Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
A lifetime subscription to this discussion 
177 2016-10-19 06:51:03 (edited by Dill Carver 2016-10-19 07:02:11)
- Dill Carver
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
Norm d'Plume wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:within the context of you own vocabulary.
Did you mean your or you're? ;-)
Ahah!
Well spotted sir; but had I sneaked it (or even snuck it) in there as a test for the irony-challenged, the skim reader or the pedantic? After all, you will notice from my quote there, that I italicized the word you.
Maybe, I wrote 'you' whilst purposely leaving the 'r' or the 're' open for those who use either/or. Perhaps I should have used the expression 'your*' and leave it to the reader to fill in the blank. 
No, in contravention to the ethos of the thread, I say, 'it's a fair cop guv.'
And nor am I so precious that I feel attacked or slurred and thus offended/wounded/outraged/embarrassed or indignant at the exposure of my faux pa.
- Charles_F_Bell
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:vern wrote:Right! How could I be so blind. Trump is the second coming and his loyal subjects perceive his perfectness and worship at his perfect feet. He can do no wrong. May he lift you up in his righteous arms and bestow all his glory upon you. Take care. Vern
It's not that Trump has always been right; it's that his political opposition of any Party has always been wrong.
A couple neglects to latch the bedroom door before engaging in vertical exercise, and their child walks in and sees everything.
GOP/DEM/LIB/GREEN/VERN : What an abuse of children! Why, we would never!
Trump: It's embarrassing, and one is regretful; mind your own effing business!
"A COUNTRY WITH NO BORDERS ISN'T A COUNTRY."
That alone, spoken by no politician in the U.S. for generations, deserves him the Presidency.
You call that an argument/rebuttal? Geez. The blue stuff doesn't even make sense within any context of this discussion or possibly otherwise. And a country by definition has borders even if The Donald doesn't/can't see them.
This is exactly why Trump's opposition within any Party is always wrong. You're like drug addicts or psychopaths: whatever it is, deny, deny, deny. There are borders only if the administrative government forbids passage of every unauthorized person, so a statement that "The Donald doesn't see them" is some delusional allegation of an irrelevant charge.
vern wrote:
Building a wall around a country which serves no useful purpose is more of a prison than a natural border.
Whether by Rome or by China, walls worked for the purpose of establishing and maintaining borders so long as the concept that no unauthorized person may enter. Walls, and by "walls" it is meant any personal, physical, or electronic prevention, can only work if the concept of unauthorized person remains corresponding to reality, and only Trump as Presidential candidate is smart and sober enough to know that. The concept of open borders, that effectively there is or ought to be no unauthorized person to enter and reside in a sovereign nation, is to destroy that sovereign nation. International socialism either of the coercive kind (communism, anarcho-libertarianism) or the insidious kind (George Soros' Open Society and other sorts of collectivist anarchism), Islamic expansionist jihadism, in establishing caliphates regardless of nationality, or merely utilitarian expansion of a slave class has a vested interest in diminishing or destroying U.S. national sovereignty. And then there are the drug addicts, psychopaths, and the stupid like you who are delusional.
- vern
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:Charles_F_Bell wrote:It's not that Trump has always been right; it's that his political opposition of any Party has always been wrong.
A couple neglects to latch the bedroom door before engaging in vertical exercise, and their child walks in and sees everything.
GOP/DEM/LIB/GREEN/VERN : What an abuse of children! Why, we would never!
Trump: It's embarrassing, and one is regretful; mind your own effing business!
"A COUNTRY WITH NO BORDERS ISN'T A COUNTRY."
That alone, spoken by no politician in the U.S. for generations, deserves him the Presidency.
You call that an argument/rebuttal? Geez. The blue stuff doesn't even make sense within any context of this discussion or possibly otherwise. And a country by definition has borders even if The Donald doesn't/can't see them.
This is exactly why Trump's opposition within any Party is always wrong. You're like drug addicts or psychopaths: whatever it is, deny, deny, deny. There are borders only if the administrative government forbids passage of every unauthorized person, so a statement that "The Donald doesn't see them" is some delusional allegation of an irrelevant charge.
vern wrote:Building a wall around a country which serves no useful purpose is more of a prison than a natural border.
Whether by Rome or by China, walls worked for the purpose of establishing and maintaining borders so long as the concept that no unauthorized person may enter. Walls, and by "walls" it is meant any personal, physical, or electronic prevention, can only work if the concept of unauthorized person remains corresponding to reality, and only Trump as Presidential candidate is smart and sober enough to know that. The concept of open borders, that effectively there is or ought to be no unauthorized person to enter and reside in a sovereign nation, is to destroy that sovereign nation. International socialism either of the coercive kind (communism, anarcho-libertarianism) or the insidious kind (George Soros' Open Society and other sorts of collectivist anarchism), Islamic expansionist jihadism, in establishing caliphates regardless of nationality, or merely utilitarian expansion of a slave class has a vested interest in diminishing or destroying U.S. national sovereignty. And then there are the drug addicts, psychopaths, and the stupid like you who are delusional.
