Chuck and Nancy forcing nat'l parks to go to seed

[BWK]

Oh, and kudos go out to Deanrd; Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org I'll tell him you said hello.

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check? LOL

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

 

[Papageorgio]

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check? LOL

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

Lots of wing nuts claim that when the article doesn't fit with their bias.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check? LOL

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

/——:And yet more reliable than Politico.

 

[BWK]

Boss, get a hold of yourself? American Citizen? lol! This from your link;
Given that illegals tend to earn less money and live in poverty, they are also prone to use welfare. In Texas, for instance, 58 percent of illegal households collect some form of welfare, CIS reported, with 49 percent using food assistance and 41 percent using Medicaid. In California and Illinois, 55 percent use welfare. The list of states goes down from there. Your article is six years old.

I already told you not to be a coward and try to dismiss the post by demonizing the source, which is Center for Immigration Studies, by the way. But I guess you can't read. Or have no other choice.

Do you think our problem with illegal immigrant parasites has really changed significantly in six years? If so please explain why anyone should buy that baloney.

The question is do tens of millions of undocumented immigrants take more out of our system than they can possibly put back in and the answer has always been yes! Of course they have. How could millions of uneducated low skilled, low wage workers possibly not suck of the teat of Uncle Scam and get by in America?

You strain credulity with your nonsensical bullshit!

Wrong! There are no statistics available to give an accurate assessment. Factcheck tells us that. These Right-wing sites paint a different picture. And none of them factor in the net gain from taxes we pull in from illegals, or profit margins for employers who hire the illegals. And so, while you ask the question about the tens of millions, then use fake information from Right-wing propaganda, you conveniently conclude they collectively are sucking on the teat. That proves to us all just how full of shit you are.

You ask a question for which you have no answer, yet answer it, with nothing to back it up with. If that isn't screwed up, I don't know what is. You're just full of shit, and Factcheck.org reminded you that you were.

 

[BWK]

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check? LOL

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

/——:And yet more reliable than Politico.

Not hardly!

 

[BWK]

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check? LOL

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

Lots of wing nuts claim that when the article doesn't fit with their bias.

There is no fit closer than the accurate numbers Factcheck.org presents to us. And by the way, the Washington Times has not countered Factcheck.

 

[BWK]

Oh, and kudos go out to Deanrd; Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org I'll tell him you said hello.

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check?

Oh, and kudos go out to Deanrd; Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org I'll tell him you said hello.

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Do you have any idea how much of a fool you are making of yourself by linking Right wing opinion pieces? Not one sentence from that site documents anything from Factcheck.org that is categorically false with backup documentation, proving such a thing. The whole article is an opinion, based on nothing tangible for us to dissect. Lol! Why do you continue to make shit up,via Right-wing propaganda sites?

Conservatives don't fall for that shit. Really, Fact Check needs to prove their own assertions about our President.

Conservatives aren't going to get caught up in "proving" statements false. The idea is to move forward not get caught up in Fact Check's bullshit.

You're a liar. You can't prove Factcheck.org is a Liberal site.

 

[BWK]

Link to the factual instances where the federal government has been abusing the Constitution?

We have the people? What people? Who are these people? I don't know them, do you? I don't know you. Do you think I'm going to trust you who I do not know to look after my well being? Lol! Not even on a bet.

An state and local governments? What about them? Without federal oversight of state and local governments, they are useless.

So you are going to trust the government?

A hell of a lot more than state and local governments. Have you ever lived in a small town? Man please. Those son of a bucks will rob you blind.

Can you answer the question? Do you trust the government?

You never answered my question. Why should I answer yours?

I asked you my question first, but I really don't care what your answer is, I already have it.

Negative! You don't understand numbers. My question came before yours. Go back and read.

 

[BWK]

Questioned by who? You? Right-wing talk shows/radio? Who? And what are the who's credentials?
Established in 1996, Free Republic is one of the earliest and largest online gathering places for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

Questioned by people who don't accept at face value what leftists tell them. That's who. The Annenberg Foundation funds Fact Check and Fact Check's credibility is decidedly damaged by whoppers like this: No Evidence Soros Is Funding Immigrant 'Caravan' - FactCheck.org

The many links between George Soros and the immigrant caravan have been established over and over again. Fact Check tries to pretend otherwise.

By the way, you just posted a conservative web site. What is it with you people and your incessant posting of conservative websites? They're everywhere, and they pedal in lying.

Yes. A conservative web site. So what? Should I go to Vox or Newsweek or Huffington Post to dig up facts the left would rather not acknowledge? The monolithic main stream media has made checking the lies of the left an impossible task
so right wing media fills that space.

Every time the Right jumps out of the weeds into another conversation, you always can tell that they are done. Where is your evidence Soros is funding the caravan? You question their credibility with the claim, yet offer nothing as a rebuttal to the facts. So where is it?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Let’s just let all those assholes attack the boarder guards with rocks and whatever else they can pick up. They are obviously not concerned with children who are in the way. It’s all on video. And our officers are told to stand down while being assaulted. And we need these people in our country, or to send money out of our country? Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Fact Check?

