alastair wrote: » No it doesn’t. It’s far lower. You’re attempting to pass off a one-time aberration as the new norm. You’re being disingenuous. This isn’t rocket science. You know what you’re doing, and you know what I’m pointing out.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Guys, this guy is really smart ok. He must have taken like a night class or something! :eek:
mad muffin wrote: » Yes it did. Your own article proved it. I like that that’s your take away from my initial post…
alastair wrote: » It did no such thing. Have a look at the actual rates compared in the article. New York’s rate is more than twice that of London’s. Like I said - disingenuous.
mad muffin wrote: » What are you trying to prove with this pedantic argument? The fact is what I stated was true. Even if it was higher for a second it was still a true statement of fact.
batgoat wrote: » It's an anomaly rather than statistically significant... So it's more you pushing a pretty hysterical viewpoint.
alastair wrote: » No it wasn’t. No it wouldn’t. Stop digging.
TeaBagMania wrote: » Yes, comparing laws that infringe upon our constitutional rights is the same as immigration laws :rolleyes: although, if we had a wall manned by military personnel and high caliber weapons we might not need those immigration laws
notobtuse wrote: » Thanks for noticing. And yes, I have taken a night class... many, in fact. They allowed me to achieve a Associates in Arts degree, then a Bachelor in Arts degree and finally a Masters degree... all while working full time and raising a family.
Overheal wrote: » ROFLMAO Arts! That explains all your free time.
Overheal wrote: » What is the alt right fascination with wasting the military defending a fence? Does it just give you a hate boner hoping they’ll gun down women and children?
notobtuse wrote: » I take it you're rather young and don't much understand higher degrees. They were in business administration, accounting, and finance & marketing.
TeaBagMania wrote: » wasting? how is it wasting when there are hundreds of miles of open land people can just walk across? a menacing wall manned with the military is enough of a deterrent to stop people from crossing, well at least those that aren't mentally deranged
Overheal wrote: » No as a Mechanical Engineer I’m more than familiar thanks :rolleyes:
Overheal wrote: » What’s the deterrent? That for every inch of border someone will be there to greet their request for asylum? Explain that one to me. What is the deterrent? We have laws.
Overheal wrote: » No no go on tell us how your arts degree gives you intellectual superiority over others in this thread. I’m dying to know.
TeaBagMania wrote: » wow, cant believe i have to dumb this down so much the deterrent is to illegal crossings if someone wants to claim asylum they can do so thru the legal route at the embassy in their country. if they dont have an embassy they can do so at an approved crossing point
mad muffin wrote: » You know I get it now. Mod of conspiracy theory’s and ranting and raving.
Overheal wrote: » So you have no idea how asylum laws work. Got it. Follow up question did everyone in the alt right all get this idea that asylum can be applied for at an embassy from the same erroneous source or what? Because it’s boggling how often they spout the talking point as if it holds any truth in reality.
mad muffin wrote: » Do you know how asylum laws work? I don’t think you do…
mad muffin wrote: » I’m still not understanding your pedantic rants...
alastair wrote: » Of course you’re not. Again; disingenuous.
mad muffin wrote: » Well, I stand by my post. So you’re free to think that.
alastair wrote: » Yeah. You’ve been proven wrong. But feel free to ignore the inconvenient facts.