His limited wall will not secure the border. The "walls" of China, etc. were designed to stop armies, not individuals. If you think any wall which Trump could or would build can stop the determined individuals from entering, then you are the "delusional" one. Take care. Vern
180 2016-10-19 13:13:48 (edited by Dill Carver 2016-10-19 13:25:32)
- Dill Carver
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
vern wrote:
His limited wall will not secure the border. The "walls" of China, etc. were designed to stop armies, not individuals. If you think any wall which Trump could or would build can stop the determined individuals from entering, then you are the "delusional" one. Take care. Vern
Hi Vern. If not a wall, how a about a gigantic moat; coast to coast, twenty-two miles wide and three hundred and fifty feet deep with wild treacherous currents and abominable weather? Surely that’d be far more formidable than any wall that your new government could fund and build?
Well that’s what God gave to Britain in order to save it from the filthy French in the form of the English Channel. Okay, so it provided a transport system for the Vikings but it thwarted the Duke of Medina Sidonia, Napoleon, the Pope and Hitler and it flows today protecting us from everyone.
Everyone except for anyone from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden whom the German run EU have awarded the legal right to come and go as they please and without hindrance and help yourself to our social benefits, social housing and medical care systems on the way…
Oh, and any illegal immigrants from Syria Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa, formerly Zaire), Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia… et al who pour in, the Channel seemingly a minor inconvenience.
You are right Vern. Walls don’t work!
Did Trump learn nothing from World War Z ?? All that CGI sacrificed for ‘nuthin’? They snuck in anyhow.
- corra
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
njc wrote:
Thank you. And I appreciate your honorable apology.
I appreciate your honorable response.
I'm not looking to score points. I'm looking to make them, and in this instance to show that damning human beings over human frailties isn't quite the simple thing that the politicians and their pundits make it out to be.
The worst sin is not lust, nor avarice, nor destructive envy. It the kind of pride that says "Who are you to talk to me like that?" and "Laws are for other people." This accusation may be leveled against both candidates in the presidential race. We must choose between two deeply flawed candidates, based on their records, their intentions, and what we think the outcomes of each presidency would be.
We each have different criteria and processes by which we make this judgement. Some of us focus on one issue, others look at a broader tapestry. But if we are to retain a civil society, we must refuse to join the Alinsky-style demonization and retain our respect for each other. Understanding is part of that respect. Understanding requires communication.
I believe we're having two different conversations. I don't believe I expressed any opinion above about who should be voting for whom? I believe everyone should vote for whomever they personally believe will be best for the job. I'm not naive enough to believe my position on who should be president is the only valid position. My family is split on this topic, as are many of my friends. We all have valid reasons for the choice we are making, and I respect each of their decisions as well as my own. Our nation was founded on principles of democracy, and I very much respect its principles. I may dislike the candidate who wins, but I'll be proud to know I had a voice in making that decision. If Trump wins, he ought to be walked with dignity into his position, because he will be leading and representing our nation, and he is the people's choice. I may not like him, but I very much respect the position.
I wasn't debating who should be President above. I was on the topic of rape culture, and was contesting your apparent position that it's all very logical and simple. The unfortunate thing about these forums is that they offer only a lens on our personalities. You see me most of the time when I am appalled. You are, I think, likely very low-key and logical, whereas I am all heart, all passion and spontaneity. Often when I speak within these forums it is because I've been prompted by some emotion, or something has triggered my temper. It's not my finest quality, but there it is. If there were more discussions here about writing, and poetry, and French Impressionism and film and history, you'd probably see my calmer side. Unfortunately, whenever one of those appears within these forums, it quickly frays into the likes of everything you see above. Which is simply the way it is. Different personalities, different perspectives.
Anyway, I'm guessing you were simply having an intellectual discussion about Trump himself above, and the import of the comments within the video, and then branching off into a philosophical discussion about consent. I was responding in disgust and anger at what I perceived to be more of the old "boys will be boys" mentality. I concede I may have misunderstood. When I see things like the lists of allegations against Trump, I don't just read them intellectually. The prodding, sprawling hands are live and in color.
