? That couldn't be farther from the easily discoverable facts.

[_honorentheos]

... it takes almost no effort to find it or articles from 2013 that explain it.

check your arrogance or at least check the thread..EA made a baseless claim and I asked for at least one fact to support that claim...but like all things requiring knowledge and reasoning, EA has put forth emptiness.

Screw you, buddy. Take the time to get an informed opinion. Saying you don't believe something EA said that you could have easily verified yourself is about as empty as it gets.

[_Kevin Graham]

He's been refuted numerous times over the years on this point and when we bring this to his attention he just blows it aside as leftist bias. Meanwhile he's pushing for a white utopia on Stormfront.

And it isn't personally attacking ajax to simply point out what he has said and done in the past. You act like ajax is ashamed or has repented of all this racist ____, but he hasn't.

Cinepro has pointed out to you on several occasions how much illegal immigrant children cost the taxpayer. When any data that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions is presented, you just shout, "White supremacist data." If you all really believe that unrestrained importation of 3rd world poverty won't reduce the standard of living for US citizens than I can't help you or myself as a taxpayer.

You're dreaming. Cinepro hasn't pointed out anything other than a "study" by an organization that is explicitly anti-immigration and funded by Right Wing donors. Meanwhile the world is flooded with actual academic studies that demonstrate that immigration, illegal or otherwise, either provided a net gain or its a wash. Only in rare instances with a certain demographic does it in any way provide a slight negative.

Here is the CATO Institute refuting a similar "study" by the Heritage Foundation.

https://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-fla ... n-analysis