*****It's All About That WALL, 'bout That WALL, 'bout That WALL...***** MERGED (illegal, fence)

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by subaru5555

No, it was clearly implied in your post. And the “?” doesn’t change the position you’re arguing from.

Your faulty assumption does not an implication make.

[janelle144]

This is not true, they are still raising money.

[subaru5555]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

Your faulty assumption does not an implication make.

It’s not a “faulty assumption”, and your raw data doesn’t prove anything other than declining numbers .

[subaru5555]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Have you been provided "other" numbers since then and now relating your failures in this thread to not worrying about those numbers, because you know you have failed?

Can you rephrase that more intelligibly, please? Thanks.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by subaru5555

Can you rephrase that more intelligibly, please? Thanks.

Sure, I can go kindergarten for you.


You were provided numbers in the OP, then argued other numbers provided throughout this thread, then when proven wrong, you state you were only talking about the OPs numbers...




Sorry if you cannot understand this, if needed I can go Pre-K for you and provide pictures with numbers....and such....but I would hope not, yet here we are.....so lets see, shall we?

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by subaru5555

It’s not a “faulty assumption”, and your raw data doesn’t prove anything other than declining numbers .

And that poster will dismiss it even when they said it. Been there, done that, not worth resonating with.

[subaru5555]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Sure, I can go kindergarten for you.


You were provided numbers in the OP, then argued other numbers provided throughout this thread, then when proven wrong, you state you were only talking about the OPs numbers...




Sorry if you cannot understand this, if needed I can go Pre-K for you and provide pictures with numbers....and such....but I would hope not, yet here we are.....so lets see, shall we?

Lol how wrong you are, Chuck.

Do keep up.

I haven’t “argued other numbers provided throughout this thread”, whatever the hell that means. If I have, feel free to quote my doing so.

Thanks for playing, Chuck.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by subaru5555

Lol how wrong you are, Chuck.

Do keep up.

I haven’t “argued other numbers provided throughout this thread”. If I have, feel free to quote my doing so.

Thanks for playing, Chuck.

Next time give me a challenge .....really...

Originally Posted by oceangaia
Annual apprehensions began slowing substantially a few years earlier. So did fewer come here because they knew a recession was coming (that few Americans did) or because the fence was being expanded?

2004 1,189,000
2005 1,089,000
2006 876,000
2007 723,000

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/fi...000-FY2017.pdf

Originally Posted by subaru5555

Correlation isn’t causation.

Try again.

[subaru5555]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Next time give me a challenge .....really...

Where have I “argued other numbers”? You either quoted the wrong post, or aren’t paying attention, because there aren’t “other numbers” in that post.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by subaru5555

Where have I “argued other numbers”? You either quoted the wrong post, or aren’t paying attention, because there aren’t “other numbers” in that post.

There are no other number in the following post, as compared to the OP which you sated?

Originally Posted by oceangaia
Annual apprehensions began slowing substantially a few years earlier. So did fewer come here because they knew a recession was coming (that few Americans did) or because the fence was being expanded?

2004 1,189,000
2005 1,089,000
2006 876,000
2007 723,000

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/fi...000-FY2017.pdf

Maybe you don't understand what 1,189,000, 1,089,000, 876,000, and 723,000 are?



If not, what did you think they were talking about?