Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, JimmyBT said:

Read it.  It’s in there. 

I did. It isn't there. 

So either you missed it or I did or its not there. Care to remedy that? 

 

Just now, JimmyBT said:

If they’re here illegally. Nope. 

So not knowing if this article covers people meeting that criteria, you just included it because you don't like them or Massachusetts? What was your point that this article was suppose to make? 

In other words you're fine with these programs across the board.

Posted
Just now, ThreePointTakedown said:

I did. It isn't there. 

So either you missed it or I did or its not there. Care to remedy that? 

 

So not knowing if this article covers people meeting that criteria, you just included it because you don't like them or Massachusetts? What was your point that this article was suppose to make? 

In other words you're fine with these programs across the board.

You asked where it was happening. I showed you an example. Pretty simple. 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I did. It isn't there. 

So either you missed it or I did or its not there. Care to remedy that? 

 

So not knowing if this article covers people meeting that criteria, you just included it because you don't like them or Massachusetts? What was your point that this article was suppose to make? 

In other words you're fine with these programs across the board.

Yep you missed it.   Not my problem. 

Edited by JimmyBT
  • Bob 1
Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyBT said:

You asked where it was happening. I showed you an example. Pretty simple. 

Sure. 

So what is the take away? That this is happening. We knew that already. 

Are these migrants here illegally? Probably not. So what's your issue with it? 

Posted
1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/02/14/krikorian-taxpayers-funding-illegal-immigration/
 

here’s an article about how some of the money the US is giving to the UN is being spent on helping getting illegals to our border.  

I love the parenthesis in this article. That they are assuming things to be true that they cannot verify calls into question the entire thing, don't you think? 

So the U.N., that gets money from how many countries, uses some of it so that people in desperate need of help, get help.  This bothers you why?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Yep you missed it.   Not my problem. 

Can anyone else find this mystery info? 

Coke bottles over here can't seem to find it. Would hate to have to call this beacon of truth a liar. So help me out?

 

Edited by ThreePointTakedown
Posted
6 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Are these people here illegally? 

I'll bet you will provide evidence to back up your answer.

After you provide the proof they’re here legally. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Can anyone else find this mystery info? 

Coke bottles over here can't seem to find it. Would hate to have to call this beacon of truth a liar. So help me out?

 

Jr. Cant read. Huh? 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I love the parenthesis in this article. That they are assuming things to be true that they cannot verify calls into question the entire thing, don't you think? 

So the U.N., that gets money from how many countries, uses some of it so that people in desperate need of help, get help.  This bothers you why?

The article proves exactly what I said it does.  Taxpayers are footing the bill for immigrants  to get to our border and cross illegally. It specifically mentions American tax dollars there Jr. Parentheses and all. 

Edited by JimmyBT
Posted
23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Sure. 

So what is the take away? That this is happening. We knew that already. 

Are these migrants here illegally? Probably not. So what's your issue with it? 

You obviously didn’t know. Which is why you asked me to show that it was.  🤦‍♂️ 

Posted
27 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Sure. 

So what is the take away? That this is happening. We knew that already. 

Are these migrants here illegally? Probably not. So what's your issue with it? 

Probably not. Bahahahahahahhaah

Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

After you provide the proof they’re here legally. 

Didn't think you would. Just wanted to point out how ridiculous you are and how desperate you are to dislike someone for no reason other than your own bias. 

Congrats! 

Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

The article proves exactly what I said it does.  Taxpayers are footing the bill for immigrants  to get to our border and cross illegally. It specifically mentions American tax dollars there Jr. Parentheses and all. 

I'm sorry you feel this has proven something. Must have taken you a long time to research. So much red yarn wasted. I hate that you used your time in creating this mess that only you can understand. That you want to believe it doesn't make it true. Sorry again. When  you get actual evidence of something you can try again. 

Ps. Pepe Silvia does work here! 

Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

You obviously didn’t know. Which is why you asked me to show that it was.  🤦‍♂️ 

Then we moved on. To show that at no point is the program bad or wrong. But that you don't like it because it helps people you don't like. There is a word for that. 

Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Probably not. Bahahahahahahhaah

Yes and since, based on your logic, you can't determine they are illegal, so it proves that you must treat them as legal. You don't like doing THAT tho. Oh no. We can't have that. 

Again, you don't like them for some reason. I'll venture a guess, you know what that reason is and don't want to admit it because no one likes those people but for a very obvious reason. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Le duke said:


You should probably not post here, ever.

See: space lasers thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i spoke on that with specificity and clearly made my point based on substance. 

 

  • Bob 1

TBD

Posted
14 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I bolded the parts that were false in my reply.

so your contention is a semantic one: the definition of illegal?

am i reading that right or is there more to your contention that it didn't happen?

TBD

Posted
9 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

so your contention is a semantic one: the definition of illegal?

am i reading that right or is there more to your contention that it didn't happen?

These were not illegal and they were not tracked using cell phone data. Both of those statements are intentional to make it all sound so clandestine and extra-legal. They were legal immigrants who paid their own way and the information was contained in a regular INS report.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Didn't think you would. Just wanted to point out how ridiculous you are and how desperate you are to dislike someone for no reason other than your own bias. 

Congrats! 

Thanks. !!!
 

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yes and since, based on your logic, you can't determine they are illegal, so it proves that you must treat them as legal. You don't like doing THAT tho. Oh no. We can't have that. 

Again, you don't like them for some reason. I'll venture a guess, you know what that reason is and don't want to admit it because no one likes those people but for a very obvious reason. 

You’re pretty sure what you think matters.  It doesn’t.  You’re wrong more than anyone on here sooooooo 

Edited by JimmyBT
  • Bob 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...