The "Walls Don't Work" Argument is the Stupidest One Yet.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

Can't answer the question. Knew it. This is the extent of your arguing. Totally pathetic.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

Can't answer the question. Knew it. This is the extent of your arguing. Totally pathetic.

I see little point in debating or discussing with someone who so blatantly lies.

Still against my better judgement here is one last attempt.

A number of reasons have been given by the Whitehouse as a reason for building the wall. Some valid and some of which are factually questionable.

However giving a reason for doing something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In this and another thread I have asked for evidence that the wall is the best way to spend billions on reducing illegal immigration. As of yet I have not had any evidence provided.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

Can't answer the question. Knew it. This is the extent of your arguing. Totally pathetic.

I see little point in debating or discussing with someone who so blatantly lies.

Still against my better judgement here is one last attempt.

A number of reasons have been given by the the Whitehouse as a reason for building the wall. Some valid and some of which are factually questionable.

However giving a reason for doing something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In this and another thread I have asked for evidence that the wall is the best way to spend billions on reducing illegal immigration. As of yet I have not had any evidence provided.

How could someone provide evidence of the efficacy of something that is not yet built?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

Can't answer the question. Knew it. This is the extent of your arguing. Totally pathetic.

I see little point in debating or discussing with someone who so blatantly lies.

Still against my better judgement here is one last attempt.

A number of reasons have been given by the the Whitehouse as a reason for building the wall. Some valid and some of which are factually questionable.

However giving a reason for doing something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In this and another thread I have asked for evidence that the wall is the best way to spend billions on reducing illegal immigration. As of yet I have not had any evidence provided.

How could someone provide evidence of the efficacy of something that is not yet built?

In the UK every major infrastructure project has to go through extensive cost benefit analysis. I don't imagine the US is much different.

We have already had this discussion, this seems like more dishonesty from you.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Uhh, the UK is an island.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ScepticScot

Uhh, the UK is an island.

Funnily enough I am aware of that.

Was there a reason for mentioning it?

ETA _ Just for the pendants out there it is technically a collection of islands.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

Can't answer the question. Knew it. This is the extent of your arguing. Totally pathetic.

I see little point in debating or discussing with someone who so blatantly lies.

Still against my better judgement here is one last attempt.

A number of reasons have been given by the the Whitehouse as a reason for building the wall. Some valid and some of which are factually questionable.

However giving a reason for doing something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In this and another thread I have asked for evidence that the wall is the best way to spend billions on reducing illegal immigration. As of yet I have not had any evidence provided.

How could someone provide evidence of the efficacy of something that is not yet built?

In the UK every major infrastructure project has to go through extensive cost benefit analysis. I don't imagine the US is much different.

We have already had this discussion, this seems like more dishonesty from you.

Here's a report from the OIG worth reading.

www.oig.dhs.gov...

Here's a couple testimonies from the Center for Immigration studies:

cis.org...
cis.org...

a reply to: ScepticScot

The figures are inaccurate?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Stopping terrorists from breaking into the country over the southern border is one of many reasons for proposed border wall and security. More common sense.

So now it is about stopping terrorists?

From coming over the southern border. Why won't you say that?

You can't, because you and your ilk need strawmen to help alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

Because you gave an insulting reply to Blackjakal where you said the point was not to stop terrorists.

Once pointed out that the Whitehouse had used this as a justification you do a complete 180.

And again you result to insults.

You guys are deserving of insults. You might just have to deal with that.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

People who disagree with you are deserving of insults? Have you read the T&Cs?

Did I say people who disagree with me are deserving of insults? Nope. People who purposely erect strawmen are deserving of insults. And you avoided my question and the topic, as usual.

What strawman have I erected? If I have then point them out, insults just show you to be out of arguments.

As to the topic we still haven't established if you think stopping terrorism is a reason to build the wall or not?

I insulted no one. That's just you circling the wagons.

I point out your strawmen every time. Then you vanish until the next time.

I'll ask this question again, just in case you aren't trying to avoid it, but missed it.

The wall isn't about stopping terrorists, but stemming the tide of illegal immigration coming over the southern border.

Is my statement true or false?

Now you are just lying, totally pathetic.

Can't answer the question. Knew it. This is the extent of your arguing. Totally pathetic.

I see little point in debating or discussing with someone who so blatantly lies.

Still against my better judgement here is one last attempt.

A number of reasons have been given by the the Whitehouse as a reason for building the wall. Some valid and some of which are factually questionable.

However giving a reason for doing something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In this and another thread I have asked for evidence that the wall is the best way to spend billions on reducing illegal immigration. As of yet I have not had any evidence provided.

How could someone provide evidence of the efficacy of something that is not yet built?

In the UK every major infrastructure project has to go through extensive cost benefit analysis. I don't imagine the US is much different.

We have already had this discussion, this seems like more dishonesty from you.

Here's a report from the OIG worth reading.

www.oig.dhs.gov...

Here's a couple testimonies from the Center for Immigration studies:

cis.org...
cis.org...

Links 2&3 are from an incredibly biased source. I have seen them both before and neither even attempts to show that wall is an effective solution. They state that 'if' the wall was effective it would save money with no insight into how many it would deter or how that would compare to alternative methods.

Link 1 on the other hand looks more interesting and is the first time I have seen it posted. Let me read it and get back to you.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: ScepticScot

The figures are inaccurate?

What figures?

a reply to: ScepticScot

From the "biased source", which part of their methodology is wrong?

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

From the "biased source", which part of their methodology is wrong?

Unless I have missed it they don't actually cover the effectiveness or otherwise of the proposed wall. They discuss costs of illegal immigration. I am not disputing that such costs exist (we can discuss the accuracy of their specific claims but it's not really what I was asking).

a reply to: Propagandalf

The wall seems stupid. Cant peeps just get into boats and go around the wall. Maybe you should wall the coastline too.!

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: ScepticScot

From the "biased source", which part of their methodology is wrong?

Unless I have missed it they don't actually cover the effectiveness or otherwise of the proposed wall. They discuss costs of illegal immigration. I am not disputing that such costs exist (we can discuss the accuracy of their specific claims but it's not really what I was asking).

That's fair. They don't cover effectiveness, only how many illegals would need to be stopped by wall for it to pay for itself.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Propagandalf

The wall seems stupid. Cant peeps just get into boats and go around the wall. Maybe you should wall the coastline too.!

But if there was no wall they could just walk over the border.