/---/ My source was not an email chain. Moron.

It doesn't have to be doofus. Fact check already debunked what you were posting anyway. And who is going to believe you anyway, after you tried to lie your way through another bogus link from the beginning? Washington Times? Lol! You have no skin in this game any longer. Take a hike.

/----/ Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Do you have any idea how much of a fool you are making of yourself by linking Right wing opinion pieces? Not one sentence from that site documents anything from Factcheck.org that is categorically false with backup documentation, proving such a thing. The whole article is an opinion, based on nothing tangible for us to dissect. Lol! Why do you continue to make shit up,via Right-wing propaganda sites?

Conservatives don't fall for that shit. Really, Fact Check needs to prove their own assertions about our President.

Conservatives aren't going to get caught up in "proving" statements false. The idea is to move forward not get caught up in Fact Check's bullshit.

You're a liar. You can't prove Factcheck.org is a Liberal site.

/——/ You can’t prove it’s not.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Fact Check? LOL

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

Lots of wing nuts claim that when the article doesn't fit with their bias.

There is no fit closer than the accurate numbers Factcheck.org presents to us. And by the way, the Washington Times has not countered Factcheck.

/——/ Washington Times correctly labeled Politico as liberal.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you are going to trust the government?

A hell of a lot more than state and local governments. Have you ever lived in a small town? Man please. Those son of a bucks will rob you blind.

Can you answer the question? Do you trust the government?

You never answered my question. Why should I answer yours?

I asked you my question first, but I really don't care what your answer is, I already have it.

Negative! You don't understand numbers. My question came before yours. Go back and read.

You asked TN Harley a bunch of questions and inferred you trust the government, which then prompted my question to you, then you side stepped my question with another question. Besides, I know your answer anyway. Thank you for the answer.

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

Lots of wing nuts claim that when the article doesn't fit with their bias.

There is no fit closer than the accurate numbers Factcheck.org presents to us. And by the way, the Washington Times has not countered Factcheck.

/——/ Washington Times correctly labeled Politico as liberal.

It doesn’t matter to the left wing nuts, they believe bias in their favor is gospel truth.

 

[JimBowie1958]

/——/ Washington Times correctly labeled Politico as liberal.

It doesn’t matter to the left wing nuts, they believe bias in their favor is gospel truth.

 

[BWK]

Like I said, try as you might, you have nothing better to counter, so enjoy laughing, because you're only doing the "lol" on yourself.

/----/ Once again for you slow on the uptake libtards. It was my response to candycorn post #80 who responded to my link on the cost of illegals in the Washington Times. "Washington times? LOL" Got it? do I need to spell it put in crayons for you to grasp?
View attachment 238125

I don't care. "Washington Times Whatever" is full of shit. That's the whole point.

Lots of wing nuts claim that when the article doesn't fit with their bias.

There is no fit closer than the accurate numbers Factcheck.org presents to us. And by the way, the Washington Times has not countered Factcheck.

/——/ Washington Times correctly labeled Politico as liberal.

The Washington Times has nothing more than their own spaghetti up against the wall to go on with their conclusion. There is nothing tangible for us to latch onto that they have provided. And neither do you. And by the way, who has been talking about "Politico"? .Inside the Meters: Who pays for PolitiFact? | PolitiFact I'm getting my information from "Politifact". I never once mentioned "Politico".

 

[BWK]

/——/ Washington Times correctly labeled Politico as liberal.

It doesn’t matter to the left wing nuts, they believe bias in their favor is gospel truth.

More retarded debate by you, and saying nothing. So pitiful.

 

[BWK]

A hell of a lot more than state and local governments. Have you ever lived in a small town? Man please. Those son of a bucks will rob you blind.

Can you answer the question? Do you trust the government?

You never answered my question. Why should I answer yours?

I asked you my question first, but I really don't care what your answer is, I already have it.

Negative! You don't understand numbers. My question came before yours. Go back and read.

You asked TN Harley a bunch of questions and inferred you trust the government, which then prompted my question to you, then you side stepped my question with another question. Besides, I know your answer anyway. Thank you for the answer.

Nice dodge! You didn't refer back to the question I asked you to answer first, so you conveniently ignored it.

 

[BWK]

They are defending against military invasion not against people coming to mow your lawn

That's the idiot's answer. They are defending against a refugee tide, the same as we are doing at our Southern border.
the obstruction of the left notwithstanding.

Refugee tide's are not illegal border crossings. You know that right?

Wrong, they are the same thing. When Illegals get caught, they say they are "refugees" so they can delay deportation for 2 years while waiting for a hearing. The two phenomena are connected.

Okay Homeland Security expert, how?

 

[BWK]

Let’s just let all those assholes attack the boarder guards with rocks and whatever else they can pick up. They are obviously not concerned with children who are in the way. It’s all on video. And our officers are told to stand down while being assaulted. And we need these people in our country, or to send money out of our country? Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just the thing. We never did stand down. We attacked instead, and are still doing that today; CIA in South America | Geopolitical Monitor