Seeds for Immigration Policy Debate Could Be Planted in Spending Markup - Page 5

now i know your english isnt fluent. im not attacking, just point out your obvious ignorance to common sense. people feel they are not "doing enough" because they feel like the border is "not secure enough". you have hard time connecting dots in picture books?



"even if border security is needed to be addressed"? LOL. still clueless. oh, schumer still thinks the border needs to be addressed, he just thinks its secure enough to move along with CIR.

nonetheless, it is no longer a necessity according to you. unfortunately, not that many people share the same thoughts.



risk factors? what does that have to do with anything here. lol, do you even know what that means? know the meaning of the words before you try to use em in your head because it comes out all jumbled up. lol

anyways, you compare negative effect of focusing on pure numbers by saying violent crimes shouldnt be addressed because more speeding tickets can be issued? misusage of analogy, which is expected from someone without thorough knowledge of the language, so thats forgiveable. but still, you're having hard time connecting dots. rofl




what a cop out attempt to avoid an argument. your rebuttal consists of responding to two words in the front that has no bearing on the statement that follows it and skips out on the question i ask you. rofl. pathetic. the phrase "i think" in this case means i know it as common sense, not something i am guessing or suggesting.

nonetheless, semantics aside, you still cant reasonably dispute the idea that border security is most significant when it comes to immigration enforcement:
"most people would agree with me that since majority of illegal population is from mexico and the most illegal immigration is occuring through the souther border, we should focus on that. it doesnt solve all the problem, but it sure solves good portion of it." you dont think most people would agree with me about that?

and you still didnt answer the question: if you dont think its effective, what is?

bet you cant answer. rofl.



unfortunately for you, schumer alone does not have control over passage of CIR. unfortunately for you, many people are still not convinced that the border is secure enough.





not at all, but you took it that way obviously because you have little else to play with other than the race issue at this point. rofl.






im sure there are other figures that were thrown out, but thats the most important statistics. increase border security = decrease illegal crossing. thats the main issue, whcih that statistics illustrates. what else would they have looked at? what other statistics can you think of that demonstrate that the border is secure enough as strongly as that statistics show? can you think of one? no? thought so.


make it seem like an original idea? the fact that i was trying to illustrate a statistics in the article by copy pasting a sentence stating that according to schumer illegal immigration is down by 27% is trying to "steal" an original idea? do you even know what you are talking about? you just accuse and words just come out of your mouth without thinking.. lol.

and you still havent answered. i have a baseline statistics backing up my claim that many americans feel the border isnt safe enough. you got any evidence to back up your claim that many americans do feel the border is safe enough? other then that one quote by schumer, which is his opinion and is not representative of american population?

thought so.




wrong. too bad your logic wouldnt be worth a toilet tissue in court of law. you can only make that assumption if i specifically say that border security is the ONLY problem that needs to be dealt with. "put more money in border security along mexico border" does not suggest that. again, this is understandable because of your english. so i'll just let it be.

by your logic, if i say "i love my mother" you would assume that i only love my mother, but definitely not my father since i didnt mention him? rofl. you still dont get it?




"in a sift of the slightest trickle of hope"

oh yeah it makes perfect sense, its just that the only person here who thinks that makes perfect sense is you. just you, my linguistically challenged fella. just you. lol. go to school, take up a grammar lesson. take TOEFL. anything. lol


seemingly every point you attempt to make is littered with repeated one liners like "you are wrong, you lose" as if that somehow covers up your pathetic attempt at an argument that comes before them. running out of air? lol thought so.

So I have no "sense" because you tried to prove a point I never made wrong. Got me there


"no longer a necessity in order to move forward with CIR" read the entire statement. What it means is CIR does not have to wait for border security to be discussed in order to be considered/brought to the floor. It doesn't mean border security is not important, it doesn't mean border security does not need to be discussed. Again you are trying to prove points I never made wrong.



Whats the point of improving security against illegal immigration? to minimize the "risk" of harm to America Citizens. They don't spend billions for fun.

