quash said:Gunny Hartman said:quash said:Gunny Hartman said:quash said:Gunny Hartman said:quash said:Gunny Hartman said:quash said:Gunny Hartman said:quash said:Gunny Hartman said:quash said:Johnny Bear said:Remember Jim Acosta attempting to lecture our POTUS about how terrible he was being for calling this "an invasion"?? Looking like as usual, Trump was dead on accurate.riflebear said:
What territory have we lost in the invasion? Got any casualty reports?
Totally. You should prove the strength of your argument by letting a dozen of them in your house. You'll still own your house so it'll be totally fine.
That deflection has been tried before. Your attempt is no better than "anti-abortion?Adopt a baby." Lame.
You said you can't call it an invasion unless we lose ground, ignoring the fact that hisstorical invasions often are not successful and those invaded don't cede ground.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely an appropriate comparison. When a territory is invaded and ground is gained by the Invaders, do they always let the people living in their homes stay there?
Of course not. So what you mean when you say the analogy is "lame" is that you're not bright enough to understand the direct correlation. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us.
So the invasion failed because there was no land taken. Got it.
So you agree that it's an invasion, just one where land wasn't taken. Got it.
Your words, not mine. See?
Goodness you are dense. Let's try this. Explain the difference between these people entering the country illegally and entering your house illegally.
When did I say that? Feel free to quote me.
"That deflection has been tried before"
Congrats, that's a quote.
It's not me explaining the difference, but by golly it's a quote.
That quote was from your response intending to invalidate my comparison that them illegally entering the country is no different than them illegally entering your home.
It seems your density knows no depths.
That's not what it was for. It addressed the cockeyed notion that every political position requires a maximum response to be valid. Like being anti- abortion and adopting ten unwanted kids. I thought you were aware but it looks like I was wtong.
What a terrible comparison. One position is being against an act many believe is murder, and the other is wanting our immigration laws to be enforced.
You are tragically bad at this arguing thing, likely because of your severely limited IQ. Thus, you are wasting my time.