As for reaching understanding within these forums? I love to surround myself with people who believe in debate as it really is: a frank, respectful exchange of opposing positions. I've had my own viewpoint finely sharpened and tested by such discussions. I agree with you that anything else is completely fruitless. I'm not sure I agree that one should just overlook appalling conduct in the name of peace. Peace isn't achieved by wishful thinking, and when it's silent within cacophony because no one is willing to fight, that isn't really peace at all. It's uneasy tension borne out of fear. I think of everything I believe in, built on the experiences in my life, I believe in that most of all: it is better to say something, anything, and shake madly the walls of that uneasy peace, than to die within it.
Sometimes I bring that into the forums, and disrupt. I'm not sure I'm sorry about that, but I am sorry for my conduct with you. I can see that you are interested in reaching understanding rather than forcing your agenda. I may disagree with you entirely on this topic, but I respect your attempt to bring reason into these discussions. I've seen you attempt to do this a few times, and I recognize that it's likely quite the thankless task.
I'm going to withdraw from this conversation now, because I see that I am personally invested and will therefore be directly opposed to the distant, philosophical nature of the discussion.
All the very best.
- Charles_F_Bell
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
vern wrote:
His limited wall will not secure the border.
The border wall from San Diego, CA to Yuma, AZ was such a success, Congress, of course, stop funding the completion through Texas. The issue has seen liars in both Parties who give a nod to sovereignty, like the Senator from Canada, Cruz, but do something else. There is so much invested in Trump to do this, and he can without new law, it would be impossible to do otherwise.
- Dill Carver
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
There is much to apologise for within this thread, but don't worry; I feel inclined to accept them all. Thanks!
- Norm d'Plume
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
Why not just put armed snipers all along the border? It worked relatively well for the East Germans... Jobs lost to illegal immigrants? 0. Cost of capturing, arresting, housing, feeding, trying and deporting illegal immigrants? $0. Number of illegals who die trying to walk across the open desert? 0. It's pretty much win-win.
186 2016-10-20 11:58:43 (edited by Dill Carver 2016-10-20 13:43:15)
- Dill Carver
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
Norm d'Plume wrote:
Why not just put armed snipers all along the border? It worked relatively well for the East Germans... Jobs lost to illegal immigrants? 0. Cost of capturing, arresting, housing, feeding, trying and deporting illegal immigrants? $0. Number of illegals who die trying to walk across the open desert? 0. It's pretty much win-win.
Armed Snipers?
Is there any other kind?
Whilst unarmed Snipers might be easier to train and cheaper to equip, you might also find them to be a tad less effective within their primary role.
Har! The East Germans were desperately trying to stop their own people leaving. An exodus to the West. I think that rather than a perimeter of snipers, they had an extensive physical barrier; a wall (and fence in places) that was manned by the military and the police. Sentries (armed ones), attack-dogs, minefields and barbed-wire.
I'm not saying that a wall of containment around the USA is a bad idea BTW. It's just that mass emigration is not perceived to be the issue. No interception by arresting or detaining for border infringement or transgression? No capture at all, simply gun everyone down from a distance and hopefully with a headshot? You say that this would reduce 'the number of "illegals" who die trying to walk across the open desert to zero (is this were the unarmed snipers make their killin'?). How many snipers to cover the whole border 24/7? It worked relatively well for the East Germans? Yeah, so well that their state, their country; the GDR, ceased to exist. LMAO
- Norm d'Plume
- Offline
Re: Snuck vs Sneaked
Dill Carver wrote:
Norm d'Plume wrote:Why not just put armed snipers all along the border? It worked relatively well for the East Germans... Jobs lost to illegal immigrants? 0. Cost of capturing, arresting, housing, feeding, trying and deporting illegal immigrants? $0. Number of illegals who die trying to walk across the open desert? 0. It's pretty much win-win.
Armed Snipers?
Is there any other kind?
Whilst unarmed Snipers might be easier to train and cheaper to equip, you might also find them to be a tad less effective within their primary role.
Har! The East Germans were desperately trying to stop their own people leaving. An exodus to the West. I think that rather than a perimeter of snipers, they had an extensive physical barrier; a wall (and fence in places) that was manned by the military and the police. Sentries (armed ones), attack-dogs, minefields and barbed-wire.
I'm not saying that a wall of containment around the USA is a bad idea BTW. It's just that mass emigration is not perceived to be the issue. No interception by arresting or detaining for border infringement or transgression? No capture at all, simply gun everyone down from a distance and hopefully with a headshot? You say that this would reduce 'the number of "illegals" who die trying to walk across the open desert to zero (is this were the unarmed snipers make their killin'?). How many snipers to cover the whole border 24/7? It worked relatively well for the East Germans? Yeah, so well that their state, their country; the GDR, ceased to exist. LMAO
I'm glad you're laughing. For a minute I thought you took my post seriously. If it moves, shoot it! I should make that my signature.