It was a way of demonstrating how your way of thinking (thinking of only "pure numbers") is not always the best solution. You're only defense against the analogy is taking it figuratively. Way to really stick it to me



Okay again using your way of thinking:

If I say "I think" the moon is made of cheese that means I "know it as common sense, not something i am guessing or suggesting"

thats not how "I think" works.


It doesn't matter, thats not what you initially implied or said or what the debate is over
Don't try to change the subject.

I don't need to answer, unlike yourself, I am willing to leave it to the experts, who actually know what they are doing, to decide whats best.

Did I say schumer alone has control over the passage of CIR? No.

Again you are attempting to prove a point I never made wrong.




So you're admitting to not knowing the "whole story" but deciding on what the most "important part" was. You have zero credibility.



Really cute story, but you are not proving anything here.


you have a baseline statistic to prove a point I never made wrong.
Good for you.


Funny how you left out the 2nd part of your statement.
"put more money in border security along mexico border. gotta stop more headaches sneaking in before we address the illegal population."
where you implied it as being the only problem left before moving forward with CIR.




here i'll dumb it down for you:
"in a desperate search for the possibility of making a valid point."
(that it was it meant in the context of my arguement)
so don't go out crying about how it is not figurative meaning.

Pot calling the kettle black, just another one of your attempts to derail the debate.

.....in other words, you, bruinman, are having a difficult time facing reality/defeat.

i dont need to prove to you you are wrong. i already know you think you are right despite all thats been said. im proving to tohers who may be reading this joke of a debate that im stating that you are wrong by giving evidence that you cant defend. rofl.




wrong. border security still needs to be discussed before CIR. when debate on CIR begins, CIR itself will contain more border security/enforcement measures. thats why its called "comprehensive". again, you see one thing and fail to notice the other nine facts. typical.





how does that answer anything related to the fact that your analogy doesnt make sense? LOL. you are jumping all over the place and keep trying to say stuff out of your ass just for the sake of it. read whats been written before. i hard its hard for you to keep up, but your ability to follow a debate is laughable at best.



thats peachy and all, except that your demonstration doesnt make sense.
your analogy by defintion is a figurative analogy that has no confluent relevance to each other. learn the proper english language. LOL





here's a mini english 101 lesson for you:
"i think" can have many different ways for interpretation other than "to presume". it can mean "to believe, to consider, to esteem, or simply to recall knowledge from memory", or in my case, " use or exercise the mind or one''s power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments".

use the webster dictionary. stay in school kid

nice attempt to change the topic and get away from answering something you cant. rofl



you have short term memory. click back and read whats been said about this portion of the debate. we've been discussing border security and all of a sudden its not what the debate is about because you cant give a solid rebuttal? LOL.


rofl, so you cant think for yourself? figures.


the fact that your whole argument was about "CIR can move forward because Schumer said border is secure enough after a hearing" pretty much sums up your pathetic thesis i have thoroughly trashed. LOL






again, not comprehending the english language and another pathetic attempt to avoid questions that were asked by simply denying what was even said. rofl. typical.

you havent answered one question i asked yet with thoughtful insight other then blurting out "oh you are saying blah blah to something i was not wrong about in the first place so im gonna sit here and not say anything." LOL. how old are you again?




again, take english class. thats all i gotta say. rofl




so instead of trying to disprove my rebuttal, your idea of defending your point is simply saying "im right. no buts."? LOL way to make yourself look like an idiot

i understand when people are less than intellectual. nobody's perfect. but when they are stubborn, thats a whole different animal. tsk tsk




"gotta stop more headaches sneaking in before we address the illegal population." that still doesnt imply that border security is the only thing we should focus on. again, learn the proper english language. you are making your own rules, and its really funny.






wrong. too many prepositions, convoluted. try again. dumb it down some more. rofl

huh?? ROFL. this kid is just throwing out words like they make sense. LOL. oh man.

"in a sift of the slightest trickle of hope"

listen, this sentence is grammatically wrong. lets not even discuss what the hell you were trying to say. just looking at pure grammar, its wrong. go rewrite it again. you get an F for english. LOL



correction, you are derailing the debate with terrible usage of the english language. LOL
correction, you are derailing the debate with your refusal to provide any counter argument other than "i was right in the first place, so im not gonna answer that".

congratulations! rofl


god my friend read this whole thread and laughed at me for trying to debate a kid who cant even understand english properly. rofl

oh man, thanks for the laugh with your pathetic attempts at a comeback.

