Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, "my friend". It is you who takes it way too seriously You backed down when you were called out for your snark, then made a very weak attempt to turn it back on to me.
It shouldn't have troubled you when I pointed out that if you meant your remark to be "lighthearted", then you should have added "/sarcasm" at the end. Doing so goes a long way to preventing misunderstandings.
Clearly, it bothers you. Relax, "my friend" take a lesson from all of this and then get over it
I'm unclear with why you are so hung up what happened in 2006. That was 12 years ago, it's largely irrelevant. Times have changed - focus on what is happening today.
Schumer has repeatedly offered solutions for border security funding including a proposal of 1.6 billion just this December. You are implying that Schumer does not support border security at all. He does.
He just does not support Trumps 5 billion; hardly anyone does.
I'm sure some sort of compromise can be reached - but they need to do it without shutting down the government.
...
I admire your willingness to post accurate information to refute the nonsense posted over and over and over.
But I must admit, I'm surprised more haven't used the ignore feature.
No, "my friend". It is you who takes it way too seriously You backed down when you were called out for your snark, then made a very weak attempt to turn it back on to me.
It shouldn't have troubled you when I pointed out that if you meant your remark to be "lighthearted", then you should have added "/sarcasm" at the end. Doing so goes a long way to preventing misunderstandings.
Clearly, it bothers you. Relax, "my friend" take a lesson from all of this and then get over it
I'm not the one writing three paragraph posts about how apparently bothered I am. I haven't backed down in any shape or form BTW. Anyway, carry on.
I admire your willingness to post accurate information to refute the nonsense posted over and over and over.
But I must admit, I'm surprised more haven't used the ignore feature.
I don't use the ignore feature.
I guess if I wanted to ignore people I just wouldn't bother visiting the forum.
I find it kinda mildly entertaining how wound up people get over nothing, I have to admit.
I don't use the ignore feature.
I guess if I wanted to ignore people I just wouldn't bother visiting the forum.
I find it kinda mildly entertaining how wound up people get over nothing, I have to admit.
I do all the time and I'll tell you why. I get sick of people who repeat themselves over and over even though you have addressed their comments over and over. I get sick of people who act like juveniles in here by making personal attacks instead of debating like adults. I get sick of those who have the facts thrown right in their faces but they still remain in denial. Now I don't have to read their posts anymore and it avoids a lot of frustration and anger. I don't mind a difference of opinion but do it with civility and don't deny facts. It's just plain stupid and annoying. A lot of their BS is not over nothing either but important issues we are faced with today as a nation.
How have times changed? Are you saying we no longer need a border wall/barrier because we no longer have a border jumping problem? If so, you can't be serious! There are 18,000 border jumpers getting into our country every month.
The 2006 wall bill is relevant to today because Schumer signed it back then but balks at fixing it today. Congress made a mistake back then changing the double barriers to mere fencing and that needs correcting. If Schumer was ok with the double barriers back then including the taxpayer funding it then why is he objecting to it today?
The only proposal that he and Pelosi has made is for border security that doesn't include the well needed walls/barriers. What kind of a proposal is that? The $5 billion IS for that! Who's hardly anyone that doesn't want the wall? The Democrats that have an agenda along with their base, some sell out Republicans, those who hire illegal aliens, those who have ethnic ties to them or haven't bothered to educate themselves on the effectiveness of the good walls? Who cares that they don't want? The only opinion that should count is that of the Border Patrol and Homeland Security.
Why don't Pelosi and Schumer ask them what they want and need? If they don't want the government shut down then they should negotiate with Trump which includes wall funding. Trump has offered them all kinds of goodies including DACA and allowing these Central American youth to apply for asylum. The only thing under our laws that would qualify them is if they were being persecuted in their homelands. Most will be bogus claims and I adamantly disagree with Trump on those two things being offered but at least he is giving the Democrats something THEY want with nothing that Trump wants.
If Republicans wanted to fund the wall they'd have pushed for it during Trumps first two years, but they didnt - and now you're trying to blame the Democrats. So I go back to my original question: if the Republicans wouldn't back it, what makes you think Trump is going to persuade Democrats to back it?
In recent years there have been more illegal Mexicans leaving the country than entering it. Immigration from Mexico peaked in 2007 and has been dropping ever since. It's a manufactured crisis.
Again, nobody is disputing that America needs border security. Of course it does. But the solution needs to be rational, effective and use up to date technology. Everyone would agree with that. Nobody is going to agree to 5 billion to fund Trumps vanity project.
So about 5 million workers, nearly 4.2 million of which WOULD NOT get backpay don't effect the economy that much? These people couldn't buy food, pay for gas, goto the movies, but a Super Bowl tv and surround sound and you mean to tell me you don't believe it. You may not like a news source and debate the numbers but 10 billion sounds right to me considering the shutdown went two checks and include all the logistical nightmares on Friday.
Please provide a link to any story that highlights a federal employee who does not get back pay.
Nobody is going to agree to 5 billion to fund Trumps vanity project.
But we can give $100 BILLION to BO's vanity project..."The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO’s predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion."(This Is How Much Obamacare Will Cost Taxpayers in 2016 | Money)
I do all the time and I'll tell you why. I get sick of people who repeat themselves over and over even though you have addressed their comments over and over.
Umm, yes well there is that. It does get tiresome, but you can employ your own ignore feature by just, well, ignoring them.
I find the ignore feature more annoying than the actual people, since you can't see their initial posts but you can see when people have quoted them. I find that more irritating frankly.
Quote:
I get sick of people who act like juveniles in here by making personal attacks instead of debating like adults. I get sick of those who have the facts thrown right in their faces but they still remain in denial. Now I don't have to read their posts anymore and it avoids a lot of frustration and anger. I don't mind a difference of opinion but do it with civility and don't deny facts. It's just plain stupid and annoying. A lot of their BS is not over nothing either but important issues we are faced with today as a nation.
Hmm yes. Well no offense but you are not averse to throwing out a few personal attacks of your own.
But we can give $100 BILLION to BO's vanity project..."The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO’s predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion."(This Is How Much Obamacare Will Cost Taxpayers in 2016 | Money)
Maybe you could have a word with Trump who will be replacing Obamacare with, ahem... "something terrific" that will be "really cheap".
Wasn't that the plan?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You backed down when you were called out for your snark, then made a very weak attempt to turn it back on to me.