Bruinman you've got nothing, your only defense is trying to change what you meant because I proved what you were trying to say wrong.

This is all you got now:
-"That's not proper English" - That only YOU, seem to have a problem with. But how does it feel to lose to someone who lacks "proper English"? Must suck right? Just for your information the English language is not a measure of intellect, buddy.

-"What do you think would be the best solution for border security?" - Which is irrelevant, it had nothing to do with the original debate, and like I've said I'm willing to leave it to the experts. That doesn't mean I'm not able to "think on my own" that means "I'm willing to let those most informed to make the decision instead of pretending to know whats absolutely best for America, like I don't know..... YOU!"

add all the rofl's or lol's you'd like you still never made a valid point against mine. Keyword being against.
That means, not counting the arguments you made up, which were plenty.


Looks like my job here is done.

+10 KindaWant

+1 Bruinman (I gave you a point for effort)





(This is where you quote me and say "oh what a cop out" "I thought so" in an effort to stop the bleeding.)

another evidence your english is terrible: go over the definition of "to prove"
you got nothing but "im right, you are wrong". LOL

ok so you refuse to answer simple questions, refuses to respond to my response other than "oh i dont know what you are talkin about so im not gonna answer that), acknowledge that your english is terrible and at the same time insist that you make sense, and after all that claim that somehow you won the debate.

LOL.

its ok. im not the only one who thinks you're terrible. everyone who read your english think the same way. sorry to disappoint ya. rofl

take up that english lesson though.

yaddi yaddi yadda, still cant answer a simple question. LOL. its ok, we all know you dont have an answer to that question. you'll just "leave it to the experts".

sorry, i have statistics to back up what i say. you got shit. rofl


did you give yourself a point everytime you said "i made no wrong"?

not to mention the fact that you keep your own "points" in a debate, which im sure was purely unbiased because i know you are a good sport...rofl. pathetic. how old are you again?





no, this is where i quote you and say "thought so" to illustrate your total surrender. nice try though. learn english before you decide to debate me again. and get creamed. LOL

remember, you need to graduate from high school to be eligible for DREAM

You have statistics to prove an irrelevant point.
The problem with your case is I never made an argument against those points.
So you are using statistics to prove a point, I never made, wrong.

It's either
"Everyone who read your English thought the same, sorry to disappoint you."
or
"Anyone who reads your English will think the same, sorry to disappoint you."

They either have or are going to, not both.


Same semantics, prove a point that I made wrong. Then I'll respond.

Bruinman, for a guy who's so unduly concerned with grammar, you should commensurately learn how to use indefinite articles at the very least. Otherwise you sound like Ms. Swan:



By the way, I'm perfectly cognizant of the fact that articles in Asian languages, for instance, aren't as integral as in English. Unlike you, however, I would never make callous remarks about someone's inability to structure sentences properly. So please refrain from viciously correcting other people's syntax until you, yourself rectify your own.

PS: KindaWant actually knows the basic rules of capitalization i.e. at the beginning of a sentence, or when using proper nouns.

Step off Bruinman fools! That man is a prophet there...no grammar skills needed all you need to know is 2011

considering you adamantly claimed that border is secure enough to move along with CIR, i thoroughly squashed that with statistics you chose to ignore. typical

and still refuses to answer questions. LOL

oh we;re gonna argue grammar now? good job, you understood what i was going to say. sorry to disappoint ya, but your incoherent sentence is far from being understandable. learn to engage in a linear debate instead of going off on tangents. lol

theres a difference between winging it and just totally screwing it up. learn the subtleties of the language. late.

list one incidence where i initiated a conversation with you or begin saying anything to you (other than responding to your pathetic posts like this one). zero. why? because to me, you are like that white stuff that forms in the corner of your mouth.

this kid pops up like a mole to every post i submit and puts up pathetic attempts to belittle me. i understand i make you rage, but get off my ass because you're starting to look desperate. late. rofl